1961-09-23

NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the failure of the Minister of National Defence to disclose to the house during consideration of his estimates a hidden report of the Department of Finance asserting that many thousands of men were already being wasted in the navy, army and air force.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been asked by the hon. member for Laurier for leave under standing order 26 to move the adjournment of the house for the discussion of a subject which is certainly not the usual type of subject advanced as requiring the postponement of other proceedings and as being of such general public importance to permit a discussion under the standing order.
What the hon. member wishes to discuss is the alleged failure of the Minister of National Defence to disclose what is referred to as a hidden report in the course of the consideration of his estimates. In other words the complaint is about some action that did not take place, or some act within the House of Commons itself. These matters are usually dealt with as questions of privilege if they involve the privileges of the house, or as a matter of grievance if it is a complaint against the conduct of the government in its actions toward the house.
I think it would be improper to extend the scope of the rule to cover matters which are purely questions of the relationship of the minister to the house within the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Will Your Honour allow me to argue the point?


Mr. Speaker:: I would be quite ready to hear the hon. member on the procedural point, but not on the substantive subject matter of the proposed debate.


Lionel Chevrier: I quite understand that Your Honour will hear me on the meaning and extension of rule 26 but not on the merits.
I propose to address myself now to the point
that Your Honour raised a moment ago. I should like to say, sir, that this matter would unquestionably have been raised and discussed by those of us who sit on this side of the house had there been an opportunity to do so, and had we known of it during the consideration of the minister's estimates.
As the house knows, the minister's estimates are now complete and have passed the house. There is no opportunity, therefore, to discuss those estimates again during the remaining time the house will be sitting. Then there is the question of the motion to go into supply. We, of our own volition, decided to forgo that motion, so there is no other occasion upon which we would have an opportunity to discuss a matter of this nature. We did this by agreement among the parties; I will not say it was done at the request of the government, but it was decided we would forgo the motion to go into supply under certain circumstances. Then there was this sensational story in the Globe and Mail of national importance. Surely there is no other opportunity from now until the end of the session when we may be given a chance to discuss a matter of this importance.
I shall not, as I say, go into the merits of the subject, Mr. Speaker, but here is a story which, if there is any foundation for it, at least calls for some explanation by the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance if he were here.
I should like an opportunity to discuss the merits of the subject after Your Honour has dealt with what I am now saying. As the matter stands now there will be no opportunity from now until the end of the session to discuss this matter of urgent public importance.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to add a few words on the point upon which you now have to make a decision. I know, sir, the responsibility that is placed upon you at this moment. There can be no question of the urgency of the matter which is now before us, not only because during the consideration of the defence estimates there was no indication of such a report having been made by the Minister of Finance to the cabinet or treasury board, but also because during the consideration of the estimates the hon. member for Kootenay West made certain statements to the Minister of National Defence, as recorded on page 8320 of Hansard for September 13.

Inquiries of the Ministry At that time the minister said the hon. member for Kootenay West was incorrect in maintaining that the increase in armed forces for NATO at this time was being initiated to replace the loss of combat troops who are now performing other tasks.
In view of the fact, sir, that this information which now appears in the Globe and Mail was made available to the treasury branch of the government some two months ago, and in view of the statement of the Minister of National Defence in reply to the hon. member for Kootenay West, I would say this is a matter of urgency, and we expect you will so rule.


Mr. Speaker:: I, of course, accept quite readily the proposition that the consideration of the efficiency of the defence forces, and so on, which would appear to be the background of the subject under discussion, is a matter of urgent public importance. However, I am asked here to set aside our ordinary procedures to allow a complaint to be made about the conduct of the Minister of National Defence, based on a story appearing today in the press.
At any rate, even if I accepted the hon. member's argument it seems to me that the foundation of the motion is scarcely sufficient. It seems to me that he ought to establish that there is a report and that it is a report which in the public interest should be presented to parliament. That is a matter that can be brought out by questions, and the hon. member will have that opportunity. However, before there is some basis for a debate on the failure of the minister to do something which, I would think, is still in the realm of speculation, I do not believe that I should accept the hon. member's request, at this time in any event. I must indicate that my judgment is that leave should not be given.



REPORT RESPECTING ALLEGED WASTAGE OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
makes serious allegations that affect the administration of national defence.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked a question. I think he should not elaborate with comments on the situation.


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: Would the Prime Minister care to comment?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman regularly follows the course of making such statements, which he realizes are out of order, so that he will be able to make unsupported allegations, regardless of the rules.
As to the question whether or not the Minister of Finance will be here, I expect him to be here early next week, on Tuesday or Wednesday. At the moment he is engaged in discharging his responsibilities at the meeting of the international monetary fund, and he has one further appointment before returning.
I do not think I am going to make any observations as to the other matters except to say this. With the experience the hon. gentleman had as minister, he and those associated with him will recall that the policy of all governments since confederation has been not to affirm or deny any assertions about representations or statements passing between governmental committees or between departments of government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Prime Minister's last statement is one with which I take issue. No one will deny that a document as between one minister and another is privileged, but the moment it becomes a public affair, the situation is changed. Here in one of my hon. friend's own journals is the allegation that there is a secret report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The allegation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is now a matter of public knowledge.
On the orders of the day:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he give the house some assurance that the Minister of Finance will be in the house before we prorogue, in order that we may query him as to the charges that appear in this newspaper regarding his concern and displeasure over the waste in the army, navy and air force, according to a report of the Department of Finance to which my friend the hon. member for Laurier made reference a moment ago? This article in the Globe and Mail undoubtedly has come to the attention of the Prime Minister. It


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member raises as a question of privilege the statement of the Prime Minister that interdepartmental communications have been communicated to the house only in the discretion of the government, as I understand him. There is a question of the privileges of the house, of course, if the minister refuses to communicate to the house something which the house is entitled to have. However, I do not think that question is before us. I understood that the hon. member for Essex East was simply arguing the general statement of the policy that has been followed since confederation with respect to documents.
[Mr. Winch.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I just explain what I am seeking to do. The Prime Minister needlessly provoked me into an exchange. I should have addressed myself to the Chair and not to him. I apologize to the Chair for that. The Prime Minister said that exchanges between one minister and another were privileged and that no hon. member had the right to compel or to extract from the ministry the circumstances or the character of these privileged documents. With that there is no quarrel.
My question of privilege is this. Now that there has been a public revelation of the existence of such differences and such a report, it surely is within the privilege of any hon. member of this house to ascertain from the minister concerned or from the government the character of that report, particularly when it so vitally affects our defence forces.


Mr. Speaker:: I would accept that there is a question of privilege there, but I do not think it has yet arisen. What is being debated is the general principle. If there has been a refusal and the house considers that raises a question of privilege, well and good; let the hon. member who complains bring it forward in the proper way. But so far I think we are talking about principles rather than acts.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask a supplementary question on the original question?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order before the hon. gentleman asks a supplementary question, because I do not think I would have the right to do it afterward. The Prime Minister asserted in his answer that communications between ministers had always been regarded as privileged ever since confederation, and that all governments had taken that view. The Prime Minister, of course, was very inexperienced as prime minister at the time, but he will recall that on January 20, 1958-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -he seemed to take a different view-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -about exchanges between the members of another government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not raised any objection to the gratuitous statements which have been made. The hon. member for Essex East-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -pretending to operate under a question of privilege, made statements that are not justified as a matter of privilege. This discussion can only lead into a debate and the making of statements that are in no way permissible at this stage.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I agree that we should not debate the principle now. Of course the Prime Minister will, I think, recognize that he introduced the subject of the debate himself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister referred to the practice since confederation. I think we should not debate the question of what has been the practice or what is the practice. If there is a proper question of privilege or a point of order, well and good.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question on the original question, not to be argumentative but merely seeking information from the right hon. Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a front page article in the Globe and Mail this morning to the effect that a report was made by the Minister of Finance to treasury board. Can the Prime Minister tell us if such was the case; and further, can he make any comment on the allegations in the Globe and Mail article which reads in part:
-the defence department should be able to find the men it needs to expand the operational capability of the armed forces without any Increase in total manpower-
Is the Prime Minister in a position to comment on the report and the allegations as contained in the article in the Globe and Mail of this morning?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with the question as to whether there was or was not a communication. That is one of the matters that, in the public interest, governments since confederation have refused in any way to present or bring before parliament.
As to representations that are made from time to time, any hon. gentleman who has had any connection with government knows that in the determination of any problem that arises for decision by the cabinet, naturally representations are made respecting "the pros and the cons". Those, too, have always been regarded as privileged.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question having to do with the statement he made a moment ago, that communications between

Inquiries of the Ministry one minister and another are privileged and have never been made public. Is he aware that in order to substantiate his position in the house not very long ago, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys made public a letter that I had written as minister of transport to the former minister of mines and technical surveys, and put it on the record?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid we are now getting back to an argument on the question of principle, as to whether the government is obliged to answer questions relating to interdepartmental communications. The government, as I understand the answer, takes the position that it is not so obliged and has, in effect, declined to answer the question on that matter. I think this does not open the way to a debate on whether or not the government is right to decline. That may be possible at another time, but not now.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not desire to open a debate, but I think if the rule applies in one case then surely it applies in another.


Mr. Speaker:: It appears to me that the hon. gentleman is making an argument, and I think a debate on this issue would be out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the Prime Minister answer my question?


John George Diefenbaker: There is no question to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: It appeared to me to be a debating question.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: On a
point of order, has not the situation been created by the fact that the Prime Minister was permitted to make a gratuitous reference to what the practice had been since confederation? That reference having been permitted, it is difficult to rule out questions indicating that what he said might or might not be so. This is where the difficulty arises.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is putting forward an ingenious argument. If I were to accept it, it would mean that if any hon. member who had the floor made an observation which was irregular under the rules it would open a debate on that observation. I do not think a point of order arises.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of what has arisen this morning and the article which appeared in the Globe and Mail, does not the minister himself think he should make a forthright statement to the house at the present time?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: I do not believe any such thing. If members of the government were required to answer in detail various speculative stories which appear constantly in the press, the whole time of the house would be taken up with debating these matters. In this particular case it is alleged that a certain cabinet document is in existence. The article then alleges that there are certain things contained in that document. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, it has never been the custom either to admit or to deny the existence of any particular cabinet document. As the hon. member well knows, having been a member of the previous government for many years, such documents are entirely secret.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister is doing what I have preventd some hon. members opposite from doing, that is debating the principle of what is the practice with respect to interdepartmental communications.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of National Defence a question based on a story which appeared in today's Globe and Mail alleging that there is a waste of many thousands of men in the navy, army and air force?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I indicated when the discussion of the estimates for my department was in progress, I do deny any such allegations.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: I am
sure the house would want to welcome the Secretary of State for External Affairs back from the general assembly of the United Nations. Perhaps we might take this opportunity of asking him if he could report on the activities of the session to date.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thank the hon. member for his kind words, and I am sure the house is also very glad to welcome him back from the Middle East.
In his work with the United Nations the hon. member represented Canada in connection with the very difficult question of refugees in the Middle East. He has now had an opportunity to visit the camps and see just what is going on there, and I am sure this will be beneficial to the house.

The outstanding event of the sixteenth session of the general assembly thus far has been the tremendous impact made by the tragic death of the secretary general, Mr. Dag Hammarskjold. It would be difficult for one to express adequately just how the delegates from all countries, except perhaps the communist countries, have been saddened by this event. Tributes were paid to the memory of this great world statesman a day or two ago, and I had the privilege of speaking for Canada and also for Australia and New Zealand. We were very pleased that they asked us to say a few words on their behalf as well as on our own.
This death, of course, could be disastrous for the United Nations, coming as it did at about the worst time such an event could possibly occur. However, I believe there will be a great rallying to the support of that world organization. I believe most of the delegations are determined that the United Nations shall not be allowed to fail, and that it will go on to achieve greater strength as a result of the inspiration of Dag Hammarskjold and the sacrifice he has made in the cause of world peace.
There was no difficulty in electing a president, Mongi Slim, who has given distinguished service for Tunisia in the United Nations. Since that country achieved its independence about five years ago he has been the permanent representative of Tunisia at the United Nations. He is admired and respected by all countries. I believe he is the first African president of the United Nations. The fact that under present conditions he was elected unanimously augurs well for the future.
The immediate question, of course, is what to do about putting someone in charge of the direction of the secretariat. I believe it may take some little time to work out the election of a secretary general on the basis secretary generals have been elected in the past, but at the moment what is needed is someone to act in a temporary capacity as director of the secretariat. There is no thought of making such a man an acting secretary general and giving him that status, but he would be in charge of the work of the secretariat.
Strenuous efforts are being made to arrive at a decision which will bring about that result. Thus far the communist countries say they are going to stand firm on the troika principle, which is that there must be a three-headed supervision with one representative of the western countries, one of the communist countries and one of the uncommitted countries. I think there is no support whatever for that suggestion, either on an acting basis or on a permanent basis, outside the nine communist countries, and two of
Inquiries of the Ministry those communist countries are Byelorussia and the Ukraine. Possibly Cuba might support it, but I believe every Afro-Asian country is against the troika principle. We had a meeting of the commonwealth representatives on Wednesday morning and every one of the commonwealth delegations is against any such principle.
I am hoping that within a very few days some arrangement can be worked out so that a temporary director can be appointed. This would be done in the general assembly, not subject to recommendation from the security council, as would be the case if a secretary general were to be appointed which, of course, would give the Soviet union an opportunity to veto anything proposed in the security council.
I believe there has been quite a reduction in tension during the last two or three weeks. I have always been of the opinion that a meeting of the United Nations assembly would bring about a reduction of tension, and I think it is doing that. It is very significant that the United States and the Soviet union agreed just a day or two ago-I get all mixed up about days; things move rather rapidly in the United Nations-on a statement of principles for disarmament. These are the principles that will form the background of an actual negotiated agreement on the details of disarmament.
I expect that on Monday President Kennedy will announce a revised disarmament plan, in the preparation of which Canada has had a very important part. Many of our suggestions have been written into this proposal, and I think hon. members will find it is the most appealing disarmament proposal which has yet been advanced. There still remains the question of the forum in which the negotiations would take place, whether it would be in the old 10 nation committee of which Canada is a member, or be in the 10 nation committee plus three officers from unaligned countries which we suggested last year, or whether it would be in the 10 nation committee plus 10 uncommitted countries which the United States has also suggested, or whether it would be referred to the disarmament commission of the United Nations. This question of forum will have to be worked out, and I hope Canada will be able to take some initiative in connection with that particular problem.
On the question of Berlin, Secretary of State Rusk and Mr. Gromyko, the foreign minister of the Soviet union met a day or two ago and they are to meet again next week. They are discussing possible negotiations on the Berlin question. It does not do for one to be too optimistic on any of these questions; I learned this the hard way. Some

Inquiries of the Ministry people in Canada believe the foreign minister should not be too optimistic. However, I believe there is a reasonable chance that negotiations on the question of Berlin can be arranged, and we hope to have something to say on this Berlin question ourselves when Canada participates in the general debate which is now taking place.
I have had the privilege of holding discussions with several other foreign ministers. The hon. member for Essex East knows that the United Nations is about the best place possible for foreign ministers to exchange views. I plan to go back on Thursday night, or perhaps Wednesday night, and continue with such conferences, and I believe our statement will be made perhaps a week from Tuesday. In any event, I suggest to the house that there is no need to give up hope for the United Nations. I think it is going to come out of this crisis stronger than it has ever been. I remain convinced that it is the one hope of mankind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In doing so may I say that we are all very glad to have him back with us this morning. We appreciate his general review of developments at the United Nations since Monday last. We wish him well in these very important deliberations that affect not only our country but the peace of the world.
Perhaps the minister is aware that during his absence, the Leader of the Opposition suggested to the Prime Minister that it would be desirable for the government to acquaint members of the United Nations with the important reports made to the house by the Minister of National Health and Welfare as to the sharp increases in radioactivity levels in Canada. The Prime Minister acknowledged the importance of communicating the results of these readings to our delegation at the United Nations. Can the minister say whether this has been done? Does he not believe it might have a very important bearing on the efforts that are being made to arrive at a convention, in a further attempt to achieve a ban on nuclear tests?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in the session of 1959 Canada took the initiative on the question of radiation, and after many trials and tribulations was able to get unanimous agreement to a resolution which called for further sampling and testing with respect to radiation and a wider dissemination of the knowledge gained thereby. I think the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday or the day before that we are about to receive samples from four different countries for testing of this kind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to food.


Howard Charles Green: This fits in very well, of course, with the present situation and gives us a very good background for raising the subject in the course of the general debate. That I expect to do. We have also taken a very definite stand on the question of nuclear testing, under prodding from time to time by the hon. member for Essex East, who seemed a little doubtful of the wisdom of our policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no.


Howard Charles Green: I am very glad to see that he is converted, and I can assure him that we will also be dealing with the question of nuclear tests.


Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In so doing may I say that our group also welcomes him on his return. May I also tell him that we follow all his activities and statements at the United Nations with great interest. I say that not only on behalf of this group generally but also because of the marvellous education I received as a result of the opportunity granted to me last year to spend some 10 weeks at the general assembly.
Can the minister inform the house whether at the sixteenth general assembly of the United Nations he is going to continue the policy he advocated, the leadership he gave and his exhortation to all 99 countries at the fifteenth general assembly with regard to no expansion of the nuclear club? Is that the present policy of the government?


Howard Charles Green: I presume that there will be a debate in the general assembly on this question, and at that time Canada's stand will, of course, be made known.


Harold Edward Winch: I hope it has not changed from what the minister advocated last year.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs one more question. In view of the anxiety in the minds not only of the people of Canada but also of the people of the world over the Berlin crisis, and the statement of the minister a few moments ago that perhaps within the next week or two it may be possible for him or his representative to make a statement at the United Nations, can the minister give us any indication whether in his mind and the minds of the other members of the government thought is being given to the recommendation that Berlin should be an internationalized city under United Nations

control and armed forces, in order to relieve the power politics tension which has given rise to the Berlin crisis?


Howard Charles Green: I think it would be very unwise for me to make any comment on that suggestion. The department is giving very careful thought to any possible role in the Berlin situation for the United Nations, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to what our definite recommendation will be.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. I regret not having been able to give notice. My question is based on the report of a speech by R.C.M.P. deputy commissioner McClellan at Halifax recently in which he lauded the efforts of one of the factions involved in a current interunion jurisdictional dispute at the Sudbury local of the mine, mill and smelter workers union. Does the minister think it is a proper function of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to interfere in the affairs of unions in such a manner?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Acting Minister of Justice):: I will be very happy to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that the hon. member has asked this question.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED STATEMENTS BY CANADIAN MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to table the texts of the speeches delivered by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce at the Accra conference?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to what has already been said. As I have said, the Minister of Finance will be back on Tuesday or Wednesday and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be here on Monday.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.
Supply-Privy Council



PRIVY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
312.	Payment, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $7,500.
Mr. Pitman:: Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: May I suggest to the hon. member for Peterborough, who was in the midst of a very interesting speech the other day, that perhaps we could now deal with the item before us and then come back to the emergency measures organization in its proper order. At that time he could go ahead with his speech.


Walter George Pitman: I will be glad to agree.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this the vote on the administration of the privy council office?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Privy council office-
313.	General administration, $563,390.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief observations on a matter which I probably could not bring up on any other item in the Prime Minister's estimates. I am not going to say anything about the administration of the office. What I am going to do is make an appeal to the Prime Minister with respect to a matter about which I think he told the house he has reached an understanding with the premier of Newfoundland

certainly there was a public announcement-with respect to the title of the former United States air force base at Fort Pepperrell on the outskirts of the city of St. John's, Newfoundland. I want to emphasize that in what I have to say I am speaking for myself solely, as a member of parliament, and that I am in no way making any plea for any other person whatever. I am seeking to do this in a noncontentious spirit. I do not intend to make any attempt whatever to argue the legal case, because I feel it would be a quite improper use of the time of the committee to do anything of that sort.
The case I want to make very briefly to the Prime Minister is this; that notwithstanding any question as to whether there may or may not be a claim to federal title, there is no compelling reason why the federal authority should seek to get possession of

Supply-Privy Council this property. This was not military property of the British government or the Newfoundland government; it was a property that was acquired out of crown lands or private lands in Newfoundland by the then commission of government of Newfoundland to be turned over as a free gift by the British government to the United States on a 99 year lease, in the darkest days of the war. This territory, according to the agreement that was made at that time, was to revert to Newfoundland at the end of the 99 years or at any earlier time at which the lease might be terminated.
It is true, of course, that the ultimate title to anything which was vested in Newfoundland before union, has to be construed in relation to the terms of union; because when Newfoundland became a part of Canada that legal entity of Newfoundland was divided between the government of the province and the government of Canada. I am not seeking to found any legal argument there. What I am suggesting is, here is a very valuable piece of real estate which was, in no way, a military base. It never was a military base even in the sense in which Harmon field and Argentia were military establishments. Fort Pepperrell was not anything but a headquarters. Most of the buildings there are buildings that could and would be put to a civilian use.
For over a year now this valuable property has been unoccupied. It is costing both the provincial and federal treasuries a certain amount annually to keep it up. There are many parts of this establishment for which the provincial government, either directly or through the local authorities, could undoubtedly find a use. Moreover, whatever may be the legal niceties of the matter, there would seem to be an incontrovertible moral claim on the part of the people and province of Newfoundland to the restitution to them of this territory which was taken for exceptional emergency purposes, not Canadian purposes or British purposes or Newfoundland purposes but United States purposes. This was done at a time when everybody was quite prepared to justify it.
The suggestion I am making to the Prime Minister is one about which I am quite sure there would be no criticism in any part of this country. I am not criticizing the decision to refer the matter to the supreme court because, in itself, I think that is a very appropriate way of dealing with a problem of this sort. However, if the federal government were to decide that in view of the unique situation here no precedent that could be embarrassing in other situations would arise or could arise, it could unilaterally declare it was no longer interested in asserting any title to this property, then some means could

be found, perhaps by a special act of parliament, of validating the title of the province to this territory. It was made clear during the discussion of the defence estimates that there was no military necessity for acquiring this property.
I believe, and I hope, that such action would be regarded by everyone as a proper disposition of this matter. Even if an announcement were made that such action was going to be taken, and custody were transferred on that basis, this would enable this valuable property to be used effectively immediately. As I say, I am putting this suggestion forward in, I hope, a completely noncontentious spirit. I have no criticism at all of anything the government has done. I am merely suggesting a course of action which I feel would commend itself to most Canadians.
I might venture, perhaps, an analogy. The privy council established that Indian reserves, so long as they are used for the purpose for which they were taken in the first place, they are under the ultimate control of the government of Canada through the superintendent general. However, if an Indian band becomes extinct, the title to that land immediately reverts to the province and does not remain in the crown in the right of Canada.
It seems to me if that is true of Indian lands, some of which may have been Indian reserves for more than a hundred years, then the same principle could be applied to this land. In British Columbia recently there was a case of an Indian reserve which had been established in 1871, or whenever Indian reserves were established shortly after the union of British Columbia with Canada, and the band became extinct. The title to the land was immediately transferred to the province without any question, and it became provincial crown land. There have been a good many other cases of this kind.
I recognize at once that the Prime Minister could not, and properly would not, himself give a snap judgment on a suggestion of this sort. All I am doing is putting forward this suggestion and asking if he will give it most sympathetic consideration. He could discuss with his colleagues whether or not this course would be in the national interest and in the interest of maintaining that harmony we all wish to see prevail, particularly in the light of the fact there is certainly no clear and specific language in the terms of union dealing with this matter, presumably because those who drafted the terms did not feel any provision of that kind was necessary. There may have been the feeling that the normal presumptions would apply in this matter. I say, having put this suggestion to the Prime Minister, all I am asking him to>
do today is

to say that it will be given sympathetic consideration, and I hope he will do this.


John George Diefenbaker: As I listened to the hon. gentleman, I could not but regret that he had decided to discontinue his studies leading to admission to the bar. He made his argument in a very objective manner. He, of course, frankly admitted that he was speaking for himself alone, and that no one else apparently held the same view or at least had impressed him as to holding that view.
As I recollect it, the premier of Newfoundland at one of the dominion-provincial conferences asked that this matter be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. That was at his request. I seem to recall he said that the legal argument that the lands should be vested in the people of Newfoundland was unchallengeable. Arrangements were then made that the question of the rights of the two governments in respect to this property be referred to the supreme court, and the matter is now before that court. Although it has not been argued yet it is in the custody of the court. When the answers are given by that court, both governments will be in a position to know their legal rights. I think that is as far as I should wish to go at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the reply the Prime Minister has made, may I say that I either did not make myself clear-and that is quite possible-or the Prime Minister in a very polite way is saying that he will not consider my suggestion. I understand perfectly that the government of Canada must consider that it has some vestige of a claim or it would not have taken the responsibility of making any reference at all to the courts. The argument I was making was that whether or not there was any legal claim, in my view there did not seem to be any good moral claim or any really pressing military reason why the government should seek to assert any title in this matter.
The Prime Minister of course-he having practised law as I have not and never expect to-will know that a great many cases, even though they have been taken to the courts, have been settled out of court. What I was suggesting was this. In view of the importance of getting this property into use promptly, and in view of the fact that in common sense there is no real, national interest involved here at all, my suggestion was that the reference should be abandoned and that the government, through parliament or otherwise, could take whatever steps might be necessary in order to make sure that the title would be a valid one on the part of the crown in the right of the province.
Supply-Privy Council


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote 313 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If no one else has anything to say, there is another point I wish to raise.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The other day the Prime Minister in another debate-I know I cannot quote from that debate, but I am sure he will not object to my alluding to it-was good enough to make reference to an interest which I had expressed to him in the possibility of the government of Canada acquiring Earnscliffe and using it as the residence of the Prime Minister instead of the present residence. Since the Prime Minister himself raised the matter in the house the other day, I wondered whether there was anything he could now add to what he said on that occasion. I had thought that at a time when there was a vacancy in the office of the British high commissioner it might be an appropriate time at which to make the change.
I should like to say this. Although there might be some members of my party who would think that the residence of the first prime minister of Canada, because of his party, would not be a suitable residence for prime ministers of other parties, that is not a view that I would share; nor would anyone in the House of Commons, knowing how non-partisan and moderate I am in my views, expect me to share it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think any Liberal prime minister or any Liberal who was not willing, and would not consider it an honour, to live in the house in which Sir John Macdonald lived would not really deserve to be prime minister of Canada. There are no sentimental associations that I know of attached to the present residence of the Prime Minister. It is a beautiful place. It is perhaps in an even more pleasant physical location than Earnscliffe. I cannot think that the United Kingdom would be any loser in the bargain. I believe it would be pleasing to all Canadians if that exchange were possible. I would even go so far as to say this. I see in the chamber a member of the New Democratic party, which I am inclined to refer by with different initials. I would call them the S.O.P., or the same old party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I note that they are largely represented in the house at the present time.
I would hope that one of their many spokesmen in the house at the present time would join me in an assurance that in the unlikely

Supply-Privy Council event that a member of their party should ever become prime minister, they would also feel that it was an honour for them that their leader should live in the home of Sir John Macdonald. I do not expect any such event to occur in the twentieth century. However, I think it would perhaps be just as well to indicate a unanimity of feeling about this matter, if there is such a feeling in the committee.


Walter George Pitman: I shall be very glad to intimate such a feeling, Mr. Chairman. I can assure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that the New Democratic party is as concerned as he is about preserving history of this country and about the residence of former prime ministers. I might also close my remarks by saying that the event to which he refers may occur sooner than he thinks.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 313 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I put a question to the Prime Minister in the midst of my remarks.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not take it as a question. I thought it was more or less a philosophic discussion of the subject, which is close to the heart of the hon. gentleman. He wrote me in connection with this matter some months ago. While there has been nothing of a formal nature passing between the Canadian government and the British government, there have been chats about the possibility of at some time acquiring Eams-cliffe. Having due regard to the way in which these matters are amicably determined between the United Kingdom and Canada, I am sure that if there was general agreement about acquiring it, the United Kingdom government would not raise too strong an objection.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Emergency measures-
315. Administration and operation of the emergency measures organization, $1,053,453.
Walter George Pitman: When the clock interrupted my remarks some days ago, Mr. Chairman, I was expressing the opinion that the government's measures, although we are in agreement with the extent by which they have been increased and their velocity has been increased, still are not geared to the kind of threat with which we are faced. We are not faced with a limited nuclear war but with a massive attack of proportions completely beyond anything which, in our imagination, we could expect from our knowledge of former wars.

During the defence debates the Minister of National Defence refused to give us details of this threat, and he did so quite properly within the bounds of his privilege. However,
I cannot help but remind the government that, as was stated by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Trinity, and as others in this House of Commons have suggested, statistics are available from United States and British sources which indicate a far different picture of that which we are either defending against or are expecting to survive. In the discussions on the defence estimates we mentioned the navy, as a part of its work and in conjunction with our allies, attempting to deal with a few conventional submarines when, of course, there may be many. Some of these will be nuclear powered, and completely beyond the capabilities of our vessels. In regard to aerial attack, we will not be dealing with a few bombers but a great many bombers. These will certainly have air to ground missiles capable of dealing with the defences that we have.
What we in this corner are attempting to get some idea about is the massive threat which exists. We feel the emergency measures organization, in the same way as the defence department, is carrying on a business as usual philosophy in connection with this whole matter of survival. In his television broadcast the other night the Prime Minister indicated to the Canadian people that he would be most frank with them in these matters of defence, foreign affairs and, I am sure, survival techniques also. I am sure the Prime Minister would not want the Canadian people to be deceived in this matter; that would be criminal. It is not in any way a scaring of the Canadian people to indicate the extent of this threat. If the defence of democracy becomes dependent upon ignorance of this threat, the defence itself will have lost all meaning because democracy will have completely gone.
Turning to the shelter program proposed by the government, I have suggested that it is based on ability to pay, which is the negation of our whole democratic system; because surely our belief is that every individual is of equal worth in the eyes of his government. I went on to read the letter of a nuclear physicist who is very concerned about this matter because of his experience as a physicist. I should like to read a few more paragraphs from this letter in which he visualizes this kind of nuclear attack.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who is the physicist in question?


Walter George Pitman: He is Mr. A. Charles Whittier, who has worked for 10 years with Atomic Energy of Canada, with the nuclear division of Canadian General Electric, and civilian atomic power development. He now has on hand two instruments, which have been patented, for the detection of radioactivity.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman indicate the name of the writer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He just did.


Walter George Pitman: It is Mr. A. C. Whittier. He says in his letter:
Suppose a nuclear bomb drops a few miles away, and radioactive fall-out settles on the roof of a house. (This process generally takes between 1 and 48 hours after the explosion.) Consider first a case where the fall-out is sufficient to give a dose during a 2-week period of 10 roentgens in an unsheltered basement. In this case the occupants do not need a shelter for 10 roentgens is less than the 25 roentgens "threshold" dose. Now consider a case where the fall-out is much greater, so that the unsheltered dose would be 4,000 roentgens in 2 weeks. In this case, if the occupants had a shelter and stayed in it for 2 weeks they would receive a 400 roentgens dose:	half of
them would die in a short time, and the other half would wish they were dead. This means, then, that a shelter is only useful for protection against gamma radiation provided the dosage received in an unsheltered area is between 10 roentgens and
something considerably less than 4,000 roentgens_
say 1,000 roentgens-in 2 weeks . ..
Something like a 10 roentgens dose will arise from the fall-out from a 2.4 kiloton atom bomb if this fall-out is distributed uniformly over 1,000 square miles; 1,000 roentgens will arise from a 240 kiloton fall-out over the same area. Therefore a fall-out shelter will be useful only if the fallout density is between 2.4 and 240 kilotons per
1.000	square miles.
It has been estimated that the U.S.S.R. has the potential to mount a surprise attack that would give a uniform density of about 5,000 kilotons per
1.000	square miles over the whole of the U.S.A. Of course in an actual attack the density in some areas would be much higher, and in others much lower than 5,000. If a 1 megaton bomb were dropped, what chance is there that the fall-out density would be conveniently between 2.4 and 240 kilotons per 1,000 square miles at the house in question?
The $500 fall-out shelter has no means of filtering the air which the occupants must breathe. This air will be loaded with radioactive strontium, iodine, and other fission products. Just how lethal these would be depends on the situation.
Because of the foregoing I do not think an individual will be affecting significantly the probable lifespan of his family by spending $500 on a basement shelter.
I feel that $500 per family could be much more effectively spent if done collectively. By far the most effective protection against fall-out is afforded by large public shelters stocked with food and water, and with proper air filtering facilities. These shelters would also have medical equipment, radiation detection instruments, water purification equipment and decontamination gear, along with people qualified to use these articles.
Then he goes on to refer to a study which was made in the United States in the case of
90205-6-554
Supply-Privy Council an attack where the fall-out is five kilotons per square mile. He says:
The figures apply to those who are still alive after the blast, fireball, and immediate irradiation have passed on.
In an unprotected community, 90 per cent of the living would die. In a community full of $500 basement shelters, 80 per cent would die. In a community with shelters prepared from modified buildings-
-as the government is going on with today-
-50 per cent would die, and in a community with special fall-out shelters, less than 1 per cent would die.
This is a matter which the Canadian people should be very sure of, and I think there are a number of problems to deal with in regard to these basement shelters. The attack must take place, we assume, between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., when people are conveniently at home. I can imagine the holocaust that would take place in a city such as Montreal or Toronto if the attack took place during the working day when people were concentrated in the centre of the city.
That is why we feel we must either prepare for the kind of war which is to come or -we are not suggesting this as an alternative -not prepare at all. It is not a matter of terrorizing but of facing the issue courageously. In other words, let us just not spend a few million dollars to create the impression that we are doing something-
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Chairman, in the letter from which the hon. member read there was reference to a study which had been made in the United States. Did the writer identify where that study had been carried out?


Walter George Pitman: No, he does not identify the area. In terms of populations, similar figures were given to United States congressional hearings.


Mr. Palleil:: What was the date of the hearing?


Walter George Pitman: I am sorry; I do not have that information. I will be very happy to try and obtain it.
In an article in the Ottawa Citizen of September 13 a very well-known nuclear physicist, the famous physicist of the Lawrence radiation laboratory of the University of California, Dr. Teller, gave the method by which there could be some defence against nuclear war. He was referring to national survival. Of course, he made these specific suggestions to the government of the United States, but these are the things he suggests and these are the only ways he suggests by which we can really survive a full-scale thermonuclear war. First, building shelters against fall-out and against the blast and fire

Supply-Privy Council
from nuclear bombs; second, stockpiling surplus food, machinery, machine tools, generators, building materials-the essentials to generate power, start factories, build more machines, transport people and goods, and assure communications; third, planning organized efforts to carry people through the terrible early days, and the hard, demanding, co-operative labour to rebuild modern civilization.
Then, of course, the sobering fact comes out that it would cost billions of dollars, perhaps an average of $4 billion for some years. I think this is perhaps a cost which the Canadian people are unwilling to accept. It is not going to be politically popular. However, other nations have done this. Sweden has built public shelters for its people. It is argued that these are the same things which the United States is doing. We accept this argument, and it has a telling effect. But I am sure if the Americans are going to be decimated, that is no argument that the Canadian people should also be destroyed. We know the extent of the fall-out that has occurred so far from tests that have been conducted. If an anti-missile missile is developed in the next few years, surely the explosion which will take place over Canada as we defend against this attack will create fall-out.
What I always have in mind, as do these authorities to which I have referred, is that we have to deal with the future. Even if the Minister of National Defence is right in saying that only a small percentage of the megaton load which the Russians have can be effectively used against us, that may not be the case over the years from now on. Surely it is not wise to tell Canadians to build $500 shelters which might be completely useless by 1965 or 1966. Assuming we have a population of 18 million and that an average of 3 or 4 people use each shelter, we are asking the Canadian people to spend between $2 billion and $3 billion of their own money on measures which may not offer them adequate protection. People should have some right to hope that survival is possible under these conditions.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that the years to come might well be years of sacrifice and austerity. Perhaps this is an area where we shall need to make sacrifices in future, as well as in connection with the Department of National Defence itself. I must say that my views have definitely changed on this subject. At one time I looked upon shelters as a colossal waste of time; I felt that a nuclear war would cause such tremendous devastation that shelters of any kind1 would be irrelevant. However, I now think we have a duty to civilization, a duty

to humanity, to ensure the survival of some percentage of the population.
I agree with the Prime Minister in his statement that efforts must be made to make sure the government carries on. However, I think the people of Canada are somewhat concerned that we may be more interested in ensuring the survival of the upper levels of government than we are in the welfare of the average man. I know that some years ago the story was that we should never have another war because it would mean that those who started it would die in it. Now the people are losing that feeling of confidence. They are no longer confident that the people in the top echelons of government are as concerned about the people at the bottom as they are about themselves.
We can reach a decision with regard to building public shelters. The cost will be fantastic, but surely we must be realistic about the nature of the threat and the cost of meeting it. We may disagree with many of the things which Bertrand Russell says and does, but there is one statement he made with which I am sure we all agree, namely the statement that since Adam and Eve ate the apple, man has never refrained from any folly of which he was capable. I believe we must make some kind of response to the threat which faces us. However, both the threat and the nature of our response must be assessed realistically and the public must be enabled to look upon the emergency measures organization as an organization sincerely determined to ensure their survival.


Mr. Jung:: In the course of a statement dealing with the emergency measures organization, as reported on page 8293 of Hansard for September 13, the Prime Minister advised the house that in planning for the survival of our people accurate public information was of vital importance.
With that statement I agree completely. There is, however, one facet of educating the public on which I should like to speak briefly. From conversations with some of my constituents I have the impression that among the majority of men there is a growing awareness of the need to learn all we can about the consequences of a nuclear war. However, in the case of some women-and I emphasize the word "some"-there seems to be a defeatist attitude which leads them to throw up their hands in despair and say there is no point in preparing shelters because if even one nuclear bomb were to drop on us there would be nothing left.
Possibly women look at the problem of survival in a different light from men. Consciously or unconsciously a woman's thoughts and actions are directed at perpetuating the human race, and unless she can see some

security for her family she may feel that there is no point in even trying to survive. In parades and demonstrations against the nuclear bomb and the building of shelters the majority of those who take part are women and children; at least this has been the case in all the demonstrations which I have witnessed in Vancouver.
We can understand the horror with which women, particularly, regard a nuclear war, but I suggest that the government must impress upon all of us that we have a duty to survive. It makes no difference if nine tenths of the population are wiped out. It makes no difference that the country may be completely devastated. Those who remain must carry on. They owe it to themselves as human beings and as citizens of this country to do so. God forbid that we should have a nuclear war, but if there is to be that possibility each one of us must prepare ourselves for that awful event. Once we admit the danger, we can devote our energies and resources to meet that crisis, instead of wasting our time wringing our hands in despair.
I knows as well as anyone what could happen in the event of a nuclear war, because I attended the one month survival course at the civil defence college at Arn-prior, and I believe I am the only member of parliament to have done so. Having attended that course I am less afraid of the consequences of a nuclear war, because I know what to do in an emergency and I am much more confident of my own chances of survival. No matter how huge the loss or how great the suffering, we must go on. And without the women of our country, Mr. Chairman, there would be very little reason for us to survive.
Supply-Privy Council at any time suggest that I am an expert on the feelings of all men with regard to this or any other problem.


Douglas Jung: On a question of privilege, may I remind the hon. lady that I referred to "some" women and emphasized the word "some". If I can undertake to speak only for some women, does the hon. member for Niagara Falls imply she speaks for all men?


Miss LaMarsh:: I can only undertake to speak for those who sent me to parliament, and I am not always sure I am able to do that.
With regard to this matter, I have had correspondence from many individuals, and most of the authors happen to be women. They are, of course, the people most concerned. They are the cradle of civilization, as they have been in the past. They are particularly concerned, because they feel this is a problem which is more likely to affect them since they will be remaining at home during the day and during the evenings. They are concerned not only for their own children but for the children of all mothers all across the world.
It is because of this concern that such groups as the Voice of Women have arisen across Canada. This is not a left wing organization, though the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway referred to it as being such in a debate a week or so ago.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: May I
inform the hon. lady that I never made any such a statement in the house. I read a statement from a publication which made that claim. I never made any such statement personally.
I hope that in the months ahead the government will develop a program which will help those women who now hold the conviction that there is no purpose in learning how to survive, to believe once again that there is still very much to live for, and that by taking a few precautions they can, in the absence of a direct hit, ensure their own survival.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I had hoped to make a few remarks with respect to this subject. Although the situation was well covered by the statement made on behalf of this party by the hon. member for Essex East there are certain observations I wish to make, particularly in the presence of the Prime Minister. I am glad to hear that the last speaker is an expert on the feelings of women in connection with this and other matters. Despite the fact that I am a woman I do not 90205-6-554i


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, the hon. member read it with apparent approval, and it has caused concern to many of the members of that organization, which is not and has never been considered a left wing organization. The article read by the hon. member was one which referred to them, but it does not convey the impression which he may have erroneously left.
This is the reason organizations such as the Voice of Women are springing up. It is felt that women outside of public life, who constitute at least half of our population, can actually participate in shaping the future of the world. They are not a lot of wild-eyed, pie in the sky people; they are responsible people who care, and I suggest that this is the sort of movement which elected representatives should be pleased to see becoming established.
Here we have interested citizens who are coming forward to assist their elected representatives. Further than that, organized

Supply-Privy Council groups of women and women throughout the country of course are greatly concerned. They have listened to and read with great care the statements of the Prime Minister within the last few weeks on the proposals which this government is going to undertake to assist in the survival of the people of Canada. But to those in Niagara Falls, and indeed, to those in Ottawa and in other major centres, that is in what are called the 16 target areas-I do not know whether these are in fact in the 16 target areas, but many newspaper reports in the past have indicated that Niagara Falls is listed as one of the primary Canadian targets-the Prime Minister's proposals seem far fetched with respect to the protection and assistance which will be given to the people of Canada.
In his statement the Prime Minister mentioned that a prototype bomb shelter was to be built. This is the first reference that I have been able to find to a bomb shelter. My understanding is that in case of a direct hit from a nuclear bomb it is unlikely that anything would give adequate protection unless it was something of the type of shelter which is being set up to ensure the continuation of government. Certainly nothing which an individual could hope to build would be sufficient against a direct attack.
In many reports, and particularly in one by Dr. Edward Teller, to which the hon. member for Peterborough referred, which was widely circulated through the offices of the Associated Press, it is said that one third of the American people-and I imagine this figure would apply to Canada-could be protected well enough by fall-out shelters. Dr. Teller went on to say that one third would be in trouble, but they could have a 70 per cent chance of survival if given decent shelters. I assume that these people would require bomb shelters. Then he went on to say:
One third of our people would not even he In danger, because they don't live near targets the bombs hit.
The Minister of National Defence told us it was likely that only one or two bombers would get through. If any bombs were dropped on Canada they would be intended for the 16 target areas, and some concern should be directed toward those target areas.
they were asked where they were from. When the man who was in charge was told they were from Niagara Falls he took away the pamphlets and said, "These are of no use to you; you are in a target area." They came to me as their representative and said, "What are you and what is the government doing with respect to those of us in a target area. Are we in those 16 centres across Canada to be completely abandoned?" I was unable to give them any answer.
There are many in the fringe areas, who by no stretch of the imagination would expect to be struck by a bomb, who have considerable apathy about building even a fall-out shelter.
I think it represents more of fear than of apathy. They do not like to hear discussions, and they feel there is really no reason to do anything because, as many women say, "Why should I come up? My husband might be gone, my children might be gone. I would not want to survive in what was left of the world.
Women have a great deal of resilience and courage. In past wars they have been shown to be as strong as or stronger than the men who stood or fell at their sides. Even though they express those opinions they will get out and try to do something to protect their children. But this is the sort of letter I have been receiving, and I should like the Prime Minister and those responsible for the emergency measures organization to consider it. This is a letter from a woman in Niagara Falls. It says:
But even if my neighbours and I had basements and could afford to build shelters, it still wouldn't help our families. Take mine for instance. Three of my children are in school. They attend three different and widely separated schools. The youngest is seven. His school, which is nearest to home, is a good 25 minutes walk from our house. There are no nearby fall-out shelters to which they could run-there is no protection whatsoever for our school children. A nation's future is its children. In a nuclear war Canada's future will be wiped out. My husband is in construction work. To what public shelter could he and his fellow workmen run? In the meantime, I am to sit home in my (theoretical) fall-out shelter for two weeks and go quietly mad, knowing all of my family and most of my neighbours are surely dead.
In letters to the press this same feeling has been expressed again and again; would it be worth while to survive if everyone that
I am asked by my constituents what is their position. I should like to tell the Prime Minister that two women from my area went to the Canadian national exhibition this fall to see what might be done with respect to fall-out shelters, and they went with the derision of their husbands and their neighbours ringing in their ears. They spent the afternoon there and obtained all the brochures and information. As they were about to leave
one holds dear cannot survive? Even those who would wish to provide themselves with shelters of one kind or another have this problem, and I quote from two letters which I found in the letters to the editor column of the Toronto Star. I substitute the word "government" for what is here:
Will government please tell a $50 a week truck driver from Cabbagetown-

May I tell those who are not familiar with the Toronto area that that is what they mean.
-with a wife and two kids and $22 a week rent where to pick up $1,200 for a shelter? Maybe we should try a finance company.
In the other letter from Trenton we find the following:
I make $65 a week and have a wife and seven children. A dollar down and a dollar a week is our speed, and X don't think Khrushchev will give us the time.
These are the people who care, the people who wish to do something. I would say they are the people who deserve to be assisted. If governmental assistance is to be provided for those in non-target areas for a fall-out survival shelter, more must be done to assist than merely to provide assistance for a loan, and something important must be done with respect to those in target areas. If there are evacuation schemes, and they are feasible within a possible 20 minute warning, are they known to the municipalities and the people concerned?
According to press reports the Clerk of the Privy Council and indeed the Prime Minister are building fall-out shelters. There have been press reports that these two gentlemen will not be in Ottawa. Are they to be prewarned of any sort of attack upon Ottawa? If so, I assume that their shelters must be built either as an incentive to show the people the way, while they know they will not have to use them, or they are built to provide what shelter they can for those of their dependents who will be left behind.
I am not sure whether Ottawa is a target area, but I would assume that it might very well be. If it is a target area, I ask this question. Is the provision which they are making for their dependents going to be in any way adequate? I ask them to consider the plight of those hundreds of thousands of people in the most heavily concentrated areas of our population in Canada, those people where there is a heavy concentration of secondary industry, of power development, of rail or other transportation facilities; those people who will be the first to die in Canada should the bombs drop and who now, before they die, cry out to the government for support, for aid, for a plan for evacuation.


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Chairman, the voices of members of parliament today are music to my ears, because I have been talking about civil defence since 1958. Therefore I will be very brief. I am happy to say that it feels much better not to be a lone voice in the house. I want to recall some of the words of Sir John Hodsoll, co-ordinator of civil defence for NATO, who visited Canada in 1955. I
Supply-Privy Council
believe he stated that any bombers that may be shot down over this country will at the same time set off thermonuclear bombs.
As a matter of fact it may be safer if one lives in a target area, provided our defences are good because this means that the bombers will fall on other areas, but any bombs or missiles carried by these bombers will create dangers for all those in the area where the bomber or missile is shot down. The more effective our defence, the more dangerous it will be for Canadians generally at any point in Canada. Canada will likely be the battlefield in the next war, and we will have to take the brunt of a thermonuclear attack. If our southern friends are capable of shooting down these bombers all over Canada, Canada will be hit by all these bombs and Canada will be the most dangerous place in the whole world.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Chairman, this debate has been of considerable interest to me, because on the occasion of exercise Tocsin early this summer I had the responsibility of being the federal government representative in the province of Ontario. I can report to hon. members that in my opinion the exercise was a first class course of instruction in the type of co-operation that can be achieved among different levels of government in working to achieve a common purpose. The participation by both federal and provincial officials in the exercise was of the greatest use in indicating to them at governmental level the responsibilities that would be theirs and the way in which those responsibilities could be carried out.
I must express at this time my appreciation of the participation of Premier Frost and his cabinet, most of whom were present at the provincial headquarters at Camp Borden, as well as my appreciation of the participation of the large number of provincial members who showed interest. After all, this is one matter in which the provinces must indicate a continuing interest because it deals with the fundamental area of property and civil rights, damage to property and the survival of the person in the form of the individual.
I was also most interested in the split speech of the hon. member for Peterborough. When he first spoke on September 13 I was ready to excuse some of his remarks because I thought he might have entered the debate on the spur of the moment and might not have had a chance to carefully examine the letter to which he referred. However, I thought that between then and now he would have availed himself of the expert opinion that can be had before putting on the record a letter that is incomplete and before accepting the statements contained in that letter and

Supply-Privy Council endeavouring to attack a responsible program without first having availed himself of the information that is at hand.
I should like to deal with Dr. Whittier's letter as I heard the hon. member read it, and some very significant omissions. In his letter Dr. Whittier criticizes the pamphlet "Eleven Steps to Survival" and says that a basement fall-out shelter is only 90 per cent effective whereas the pamphlet indicates that such a shelter is 99 per cent effective. What the doctor and the hon. member have omitted to indicate is that the reference is to a basement shelter, that the protection afforded by the house itself is equivalent to 10 per cent, and as 10 per cent of 90 is 9 you therefore arrive at 99 per cent.
The same thing applies to all the other arguments advanced by way of criticism of this type of shelter. The letter refers to radiation areas equivalent to direct blast, not to such areas as those for which the fall-out shelter suggested by the emergency measures organization is designed. This shelter is designed to deal with the fall-out to which it is anticipated that Canadians would be subjected in the unlikely event that there was ever an atomic explosion in this, or a neighbouring country. The hon. member has completely overlooked these things. I draw to the attention of the pedagogue from Peterborough that one of the rules of pedagogy is that you know your facts. In this instance the hon. member has completely failed to substantiate the letter he received. Perhaps he was overly impressed with the degree the doctor holds and did not go into the merits to see whether the criticism advanced by the doctor is warranted.


Walter George Pitman: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say I have checked some of these facts with other physicists who have experience in this field. Furthermore, he is dealing with fall-out shelters not in a blast area. As far as blast is concerned, we all know that these basement shelters are of no use whatsoever, so I think the hon. member should be fair.


John Cameron Pallett: I am endeavouring to be fair, and I point out to the hon. member that he was dealing with fall-out in a blast area where the concentration is the highest. The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak again. Surely he does not suggest that everywhere in Canada the degree of fall-out suggested by Dr. Whittier is going to take place. If he does, then he just does not have any conception of what is going on, and I suggest that he devote himself to attentive reading of the material that is available to find out what is going on in this particular field. The $500 basement shelter to which he


refers provides an opportunity for the individual to survive, and after all we are talking about the survival of the individual. As a socialist he does not understand individuals.
I was rather surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Niagara Falls, who talked about central survival systems. Man's basic philosophy is his own survival and the survival of those who are dependent on him. This is a method by which under fall-out such as is anticipated the individual man and his family, if they are home at the time anything happens, can have the assurance of some protection. This is an effort that the individual himself can make. The cost is an estimate. A man can do it himself and it will not cost nearly $500. If he wants to call in a first class contractor then it will cost that much. This is a constructive and forward step taken by this government to aid an individual in doing what he can to help himself, in taking those steps which are necessary to protect himself and his family from fall-out that may result in the unlikely event that an atomic explosion ever takes place in this country.
The hon. member for Peterborough, in what I might term his multibarrelled peashooter criticism, endeavoured to bring the Associate Minister of National Defence into this debate by referring to his suggestion that limited war was unlikely. The hon. member denied, therefore, the very principle of the N.D.P. or, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate terms it, the S.O.P., that there will not be an atomic war. The hon. member should be consistent, but perhaps it is not within the realm of possibility for him to be consistent. If they are right in their defence policy, in which they say there will not be an atomic war and no steps should be taken to deal with an atomic war, then he should not get up in this house and try to alarm the Canadian people by saying there is going to be massive obliteration by atomic bombs of this country. In doing so he surrenders completely his responsibility as a member of this house. The speech which he made was self-contradictory of the views of the party to which he professes to belong.
Since hon. members are criticizing the things we are doing in this country. I would refer them to the September 25, 1961 issue of U.S. News. I do not know whether this is where the hon. member obtained his information about Dr. Teller's views, but they are mentioned here. What are other countries doing in this respect? I quote:
Japan, the only country that actually has experienced atomic bombing, has no national plans for defending her people in a nuclear war ...
The British show less concern than Americans about the danger of a nuclear attack. Britain's

civil defence corps is dying on its feet because the government has not been able to get enough people seriously interested in It...
French optimism: Nuclear bomb shelters are practically unheard of in France. A French official says: "Most people here think nuclear war is unbelievable."
West Germans show no interest in building bomb shelters ...
In Belgium, Holland, Sweden and Italy you find the same story-nobody building shelters for a nuclear attack.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In Sweden there are all kinds of shelters.


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member will have his opportunity to speak. These are responsible statements made about the other western countries which are not advancing at the same rate as Canada with respect to civil defence. We know what we are doing in this country with respect to civil defence measures.
The hon. member for St. Boniface indicated that in the event bombers were shot down, there would be atomic explosions as a result. I can tell him that my information is quite to the contrary; these bombs will not explode. There have been instances, as we know, in the United States where bombers have actually crash landed and the bombs have not exploded.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: May I ask a question?
Mr. Pallet!: I know the hon. member is an expert in this field and has made a lengthy study of these questions. The technical information leads us to believe that the bombs would not explode unless they had been activated and that, of course, would be highly unlikely in the event a missile or bomber were shot down.
This is a good program for individual participation. It is a program that needs the assistance of the members of this house because it deals with the survival of a man, his wife and his family. It is disconcerting to have a member stand up and criticize, without foundation, a program that is designed to help a man and his family. The hon. member for Niagara Falls mentioned the Voice of Women, an organization is this country. I refer her to the most recent Russian news letter, which says that the Russian women are in full support of the Russian atomic explosions. This is something that should be brought to her attention.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why contrast the two. That is unfair to Canadian women.


John Cameron Pallett: I bring that to her attention.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not a member of the Voice of Women, but I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that there are a number of responsible women who
Supply-Privy Council are, and one of them is the president of the Progressive Conservative organization.


John Cameron Pallett: Not any more.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In any event, the purpose of the organization is to join with the women of Russia, the United States and the other countries in the world in an attempt to eliminate wars. This is not an attempt to subvert this or any other government, but it is an attempt to reach from one woman to another across the nations and as such it should not be condemned.
While I am on my feet may I ask the hon. member if what he is proposing is that while governments wage war, individuals may protect themselves? I have asked the question of the Prime Minister and perhaps his parliamentary secretary could answer it. What is being done about those who cannot protect themselves and who are in likely blast or target areas?


John Cameron Pallett: I point out to the hon. member that I am not offering any criticism of the Voice of Women. I am merely pointing out, since she mentioned their name, that the voice of Russian women is in support of atomic testing in Russia.
It is just about one o'clock and I should like to conclude, if I may. This is a program for the individual who can, with his own hands, achieve some measure of protection against the fall-out dangers inherent in an atomic explosion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the children in school; what can they do?


John Cameron Pallett: This basement shelter program is designed to give to a man and his family those first few days of survival that are so essential.


Harold Edward Winch: This is absolute nonsense, but may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Harold Edward Winch: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I listened with a good deal of amazement to the oratorical outburst of the hon. member who spoke previously. I refer to the hon. member for Peel. In this item in the estimates of the privy council we have before us one of the utmost importance and one which must be considered, in the light of its presentation, the allocation of money and the statements made by the Prime Minister and others, as one that is

Supply-Privy Council
being considered on the basis of national survival in the event of an all-out nuclear war which we hope and pray will never occur. I was therefore not only amazed but surprised and disappointed by the attitude taken by the hon. member for Peel. As far as I am concerned, I can only interpret his speech as being one made from the position of an apologist of government policy and proposals on expenditure, as one put up as a sharpshooter endeavouring to shoot down members who take this matter seriously and who want to ask serious questions and to get constructive answers. In other words, it could only leave with me the impression, on the basis of what he said, that the government policy and proposal is paper talk and poppycock and that basically what we in this House of Commons and the people have received up until now is propaganda oratory.


Mr. Churchill:: No; that is not right.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister will have his chance just as I am having mine. The reason I say that in particular is to be found in the opening remarks of the hon. member for Peel when, in substantiation of his support of the government's approach, proposals and policies on national survival, civil defence, or call it what you will, he based his experience-and these were his opening remarks-on what he had seen and what he had knowledge of from having had the opportunity of taking part in exercise TOCSIN.
The Prime Minister did as I think he should have done with regard to exercise TOCSIN. He announced it in the House of Commons. He told us that it was to be a realistic exercise in facing the problems of nuclear attack against Canada, with bombs falling on Canada, in order to demonstrate just what could be done on a dominion-provincial basis to carry on the functions of government in Canada. The Prime Minister was good enough to invite two members of the opposition to take part in exercise TOCSIN-and I want to thank him for the invitation-and to be among those evacuated from Ottawa to Petawawa. I was one of those who were invited and I went all through that exercise. It is because of what I saw and because I was given the right and opportunity to ask questions and get answers-and here again I wish to thank the Prime Minister-that I am speaking now. I say very seriously that we must consider just what are government policy and proposals for survival, especially in view of-and I am coming back to the hon. member for Peel- what I saw on exercise TOCSIN, which was a federal exercise from Ottawa to Petawawa,

designed to carry on the operations of government, carry on communications with all the provinces, to maintain the economy as best we could and to provide for the defence of Canada. May I very briefly run through that experience which was a practical one or a tactical one, as we were told by the Prime Minister.
First of all, a train must be on 20 minutes call at all times-and it was there-in order to move the government or the ministers, their deputies and the administrative heads, the chief personnel of the army and the civil service, to the only underground shelter we have and which is located at Petawawa. It takes a couple of hours to get up to Petawawa. I imagine anyone who is going to attack Canada will have saboteurs here. At least I imagine they would do so. First, may I say that there was no security check whatsoever. I never saw anybody challenged.


John George Diefenbaker: They saw you coming.


Harold Edward Winch: Then I am glad they understood my loyalty and my patriotism and recognized me. However, I saw many whom I did not recognize and I never saw them being checked. I know the premier was not there. That was very unfortunate, because he died at five o'clock in the afternoon.


An hon. Member:: Which premier?


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we may say many things about the Prime Minister, but it would be unfair to say that was true.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure what the hon. member said. Did he say it was unfortunate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Harold Edward Winch: I did not think so. However, according to exercise TOCSIN, Ottawa was wiped out shortly after five o'clock that afternoon; and you, sir, had stayed in Ottawa. There you have this practical, tactical exercise on survival conducted by the federal government, with all these civil and governmental operations.
During the time spent between Ottawa and Petawawa, no communications were kept on the train. So if you had been there, sir, according to this tactical exercise all your heads of government, your chiefs of staff, your ministers, your deputy ministers and your chief personnel would have been completely out of touch with what was happening in Canada during that period.
This was a tactical, practical exercise, so I asked where the communications were kept on the train. The answer was that they did not know whether they had any, but they most likely had. The government wanted

to keep down the expense of this exercise and that is why there was no communications system.
We arrived in Petawawa. There we were immediately told what the situation was, and of course your cabinet, sir, and everybody else would have been completely out of touch during the time it took to travel from Ottawa to Petawawa. We were briefed on the situation. Then we were taken around and shown all the administrative set-up. Then we received the warning that just outside Petawawa there had been an atomic explosion so we had time, because it takes a little while for the radiation to come down, to go underground. This tactical, practical exercise was truly an experience. The chief personnel of the federal government, sir, your chiefs of staff, your heads of police were all there and in all probability would have had to stay there for up to 2J weeks because this explosion was just outside Petawawa.
What did we find? We learned at about 10 minutes after five o'clock I think it was-I may be a little bit out in the time-from the teletype underground that Ottawa had been bombed. If I remember correctly, there were
60,000	dead and I do not know how many injured. But Ottawa was out. Underground in Petawawa there was the administrative control of all Canada, and nearly all of them came from Ottawa. I asked one question immediately, "Ottawa is out?", and the answer was, "Yes". I asked, "What is the reaction of all these people here? Their wives, husbands, children, sweethearts and parents are all dead". This information had just come over the teletype. The answer I received was, "Well, they are just carrying on with their work". Like the blazes they would carry on with their work, if that was the real situation. I asked what was the situation to take care of the psychological factor involved in what had occurred. I was told that this had not yet been considered.
If this had been a real attack, sir, these people would probably have had to remain underground for up to 2J weeks, if there were radiation outside. I asked, "That is why you are here, and you are not going to open the doors. Where are you going to put your dead?" I was shown a refrigerator which would hold one corpse.


An hon. Member:: Did you try it for size?


Harold Edward Winch: There was just this one refrigerator. I am being very serious, sir. This was the TOCSIN exercise as I saw it.


An hon. Member:: Don't be ridiculous.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not being ridiculous; I am telling the committee what I saw. In this situation communications all across Canada
90205-6-555
Supply-Privy Council would be of the utmost importance. We were shown over all the communications system. They were proud of their system and they had reason to be. But this they did tell us, Mr. Prime Minister, that it was not the latest, most up-to-date, efficient equipment.
Moreover, all the communications mechanism and teletypes were underground, but the actual dispatch system was above ground. This was an old building that had been converted for this purpose. There may be some other building under construction at the moment and I understand there is, but I am talking about the TOCSIN exercise which was carried out, and the government of Canada would have to continue.
If there were any leakage of radiation it would be in the corridors, and people would have to live for a long time in the offices and rooms. However, that aspect of the matter had not been planned very well. There was air conditioning in every office and every room, and all the air was filtered. But there were no tight doors, so there was ventilation that could not be shut out by closed doors. Therefore it was the same as being wide open, and these people could not have been protected in any way in the event of radiation escaping into the building. It cannot be said that this is ridiculous. The hon. member was talking about exercise TOCSIN. This is what I saw in the exercise. These are the questions we asked. This is the type of planning and engineering carried out by the government. This is how the money would be spent.
Perhaps more important than that is this matter. I do not think we have yet heard any statement from the Prime Minister or others in the government about this. I wonder whether or not since TOCSIN No. 1 the government has been able to work out the relationship with other governmental jurisdictions so that in the event of attack and national survival operations being put into immediate effect government could be carried on.
Let us not forget this. In this house we have listened on many occasions to speeches on constitutional jurisdiction, jurisprudence, control and matters of that sort. The hon. member for Peel was the federal co-ordinator, I believe, in Manitoba.


John Cameron Pallett: Peel is in Ontario.


Harold Edward Winch: I know, but I thought the hon. member was the federal co-ordinator in Manitoba. During the TOCSIN exercise I asked what was the actual statutory authority of a federal co-ordinator.


John George Diefenbaker: The War Measures Act.

Supply-Privy Council


Harold Edward Winch: I asked whether the authority was clear under the War Measures Act. I was told that they thought it was. A message came in from all the provinces on the devastation which occurred according to this exercise, and they needed, I think it was 15,000 men to be moved from one area to another. I asked the question, "Where is the statutory authority when a person is endangered by being moved to an area of devastation?" While I was there, over the teletype came a request for the movement of 12,000 workers from one area to another. This I can tell the Prime Minister. The answer I got when I asked that question was, "That is a problem and we are working on it".
I should like to know whether or not that problem has been worked out? I am only telling the committee what I was told. They said they thought it would require legislation of the House of Commons. I think we should know these things because these are the types of questions that were asked on that TOCSIN exercise in which we were invited to take part by the Prime Minister. These are the things we saw; we just did not hear about them. I am not talking about something I have read in the newspapers; I am talking about something I saw, and I only saw it because of the courtesy of the Prime Minister in allowing us to go on that trip. These are some of the answers I received to the questions I asked. I think we are entitled to more detailed information about the program, about the policy and its effectiveness.
I think the hon. member for Peel made the most serious mistake of his life when he criticized what was said by the hon. member for Peterborough, who was only asking the government to face reality and answer some of the questions which are in the minds of some of the people of this country. It is not good enough to tell the people in a blatant manner what they should do. The average individual in Canada is not in a position to build a shelter. I represent a strictly working class constituency-a heavily populated constituency in the middle of Vancouver. I imagine this would be a target area, so-called, in the event of an attack. Very few of the people who live there could afford to build a shelter which might cost between $500 and $900. Moreover, the majority of the people who live in my area do not own their own homes. They rent their accommodation, and the average man is not going to spend upwards of $500 building a shelter in a home he rents-a home in which he may not be living in a year's time. I have yet to hear of one landlord who will put one in.

I think we have to face this situation. In addition, we may as well stop this stupid saying that the position today is better than it was in past years. Every well informed writer I have read on this subject says that any war which starts out as a conventional war is likely to develop into a nuclear war, and this means a nuclear war without restriction. This leads us to the marvellous phrase used by the Prime Minister-"coexistence or nonexistence". The item we are now discussing is provision for the event that we may have to face the possibility of non-existence. From what the hon. member for Peel outlined, I cannot see this government, its ministers or their deputies continuing to exist in the event of an atomic attack, judging by what I saw in Petawawa, if that is to be their protection. That was a tactical exercise, I believe, and I think I am correct in saying that when it was over there were only 11 members of the House of Commons still alive. I never did find out whether that would mean I would have any spot in the administration, but that is by the way. These are serious matters and we approach them in a constructive manner. I am confident at any rate, that the people do not want any shilly-shallying. They are prepared to hear and discuss hard facts. They want to know whether there is any possibility of survival in the event of a nuclear attack on Canada. If there is, they want to know what is to be done and how they can do it as individuals. I believe that the individuals in Canada cannot do it. I doubt whether even Canada as a nation can do it with a population spread over 2,700 miles and up to the Arctic circle. We are asking not for bombast but for realism, honesty and frankness in dealing with the public so that they may have a better understanding of the picture. Though I have no authority for saying this I have no hesitation in telling the committee that if we could get a practical program, the money to operate it and the means to operate it in the event of a world catastrophe which we all hope will never come about, then the Prime Minister would receive the wholehearted support of members of this group because we want to see people live and not be evaporated, as was mentioned by a great speaker in England, in the event of a world holocaust of nuclear death.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: This morning I made a quotation from memory concerning the danger from bombers or missiles which might be stopped by our own military defences. I mentioned Wing Commander Sir John Hodsoll, chief civil defence adviser to NATO.
I should have mentioned Dr. Alvin C. Graves, scientific adviser to the Nevada test site operations, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

On August 1, 1955, this is what Dr. Graves said while addressing a convention of mayors and representatives of municipalities:
People in Canada have a problem which is somewhat different from the problems of the people in the United States. The reason for that is the geometry of the earth and the line-up of the powers of the earth today. The reason is that if an aircraft were dispatched to attack the United States under present circumstances we would expect it to come over the North Pole of the earth down from the Arctic regions and down through the plains or the mountains or eastern portion of Canada, attack some targets in Canada, attack many targets in the United States. The plan would be to try to shoot as many of these planes down as possible.
I would like to say one thing, though. When those airplanes are shot down they will carry with them the atomic bombs or thermo-nuclear bombs with which they were dispatched. What of these weapons? Will they crash to the ground and do nothing? I cannot answer that question since I do not know the Russian plan, but it is perfectly possible to put a mechanism on an atomic or thermonuclear bomb such that it will detonate when it drops below a certain altitude. It is perfectly possible to provide that it will detonate when it strikes the ground.
I think we would be more than foolish if we did not at least assume that the Russians might do that.
Those are not my words. They are the words of an expert telling Canada and Canadians what to expect. I know the hon. member for Peel has explained that full protection will be provided against atomic explosions in the event of accidents in peacetime to planes carrying nuclear weapons. However, the Russians, sending over planes or missiles to bomb targets in North America, would not want to waste their bombs; they would want them to explode no matter where they might fall.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Centre on the wonderful address he gave this morning. I should like to congratulate him on being the only member of the house to take the civil defence course at Arnprior. I know that if the people of Canada were properly trained and taught how to safeguard themselves against danger they could face an emergency without panic. They would be able to do the normal things when this emergency would begin. I suggest that no school teacher should be given a degree or permit until he had taken a civil defence course and that no school student should be given a certificate of promotion until he or she had taken such a course. I think that is the place to start-in the schools. Let us train all our children. We hope the danger will not come soon, but it may. Let us not wait until those students have become adults. They should receive full training with the least expense. Teachers might be given an extra allowance by the government in order to take the training. They should be paid an allowance for teaching these extra subjects 90205-6-555J
Supply-Privy Council in the schools. These things are being done elsewhere. I suggest this is the time to start.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested to note the reaction of the hon. member for Peterborough and the hon. member for Vancouver East to the government's proposals in the field of civil defence. The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on stimulating these two members to take the interest they have shown in recent days in this problem. They are almost rebels, Mr. Chairman. They are unique in the party or parties to which they belong. I think I can say something about this. I was the federal commissioner for Saskatchewan during exercise TOCSIN, and one of the things that impressed itself on my mind at that time was the lack of seriousness which the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan showed with respect to that exercise and the little regard that the provincial premier and the members of his cabinet paid to the safety of the people of their province as evidenced by their co-operation in that exercise. The lack of co-operation was manifest. There was not a single cabinet minister from the province of Saskatchewan who took part in that exercise, not one. Not one even had the courtesy to come to civil defence headquarters to take part in it, although we had nine representatives from junior positions in the provincial civil service.
To demonstrate the intense interest of the C.C.F. in saving the people of Saskatchewan in the event of nuclear war we might examine the contribution they made to that exercise in the field of medical component, the medical side, where surely I would think that if that government were going to take the exercise seriously they would see that there would be adequate medical components represented there; but there was not one from the province, not one single representative of the provincial medical staff or the provincial health services.
Another example of the active interest of that government in saving the people in the event of nuclear attack was the interest evidenced in regard to the problem of transportation which inevitably would become a problem. Roads have to be kept clear and maintained. There has to be transportation for different facilities of rescue, survival, food and so on. Therefore one would imagine there would be a large provincial component in the field of transportation in such an exercise, particularly when the provincial government owns the bus lines in that province. What was the provincial representation from Saskatchewan in regard to transportation in the field of bus, road or air transportation? It was nil. They could not turn a wheel, my friend from Provencher says. The contribution of the only elected C.C.F. government in
8796	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council the history of this country was practically nil. The regard in which they held this problem was less than nil.
If the two members who have spoken from that corner, the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member from Peterborough, could form themselves into a committee of two to wait upon the leader of their party, the present premier of Saskatchewan, and give him the benefit of their ideas and suggestions in this particular field, they might stimulate his interest and show him that rebels in the new party might be successful in their attempts to draw the attention of that party to the vital things which affect the Canadian people.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I do wish to answer one or two remarks made by the hon. member for Peel. I am not going to say anything about the speech which preceded his. Of course, in relation to other provinces I should like to know just what is taking place in each area. Of course I do not agree with what the hon. member for Peel suggested. He said that nothing constructive had been said because no one mentioned the measures which the Prime Minister referred to. Nobody suggested that less money should be appropriated. What we are concerned about is that so far the ordinary emergency measures have not made a very good effect upon the people of Canada.
This afternoon some 60 members are sitting in this chamber. They have a better opportunity to know what is going on than any other group in Canada. I wonder how many in this chamber have built a fall-out shelter in their basements, what percentage would there be. This is a rather interesting question to ask, and it would also be interesting to get some statistics on it. This is the problem we are trying to deal with. We do not think this has yet made any impact on the people of Canada. This is why we are taking an active part in this debate.
The hon. member for Peel suggested that the remarks I made this morning dealt with fall-out in blast areas. Well, of course, the hon. member knows, or at least he should know, that there may be no fall-out at all in the blast area. Climatic conditions may cause fall-out away from the blast area. It might be swept into other areas by the prevailing winds and very little fall in the blast area.
We seem to be in complete disagreement as to how much fall-out there might be. The hon. member for Peel says, "we believe it would be a certain amount". On what basis does he arrive at this conclusion. I realize he may have privileged documents at his disposal which are not available to the rest


of us, but nevertheless this is a question on which we will never know who is right; at least we do not want to know on the basis on which we can find out.
He turned on a member of his own party who was trying to explain this morning just how serious the situation is. The hon. member for Peel made a passing reference to the socialists and said we evidently do not believe in the liberty of individuals. With
323,000	people unemployed and all their dependents, with some 400,000 people unemployed recently and all of their dependents, and with the possibility of many thousands in farm communities making less than $2,000 a year, would it not be a difficult problem for them to get this much money together? The hon. member for Peel and his party say that they are for individual enterprise. Certainly this does not apply only to the wealthy. I should hope not. Surely this does not mean every man for himself, or, as our leader put it, as the elephant said when he danced among the chickens. I am sure he did not mean it that way.
I have only one or two more points to make. The hon. member also referred to the voice of women. I am sure he will correct himself in this regard. He referred to them in the same breath as the women in the U.S.S.R. who had made some statements about nuclear testing. I am sure he is not attempting to link these two situations and bring into disrepute an organization which is asking questions, perhaps embarrassing questions, but necessary ones.
Finally he suggested that there is a great difference between our attitude on survival and that of the officers of this particular political party. Our survival policy is very simple. It is based on the fact that a war may start, and no one in Canada can make that decision because we will not have the weapons to make such a decision. It can happen by accident. We recognize that is the situation just as I am sure the Prime Minister does. That is the basis of our survival policy.
On the other hand, our defence policy is that we do not want Canada to encourage such a war to take place. That is the basis of oui refusal to accept nuclear weapons. I can assure you that we in this group are seeking to find the answers to survival. We do not believe we have the answers. We do not believe that the government really thinks that it has all the answers. We are trying to ask questions and put forward proposals in a constructive way, and I hope that in future our position will be clear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the discussion on this subject. What I have to say will be

said with a full realization of the difficulty involved in trying to plan for an adequate program to protect our people in the event of a nuclear war. In my opinion this subject is too important to permit us to be involved in digressions that are not directly related to a solution of the problem.
I think this is perhaps the most difficult problem facing any government in any country of the world at this time. I say that not only because of what I have listened to today and what I have read, but also because at one time, I had a responsibility in connection with this matter. Anyone who has had that responsibility will appreciate that the problem is indeed a gigantic one. This does not mean that we should not put forward ideas in discussing the present government's program with a view to improving that program. If that is done it should not be thought that we are engaging in idle criticism. Certainly that is not what I rose to do at this time.
I am not fully convinced that the problem of leadership in this matter, which is essential, is one that can most effectively be met by the ministerial division that exists at present. I am not asserting this dogmatically. But when the Prime Minister announced a year or two ago that the responsibility for civil defence would be divided between the privy council office, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Justice I wondered if such a division of responsibility was the wisest course. I do not suggest that there is not a function for all of these departments, and, even for other departments, to discharge. But it seems to me that the over-all direction of civil defence requires constant attention to the problem in its full context.
The Prime Minister, it is true, when questioned about this by me at the time, did say that direction would be given by all four ministers, but that we could look to the Minister of National Defence as die one to whom questions should normally be directed. I took it from that and from something that General Pearkes later said that General Pearkes would be regarded as the minister in the government at that time who might be looked upon as the spokesman for the government with respect to matters having general application to the problem of civil defence, but that this did not preclude the Prime Minister from dealing with the estimates now before us. The Prime Minister is a busy man. It would seem to me that it would be difficult for him to give the kind of over-all attention which I believe is required. However, I may
Supply-Privy Council be wrong in this. Perhaps the Prime Minister will comment on this point when the moment for doing so arrives.
I recognize, of course, that in the privy council office, under the Prime Minister, are individuals who for a long time have been interested in this problem, and who had experience in certain aspects of civil defence before their transfer to the privy council office. I know from personal experience that the Clerk of the Privy Council has always had an intelligent and deep interest in this problem. He is responsible for the war book, and I am sure that the Prime Minister and those associated with him have had much to do with the program involved in E.M.O. with regard to such things as providing for the transfer of government and the like.
The hon. member for Peel spoke today and I do not think he did full justice to himself or to the cause which he was seeking to champion. It is not a question whether this government is doing more than any other government in the western world. It is not a question whether, in the light of greater knowledge and greater tension, the government is doing more in this field than its predecessor. We are not going to resolve this question by seeking to engage in that kind of argumentation.
The hon. gentleman spoke of the shelter program and said that the general directions given by the government were not fully appreciated by some hon. members, who had participated in the debate, because they had failed to recognize that this program was one directed toward individual participation. If by that the hon. gentleman meant that we cannot have a successful civil defence effort unless every individual citizen takes an interest, then I fully agree with that characterization by the hon. member for Peel. Obviously if the people of Coventry do not want to provide for their defence in the event of a nuclear war, no effort on the part of the government or on the part of their fellow citizens is going to provide the necessary defence.
In that sense what the hon. gentleman said is correct. But if by individual participation he meant that the whole problem, say in the matter of shelters, was to be left to the individual, then I believe the hon. member has not fully stated the case. I am sure it is not the intention of the government, or of any government which directs itself to this problem, that the civil defence organization is to be predicated upon exclusive individual participation. If that were the case, we would not be concerned with the building up of supplies, the storage of medical supplies, preparations for the storage of food, the building

Supply-Privy Council of emergency hospitals and the like. There is a very wide area of collective effort without which there can be no successful civil defence effort.
Just as that is the case, so too is it that in a country like our own the job cannot be done only by the federal government. There must be the fullest co-operation at all levels by all governments, provincial governments, municipal governments, supplemented by voluntary organizations, the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance, all of them together providing a collective effort on the part of the citizens and the community as a whole. So that in that sense what the hon. gentleman for Peel said is not correct.
He was greatly in error, of course, when he spoke about shelters and what was being done in other countries. If I understood him correctly, he said, for instance, that in Sweden no shelters were being built. Well, that is not the case. Not only are individual shelters being built in Sweden but the state has built all kinds of shelters, and this they have been doing for some time. In fairness to the situation in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, I may say that the provocation for Sweden to engage in a large program of public shelter construction is much greater or was much greater than in the case of those countries with which I have just compared Sweden. The fact is that Sweden has built underground shelters, taking advantage of their great rock formations, large shelters where not only can people go for refuge, security and safety, but shelters where there are actually large industrial establishments and the like. So that in Sweden, contiguous as it is to the Soviet union and with the provocation that exists, there is a wide program of public shelters as well as individual construction of these devices to minimize the effects of blast or fall-out.
Now, the government is wise in giving direction in the presentation of prototypes of shelters. It is wise in bringing the pamphlets up to date and indicating there is a great deal that can be done by the individual to protect himself against nuclear war. I completely subscribe to the view of the Prime Minister that whatever may be the cataclysmic destructive consequences of nuclear war, there is much that can be done to save percentages of our population in the event of a nuclear war. There is much that can be done, and it is a policy of defeat on the part of anyone to take any other view. Certainly, it is not strengthening the deterrent to say that all we have to do is sit back and take whatever is levelled against us by a would-be aggressor. There is a great deal that can be done. That is why the government


of this country, and other countries, must at this time be supported in the efforts they are making to try to give the necessary direction.
I know that this is not an easy problem by any means. What are we to do? The government has said shelters can be built and these shelters can provide a great measure of security and resistance to blast and fall-out. But the government has not, I realize the difficulty, indicated if the time has arrived or whether in the future it will be proper to give consideration to much wider participation by the state itself in the construction of shelters. I have read the interesting speech made by the hon. member for Trinity who participated in this debate following the statement made by the Prime Minister on September 13. The government has not stated unequivocally if it is prepared to embark on the kind of program that has been embarked on by Sweden, for instance.
Has the government reached a decision yet as to whether or not the federal government and provincial governments together, or with the municipalities, should begin to build public shelters? Now, that is the great issue which I believe is being discussed at the moment and being canvassed in our country. Are we to leave this responsibility to build shelters exclusively to the individuals, to the fathers and mothers of families, or are we to supplement private construction for individual family purposes by a contribution from the state to build a shelter in the individual home which will serve undoubtedly the purpose intended if the construction follows the recommended line? However, this is not going to provide all the shelter that will be needed in the event of nuclear war. Supposing a nuclear war takes place during school hours. The children are not going to be at home, they are going to be in school. Are we going to provide shelters for these thousands of children in the schools. Most of our working population will not be at home during certain hours of the day. They will not be able to rush from the factory or the office to take shelter in the family basement. They will require shelter forthwith at their place of work.
Unless the government builds shelters, the only way they can be provided will be for industry to build them, or the office people in a building to collectively get together and build a shelter, or the individuals in a school to collectively pool their resources to build a school shelter. These are the problems about which we have not yet had a decision and in connection with which there has not been any declaration of government policy. The cost of building shelters on the scale that I have been envisaging is tremendous. I noted that the hon. member for Trinity mentioned

a figure of $4 billion. He may be right in his estimate, but I have seen a much higher figure. It is the responsibility of the government to decide, in the light of all our obligations, what should be done in this regard.
The government is in a better position now to determine the likelihood of war. We were all encouraged by the statement of the Prime Minister the other day when he did not believe we would have what the newspapers call in their headlines, a hot war. With the information that is at his disposal, this is a heartening statement. He will have to determine, as head of the government, whether or not that situation may deteriorate, whether or not with the expansion of the ownership of nuclear weapons to other countries than those now in possession of these instruments of destruction, the danger of miscalculation or of accident will become increasingly great. He will have to assess the consequences of such development.
I simply say, speaking for myself, that I believe it is the duty of each and every member of parliament, as I am sure all of us recognize, to support the administration in the effort it is making. We have a responsibility also to indicate what we believe are the areas in which decisions have yet to be made. I believe it is not unfair to suggest that the government should announce its policy in that context or indicate why it does not feel at this time it has to go farther than it has gone.
Now, these general remarks will be interpreted in various ways, I suppose, by various people, but I have stated my views as I conscientiously see them. However, I make them in the full sense of an effort to try to contribute to the solution of what I know to be an extremely difficult problem.
My final comment is this, I believe the hon. member for Peel did an injustice to some of the women of our country when he spoke just before noon. He contrasted the views of the women of the Soviet union as expressed in a document that came before him today with some Canadian women. The women who have organized themselves into the Voice of Women or "La voix des Femmes" are, as far as I can tell, an organization of women who firmly believe, as do we all, in peace. They believe that it is up to each individual person to make a contribution and not to leave that responsibility to the government only. I think it would be wrong to suggest that they are not motivated by the best of intentions, particularly when one bears in mind the fact that this organization is sponsored by some very eminent women indeed in our own country and in the world. For instance, among them 1 find the name of Senator Josie D. Quart of Quebec city, a
Supply-Privy Council woman who has devoted much effort to promoting the United Nations society. Then I notice the name of Mrs. Roosevelt, the wife of a former president of the United States, a woman who has done so much for the United Nations and for good international relations. I also find the name of Mrs. Pearson, the wife of the Leader of the Opposition and other names I do not recognize. They are the names of women who in their own country are distinguished and who have made great contributions. I notice the name of Mrs. Adelaide Sinclair, formerly of the Department of National Health and Welfare, now the director general of the children's committee with headquarters at the United Nations. She is one of our most distinguished women and is certainly associated with women who can be in no way regarded as having produced evidence of having a lesser interest in our welfare than have any of us. Then I notice the name of Mrs. Wendell Willkie, the wife of a former candidate for the presidency of the United States. I note that the chairman is Miss Muriel W. Jacobson. Miss Jacobson was national director of the Canadian committee for world refugee year in 1959-60. From 1952 to 1957, she headed the voluntary international assistance unit in UNESCO's New York office in the United Nations. I believe she is now corresponding in Canada for the United Nations high commissioner for refugees. I do not know Miss Jacobson and I do not know all the women whose names I have mentioned, nor have I mentioned other women who are on the board of directors. I know little about the organization. However, I know of the contribution made by these women to our national life. I believe that they are sincere women who believe that only by mobilizing public opinion can they support a government in its declared policy of peace and goodwill.


John Ferguson Browne: I shall be very brief in taking part in this debate. There is certainly no need in urging on anyone a strong civil defence program for this country. That is generally being agreed upon by those who have taken part in the debate. However, for any civil defence program to succeed, it must be accepted by the public and be supported by every person in the country. I therefore think it is most important that we stress the positive values of a civil defence program.
Most of those who have spoken have indicated that we are living in a dangerous world and that, whatever may be our efforts at the United Nations and elsewhere to maintain peace in the world, there is always the risk of nuclear war, and that if we are going
8800	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council to survive we must have fall-out shelters and a civil defence program in this country. However, I think that the possibilities of civil defence go beyond that. In fact, in the years ahead the program of civil defence might well be the main determinant as to whether or not nuclear war comes about, when we consider the position in which we find ourselves today, with each side trying to threaten the other with nuclear weapons and in actual fact holding the people of each country as hostages in order to prevent that war coming about. However, we realize that situation is brought about only because each side is afraid that in the event of nuclear war its population would be destroyed. That is the theory of the deterrent that we have been a party to. However, when you consider the possibility of one side having a very strong civil defence and being able to remove their population from the position of hostages, it certainly would put the other side in a much stronger position. Hence we can see that if the Soviet union were to go on a massive program of civil defence and place themselves in a position in which their population could be protected whereas the population in the western world were vulnerable to a nuclear attack, we would be placing ourselves in a very dangerous position. If it were the intention of the Soviet union to bring about a nuclear war then, of course, that situation could only encourage them to do so.
I therefore think there is a positive value, a deterrent value in civil defence which is just as important as is the deterrent value of our nuclear weapons. I think that this aspect should be stressed throughout the country and be pointed out to the people of the country. As I say, if that aspect is not made clear and if the people do not understand the importance of civil defence, it is very hard to gain public acceptance of such a program. There is no doubt that there has been reluctance on the part of the public to enter wholeheartedly into civil defence, because generally speaking we have considered nuclear war to be unthinkable. It is only recently that the situation has come about where we have had to face that possibility. Particularly when the stress has been laid on the fact that we must have fall-out shelters to protect us in the case of attack, I think the public have been reluctant to accept the program entirely on that basis. I think the more positive aspect is the part that a proper civil defence program can play in preserving peace and avoiding a nuclear war. This aspect should be very well to the front of any program that we put forward to stress the importance of civil defence in this country.


John George Diefenbaker: First, I wish to say that it has been most helpful to have the expression of views of hon. members on this matter. What was said a moment ago by the hon. member for Essex East was true in every respect, namely that this is a matter that requires the best thinking not only of the government and the parliament of Canada but of the provincial governments and the municipalities, as its success depends on the co-operation of each and all. I was interested in what the hon. member for Vancouver East had to say. He said it in turgid words. He described what took place on the occasion of the last exercise. It has always been the policy to have an unprejudiced and unbiased person such as he on an exercise like this, in order to have the benefit of such views as the hon. member expressed regarding an exercise that is part of the survival plan and as such transcends any party considerations.
The hon. member mentioned the need of full liaison between federal, provincial and municipal governments and, while maintaining the constitutional separations of authority, to bring them together in days of peace so that if war should come the plan would have been completed and in effect.
I would say that exercise was a helpful one. It revealed how things would be in actual operation. The hon. member mentioned that he travelled by train and that no security precautions were taken. I can assure him that everybody knew him and such precaution was entirely unnecessary, as it was with the others who boarded that train that day. If he has any idea that he travelled to Petawawa without being identified by the security authorities, I can assure him, that is not a fact.
The hon. member pointed out that authorities there advised him that the signal equipment was not the most modern. That was so. More modern signal equipment had already been ordered and some has been delivered. The rest is generally ready. This was an exercise.
When the hon. member speaks in connection with the disposal of the dead, I can only say that his views are not accepted by those who had the responsibility of bringing together the organization that met in Petawawa. That is not to say that all was perfect. Far from it. That is the reason hon. members from all parts of the house were given the opportunity to be present. All of us are in this together, and by giving this opportunity to those who have different political viewpoints than the government we are assured that a fair measure of criticism will be made. Such criticism is necessary if this difficult problem is to be met, because we are in an

experimental position. As one hon. member said, we will only know it it works should the eventuality take place that all of us are guarding against. We are trying to do what can be done now to meet the exigencies of the future by co-operation between the various departments of government.
I am going to refer to what the hon. member for Essex East had to say about organization and the division of responsibility among various departments of government. This was an action taken following the fullest study of what was being done in other parts of the world. I believe we have reason to have a feeling of pride in having brought about the division in question, for only in recent months the United States adopted a system almost analogous with many of those things that we undertook experimentally. They have seen what our action has been and have concluded that this is the action they should undertake, and they are doing so now.
These exercises have to take place from time to time. A few weeks ago I advised the house that a further exercise had been decided upon. The government has decided that because of the current international tension and the necessity for checking the state of readiness in respect to a civil emergency, a national civil defence exercise shall be held late in October or early in November. It has now been decided that this exercise will take place on November 13, extending so far as participation by governments is concerned into November 14. This exercise follows naturally from the one held in May, 1961, in which I frankly admitted to the house certain gaps had become evident, which I believe have been remedied in the meantime as a result of that previous exercise.
It will be our endeavour in arranging this exercise that as many as possible of the Canadian public will directly participate and to a greater extent than was the case previously. With this in mind, a good deal of public information will be made available both before and during the exercise. Extensive use will be made of radio. People will be asked to listen to the broadcasts and to review the plans they have made for the safety of themselves and their families. It is hoped that full support to the exercise will be given by provincial and municipal authorities, whose responsibilities in the event of war are of major importance.
With this in mind I have written the premiers of all the provinces, inviting them to have their governments participate in the exercise and to encourage various municipalities in each of their provinces to do likewise. I would stress that this is a further step
Supply-Privy Council in a series of tests to review how ready we are to meet the grave emergencies and dangerous implications that will arise in case we are involved in war.
There is no way in peacetime that this can be done excepting by way of an exercise such as the one we held in May and the further one to which I have alluded. I agree with those who say it is difficult to command and mobilize the public interest in this matter. One hon. member mentioned the fact that I stated the other day that I could not believe it possible that there would be war. By that I meant that I could not conceive that any national leader, whether it be Khrushchev or anybody else, knowing the potentialities of nuclear war and possessing ordinary human intelligence, would wish for war or dare to make a direct move in that regard. But we said the same about Hitler, and it has been said of all the leaders of mankind who have become military megalomaniacs, that they would not go to the limit of war. In the past they have, and in the past, too, there were great fears. Those fears are with us today. Fearful as I am as to what would happen should a nuclear war come, I am not one of those who believe that mankind would be destroyed. I believe that philosophy was built up by Nevil Shute in his book and has caused the hearts of men to be more fearful than the facts of science would justify.
Certainly, the loss would be terrible. It has been estimated that in our own country if a series of nuclear attacks were made upon us the number of casualties would run between two million and six million, which is terrible however one views it. That is why our efforts are directed to bringing about peace, and that is why every waking minute and every waking year all those who have responsibilities have before them that picture of the awfulness, of the havoc of the future, and also of the need to do everything, to preserve peace, consistent with the maintenance of those things which are dearer than life itself.
When organizations spring up for the purpose of doing their part I welcome them. Any group of men and women who join together and endeavour to mobilize opinion within their country on behalf of the best things of life are performing a service; I recognize that as good citizenship. I listened today to what the hon. member for Peel said and also to those who followed him. I think they have done him a grave injustice in the interpretation they have endeavoured to place on his words. He spoke of this organization in Canada and the ideals for which it stood. Then he said that in the U.S.S.R., on the other hand, the women there were standing firmly behind the need for the maintenance and use of nuclear power. He was showing
8802	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council the distinction between those who stand for peace and those who in the U.S.S.R. become automata under the control of the state, carrying out the will of the state. We need to mobilize public thinking with regard to the precautionary measures that must be taken in order to maintain the safety of the individual in Canada. It is hard to do. We are all built the same way. Everyone says in his own heart: it just cannot be-something will turn up to prevent the outbreak of hostilities. Therefore we need the help of members of parliament and of all in public life to mobilize the thinking of Canadians to the need of acting, and acting now, to do those things necessary to provide and assure a reasonably high figure of survival. I am going to say a personal word in that regard.
As Prime Minister my responsibility is provided for in the division of powers between the various ministers. I believe in the need for a shelter program. I am entirely convinced that there is much merit in the basement fall-out program which has been placed before the Canadian people. I know there are some who leave the suggestion that we have in mind the survival of some and have not the regard for others that we should. This was implicit in certain words spoken here which I am not going to identify, although the hon. member in question will, no doubt, know of whom I am speaking. That is a principle which all of us cannot but condemn; we cannot but condemn any effort to leave the people of Canada with the view that we seek to protect those who are rich and not those who are poor. It is the responsibility of government to ensure a reasonable equality in this regard and that is one of the things which is before us at all times.
The hon. member for Essex East pointed out the tremendous cost of a national shelter program. The cost is, indeed, fabulous. All of us who have taken the time to read the information brought together by those responsible for the administration of E.M.O., know that there are vast problems in this connection which have yet not been solved here or in any other country.
I was going to say a personal word. As Prime Minister, I occupy a house on Sussex street. It was suggested to me that we should have a shelter there-a shelter really protective to the "nth" degree. That is where I shall be when and if war should come. That is where I shall stay, and we have there now a basement shelter identical with the one we have asked Canadians to put in their own homes. There is not one bit of difference between that and the one we suggest for others, excepting that this is to accommodate the staff as well as my wife and myself; it covers those in the building. That is where


we shall be. That is the understanding, and that understanding will be carried out. I want that realized across this country-that there are no protective measures being taken for the survival of any particular person in this country.
There are, however, responsibilities which rest on a government to ensure a continuance of government, for, without government and with a completely separated group of ministers, you would have chaos. To that end we have available for the purpose of ensuring the continuance of government, for the cabinet, senior civil service officials and others needed to maintain the organization of the country, protection similar to that which has been provided in other countries.
Hon. members may say to me: what will the basement shelter protect against? Well, it will not protect against a direct hit or anything like a direct hit. The only kind of shelter which would protect from that would1 be a shelter one thousand feet down in rock. What we are trying to protect against are the major dangers we face, that is, from drift, from fall-out and the after-effects from radiation. I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre made a particularly good contribution to the debate today when he emphasized the need of educating the people about this and showing them that what we are trying to do represents the considered opinion not only of the government but of all the officials and also of experts in other countries who have been consulted regarding the course we should take.
I mentioned a moment ago that we have to interest people. The hon. member for Essex East said that he had occupied a position of responsibility and he realized some of the difficulties. I shall point out some of the increases in expenditures that have taken place and of the action taken by this government as danger has become more and more imminent internationally with the passing years. In 1952 and 1953 the program was initiated of sharing expenditures. The amount expended was $1,400,000. The federal allocation to the provinces was based on 8 cents per capita plus an additional 6 cents per capita in designated target areas. Cost sharing was on the basis of 50-50 between the federal government and the provinces. In 1954-55 the appropriation was $2 million and there was a slightly higher per capita grant to the provinces, namely 11 cents per capita plus an additional 9 cents per capita in designated target areas. In cost sharing there were three alternative amounts, as follows: first, 25 per cent municipalities, 25 per cent provinces and 50 per cent federal; second, 75 per

cent municipal and 25 per cent federal; and lastly 50 per cent federal and 50 per cent provincial.
In 1957-58 cost sharing was still 50-50 as between the municipalities and the provinces on the one hand and the federal government on the other. The amount of the appropriation was $2 million.
In 1959-60 the appropriation was $4 million. As of April 1, 1959, we made provision under treasury board minute to provide more generous contributions. The federal allocation was based on a 25 cent per capita grant. Cost sharing was 75 per cent federal, with a 25 per cent share by the provinces and the municipalities, with a further provision that if any portion of $4 million remained after provincial and municipal projects submitted by May 1, 1960 had been approved and committed, further commitments could be made to the extent of the balance. In 1961-62 the appropriation is $4,350,000, and the federal allocation is the same as that in 1960-61.
This does not begin to show the total amount of the expenditure by the federal government on civil defence. That is an amount, including expenditures in the armed forces, of some $44 million.
With respect to the number of people participating, I cannot give the committee figures in detail in recent months, but the figure as of December, 1960, shows that over 100,000 volunteers and 187,000 full-time provincial and municipal employees could be engaged. Of these about 96,800 have received some training in their emergency duties.
In connection with the emergency measures being taken, all ten provinces and a total of 308 municipalities are participating. It should be noted that, depending on the province, a municipality might be a county, which means in effect over 1,200 municipalities are actually engaged in emergency measures activities.
In so far as federal expenditures are concerned, they have continued to increase. I refer particularly to grants to provinces and municipalities for civil defence and related purposes. Between 1952-53 and 1956-57 they ranged from $246,000 to $813,000, in round figures. They have increased since from $972,000 in 1957-58 to $2,245,000 last year. It is estimated that this year it will be about $3,700,000.
Mention was made by the hon. member for Essex East of the delegation and distribution of authority. I should like to refer now to what President Kennedy has done in this connection. The executive order regarding civil defence was made in the United States on July 20. The delegation of authority to
Supply-Privy Council the secretary of defence by President Kennedy assigned to the secretary of defence certain civil defence responsibilities, among others, a fall-out shelter program; the warning system; emergency communications including warning and monitoring; emergency assistance to state and local governments in a post-attack period; protection and emergency operational capability of state and local governments; and programs for financial contributions to the states for civil defence purposes.
The order reconstituted the former office of civil and defence mobilization into a new agency known as the office of emergency planning to give advice and assistance to the president in determining policy, appropriate defence roles; helping the states to enter into interstate civil defence compacts and the like.
It will be noted that the main assignments to the secretary of defence under this executive order are most similar to those assignments to the Department of National Defence in Canada by order in council in 1959. The new office of emergency planning in the United States is quite comparable with the emergency measures organization set up in Canada in 1957.
The hon. member for Vancouver East asked under what authority we would act in the event of hostilities. I mentioned the War Measures Act. During exercise TOCSIN we went through the formality of having a cabinet meeting for the purpose of bringing in the War Measures Act-the document was marked as being a defence exercise-so that we would be able to do the things to which reference was made by him and in particular the transfer, I think he said, of some
15,000	people from one area to another.
As the hon. gentleman knows, when the War Measures Act is promulgated the federal parliament and government become almost supreme, particularly in the field of legislative power, and are enabled to do those things which otherwise, under the heading of property and civil rights, would fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
I should like to refer to a question raised by the hon. member for Essex East and I think also by the hon. member for St. Boniface, who has devoted himself very greatly to this problem and was, as he described himself, in this regard a lone voice in the wilderness for a considerable period of time. The question was raised as to what should be done with respect to the schools. A strong case can be made out for the provision by school authorities of fall-out shelters in schools. This problem, however, like all the

Supply-Privy Council others to which the hon. member for Essex East referred, is tremendous in its implications. Children are actually at school only about 20 per cent of their time during a day and by far the greater part of their time is spent at home or near home. Therefore on the basis of priorities, and I think the provinces take this view, a stronger case is made for the provision of shelters in their own homes. Even in the 20 per cent of time that they are at school it is generally felt, having regard to what may be expected as the normal warning time, that they would have sufficient time to get home. However, as time goes on the case for fall-out shelters in schools to take care of the one chance in five that the children will be there when the attack comes becomes stronger. Nevertheless, starting with fundamentals I think our number one responsibility at the moment is home shelters.
Mention was made by an hon. member of target areas and what can be done in a nuclear attack to safeguard people who live in target areas. That is a problem that has not been solved by any government in any part of the world. If one is immediately under a bomb there is nothing that can be done. If the weapon is somewhat farther away blast-proof shelters are of some help but they are tremendously expensive.
We have distributed to those who have asked for them plans for a blast-proof shelter that can be built in one's yard and there are also plans available for groups or communities that may wish to undertake such shelters. Incidentally, I wish to refer to the very patriotic offer that has been made by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada and the institute of professional engineers. Representatives of these two organizations called upon me yesterday and offered to the government and the country in the interests of Canada as a whole their services and those of their membership. They promised to do whatever they can and whatever they are asked to do not in a spirit of monetary gain for professional services rendered but rather to show their interest in national survival and in the need of co-operation on the part of Canadians as a whole. The staff of the emergency measures organization is working on a cheaper form of blast-proof shelter based on using heavy steel tanks such as those used in gasoline service stations. The government has suggested to municipalities that they should have plans ready that will make it possible for those people who wish to leave target areas to do so if they so desire, always depending on whether there is adequate warning time before the explosion.
It is not recommended that all people leave such areas because there are serious conflicting considerations that arise. If the warning


time is very short it is not possible to leave at all. If one is out on the roads it is even more dangerous than taking cover in the basement of a house closer to the blast. Mass evacuation suggests itself to many as a simple means of meeting the problem but it contains serious risks of panic. There is no doubt that if the problem permitted and arrangements were made to allow a substantial number of people to leave, many thousands of people could save their lives by moving out of the most dangerous areas; but to do so they must have places to go to. They run the risk of going to some place where they are exposed to the weather and possibly the danger of fall-out radiation. For this reason the general feeling is that people should only try to move out provided they have some place to go and know of it in advance. Instructions to this effect have been given and I think they are a matter of public record.
The suggestion has been raised that the government should build blast shelters. This could not be done on a partial basis and something of the immensity of the problem was indicated by a number of hon. members. It would mean that we would have to provide for some five million to seven million people. So far as that decision is concerned, I ask you to place yourselves in the position of the Prime Minister. If we proceed with such a policy costing at least a billion dollars, some say several billions, and war does not come we will then be subject to widespread condemnation for improvident action. We have been inclined to take the stand that that is one risk we have to take, that our purpose is to save the lives of as many Canadians as possible and to see that saving those lives shall not be based on the possession or lack of possession by people of the necessary wherewithal to protect themselves.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question at that point? I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his candor in referring to target areas. Because I have seen two lists in different press reports, I would ask the Prime Minister to put on record those areas in Canada designated as primary targets by the emergency measures organization.


John George Diefenbaker: I think there is no reason why that should not be done. Without designating actual areas I would say that if a nuclear attack on North America were to include a direct attack on Canada, major cities, industrial centres, ports and seats of government such as Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Niagara Falls, Ottawa, Quebec City, St. John's, Newfoundland, Saint John, New Brunswick,

Toronto, Windsor, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Victoria could be considered as the most likely target areas.
The hon. member for Peterborough produced a letter from a Mr. Whittier. The gentleman in question wrote to the emergency measures organization expressing his views and we welcome such co-operation. I think, however, that there were some errors in the representations made which were based not on a lack of technical training but on a lack of the full knowledge of all the circumstances. The hon. member said that the correspondent stated that on page 10 of the booklet, "Eleven Steps to Survival", it is implied that the fall-out comes from activation of earth, stones, buildings, etc. but that the booklet goes on to give the decay rate for fission products arising from the fission of U-235. These statements are not inconsistent. Actually, what occurs is that the material blown up is made radioactive by the adhesion of radioactive fission product dust particles. Therefore, it is quite proper to say that the rate of decay as applied to the fission products from the fission of U-235, may be used in describing the rate of decay of the fall-out; and this is fairly applied independently of the land area over which the detonation occurs.
I think the explanation will be understood by all hon. members. With respect to the next point raised by the correspondent in the excerpt by the hon. member, it is apparent that there has been a misunderstanding on his part. It is true, as he suggests, that the shelter described in "Blueprint for Survival No. 1", of itself will stop 90 per cent of the radiation present. What has been overlooked is the fact that this structure is placed in the basement of a house. The hon. member for Peel dealt with this particular phase of the letter. In such case, the house itself will have at least a protective factor of 10. This means that the end result of the basement shelter in most houses is that the protective factor is 100 instead of 10 and that 99 per cent of the radiation, instead of 90 per cent, is taken care of.
I think there were a number of other statements in his letter, and I think they were answered in the reply which was sent to the correspondent of the hon. gentleman. If I have omitted any, it has not been from lack of a desire to meet the points raised but rather from the fact that I have not got the particulars before me.
Now, sir, mention was made of civil defence planning for cities. The federal government can plan for nuclear war as it will affect larger cities only in a general way, since circumstances vary so much. However, it can, with the provinces, help the cities in their planning and it has done so in many
Supply-Privy Council ways, namely, by providing a guide for municipal planning which has been widely circulated; by providing courses of instruction for mayors, other municipally elected persons and for civic officials; by providing financial assistance toward costs that arise in connection with local planning. The federal government pays 75 per cent of the costs of approved planning projects, as I mentioned earlier. Planning in detail, however, is the responsibility of the city in question and many of the cities in Canada have developed their plans fairly adequately.
I think that, in general, covers the matters that were raised. Again may I say how indebted I am to all who have made a contribution. We want the very best ideas that you have and that Canadians as a whole have in this regard. In concluding, I am again asking for the fullest co-operation. We have entered a field of activity that is novel; we have entered one that is dependent upon the uncertainties of the future. However, I have this to say regarding Mr. Curry and Mr. Bryce, of the privy council, as well as the administrative staff and the various staffs in the provinces, they have done a great deal and gone far beyond the normal call of duty in order to make a success of dealing with a problem which is novel, unusual, but vital to the future of the people of our country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
317. Expenses of the royal commission on railway problems including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $40,870.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Prime Minister could bring us up to date in connection with the position of this commission. The Prime Minister will recall that I asked him on the orders of the day when the second volume of the report would be ready. He told me he had a memorandum from the Clerk of the Privy Council. I should like to know now, having regard to what the Prime Minister indicated on a number of occasions, what the position is and what progress has been made by this royal commission.


John George Diefenbaker: I stated the other day that the second report would be available this fall and that there would be a third report as well. This latter report would be a compendium of the working papers and the statistical information that had been gathered and collated by the commission.


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister will remember that in the first report which was

Supply-Privy Council tabled there were a number of recommendations made costing, I believe, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million. The recommendations were divided into four different categories. The Prime Minister will remember that there was a discussion of this matter on an earlier occasion and he indicated that as soon as the report was brought down legislation would be forthcoming. I should like to know what the intention of the government is with regard to the recommendations of the MacPherson commission and whether or not any of those recommendations are going to be implemented by legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman knows volume I dealt with more or less general matters and had some recommendations. It is necessary for us to have volume II before us before we can finally determine several matters that were recommended and in respect of which further information will be forthcoming in the subsequent volume.


Lionel Chevrier: There are a number of other things upon which I should like some information. The Prime Minister will remember that the object of this royal commission was to consider a number of matters incidental to transportation including, amongst other things, freight rates and the freight rates structure. The point on which I should like to make inquiry at this time has to do with vote 317 which is now under consideration and is related to vote 590. Vote 590 concerns the $50 million which we will be asked to vote under the heading of "Board of Transport Commissioners".
As the committee knows the Freight Rates Reduction Act provided a sum of money, which I believe was in the amount of $20 million, for the general reduction of class rates across Canada and that money has, I take it, been paid by the government to the various railways since the bill was given royal assent. Can the Prime Minister tell the committee whether or not any part of this $50 million will be paid also in reduction of freight rates or how it will be paid?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not that information and when we come to the $50-million item no doubt there will be a discussion. I think it would be well to have the facts fully before us rather than endeavour to answer the question piecemeal.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I will not insist on it, Mr. Chairman. I think perhaps that answer is one which would commend itself to the committee. Then dealing with the royal commission, may I ask this question. Can the Prime Minister tell us when it is expected that the final report will be brought down?

He will remember that when this matter was discussed in the house, he was under the impression that this was something which could be done very quickly. As a result of our experience as members of the former government, we indicated that it took quite a long time, as has been the case. Can the Prime Minister give any indication of when the final reports will be given to the house?


John George Diefenbaker: If I could do so, I should be most happy to be of assistance in that regard. I remember one time when I entered into the field of royal commission prophecy. Events did not bear me out, and from time to time questions were asked. I do not wish to be placed in that position again.


Lionel Chevrier: The Clark report.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman is like Orpheus. He could almost get information on any subject when he takes the kindly attitude. However, I am not going to enter that field even in the face of the blandishments by means of which he has endeavoured to secure the information.


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister is in very good humour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the same mood and with the same purpose may I ask the Prime Minister if he can now tell us when the government expects to be in a position to announce its policy of acceptance or rejection, in whole or in part, of the Bladen commission report? The Prime Minister will appreciate the fact that this is a matter of great interest to the community from which I come. The report has now been in the hands of the government for some five months. There is considerable interest in knowing when we may expect something in connection with this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman, too, almost persuaded me, Mr. Chairman. However, I cannot add anything to what I have already said, even though I am so highly desirous of being helpful.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
318. Expenses of the royal commission on government organization including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $750,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to make the mistake made by my colleagues of asking the Prime Minister to prophesy. I am simply going to ask the Prime Minister to tell us what has been accomplished or to give us a report on what has already been accomplished by the Glassco commission and particularly

to give us the most up to date estimate of how much of the half billion dollars this commission was expected to save has been saved by it.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say to the hon. gentleman that the commission has undertaken an extremely large and comprehensive examination of the problems that were placed before it. It divided its inquiry into 18 specific projects. I ought to place those projects on record to give an indication of the comprehensive investigation taking place. They are as follows: Financial control and accounting; manpower in the government service; paper work and office systems; real property management; procurement and materials management; transportation; communications; economic analysis and statistics; legal services and procedures; scientific research and development; services to the public; medical and hospital services; education services; public information services; lending, guaranteeing and insurance activities; administrative aspects of the Department of National Defence; government operations in competition with private business; federal-provincial joint and allied activities.
I am sure that enumeration will give the committee some idea of the complex and wide ranging field in which the commission is operating. It does not hold public hearings. It has endeavoured, as far as possible, to secure its information by consultation with departments of government and outside.
As to the savings it will bring about, may I say that I hope that it will be able, without in any way diminishing efficiency but rather indeed increasing it, to recommend changes which will assure reductions proportionately similar to those achieved by the Hoover commission in the United States.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it that this is the first time an estimate appears in connection with the Glassco commission?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: It is for $750,000?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell us what the total cost of this commission will be? I hold in my hand an article which was published in the Financial Post of July 29, 1961 and in which it is stated that the cost of this commission for this fiscal year will be about $2,250,000. Can the Prime Minister say whether or not that is a fact?


John George Diefenbaker: I know that, when you have some regard to the nature of the expert information that must be secured, the cost will be considerable. I would not be able to
Supply-Privy Council give an estimate at all at this time. However, to make it an effective commission, the personnel must be those with wide experience and knowledge, technical, economic and the like. Whatever the cost may be, I think the results will be far in excess of it.


Lionel Chevrier: That remains to be seen. We shall be obliged to await the recommendations of the commission. Can the Prime Minister give some indication of whether this commission will, in connection with this report, proceed along the same lines as those followed by the MacPherson commission, for instance? Will there be an interim report or will there be a number of interim reports?


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman knows there has already been one interim report. There should be another one in due course.


Lionel Chevrier: When is it expected that this commission will finish its work?


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman knows, when the commission was set up the purpose or objectives were set out and it was provided that the commissioners should report to the governor in council, making interim reports on the progress made, the final report to be made within a period of two years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not the documents before me at the moment, I admit, but at the time the commission was appointed I seem to recollect that it was stated that it would make reports from time to time and that it would also make recommendations to government departments in the course of this operation, with a view to having them implemented immediately, in order to effect as quickly as possible these economies which, after all, as I understand it, are the sole purpose of the commission. I wondered whether the Prime Minister could give us some indication of the number of recommendations and of the nature of the more important recommendations that have so far been made to the various government departments by the commission in the course of its operation.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not that information, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not wish to hold up the estimates. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could have the information prepared in some sort of form that could be made available to hon. members within a reasonable time, so that at least it would be available for consideration at the next session of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: I will give consideration to that request.

Supply-Privy Council


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there is another suggestion that I might make to the Prime Minister about this royal commission, in which it will be understood that because of my previous experience in the public service I take a special interest.


John George Diefenbaker: Have you given any evidence yet to the Glassco commission?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understood the Prime Minister to say that the commission was not taking evidence.


John George Diefenbaker: By that I mean recommendations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I understand it, it is carrying on a sort of inquisition in private and not a public inquiry; a sort of star chamber, to use a phrase that was very frequently used by a very distinguished member of the house who used to sit on this side of the chamber and is now sitting over there. So far I have not appeared before this august body during its inquiries, though I must say, since the Prime Minister has put the direct question to me, that some legal officer connected with it did telephone me the other day and suggested he would like to talk to me about something. I offered to take him to lunch so that he could do so. I hasten to add, that was to be at my own expense, not wishing to add to the cost of the inquiry.
What I particularly wanted to suggest to the Prime Minister was this. I noticed when the Prime Minister was reading the various branches of the inquiry that one of them was for public information. The Prime Minister will recall that when he sat on this side of the chamber some years ago the critics on this side of the chamber-I do not know that the Prime Minister indulged in this very much, but the Minister of Finance certainly did, and some of the leading members of the opposition who are now on the treasury benches-complained about the excessive cost of public relations officers and information officers in the various branches of government.
In view of the importance which hon. gentlemen used to attach to this subject I was wondering whether the Prime Minister could suggest to Mr. Glassco that this particular branch of the inquiry be expedited and that an effort be made to make a report on this subject in as public a form as possible at the earliest possible date. I ask this because I can well remember how the Minister of Finance, in particular, used to point out what a tremendous saving could be made by reducing these services.
The only clear and precise recollection I have is that before 1957 and right back to

confederation, as far as I know, there were no public relations men in the Department of Finance, and the only economy that has been effected so far in this particular department has been to add someone at a reputed salary of $10,000 a year to the staff of the Minister of Finance.
Knowing the passion for economy of the Minister of Finance, who has not increased the annual expenditures of this country by much-over a billion dollars a year from what they were when the previous government was in office-I think that an area where it was recognized these great economies could be made ought to be explored as quickly as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
557.	Expenses of the royal commission on government organization-further amount required. $1,577,480.
John Whitney Pickersgill: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
558.	Expenses of the royal commission on Canadian magazines and other periodicals including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $35,600.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this royal commission, which has to do with periodicals and publications, can the Prime Minister give any further information than that which he has already given in answer to questions on the orders of the day as to what consideration the government has given to these recommendations and whether or not they will be implemented.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing I have to add at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
559.	Expenses of the royal commission on the motor vehicles industries including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $16,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on vote 559 I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, since there is no vote in the main estimates, this $16,000 represents the total cost of the Bladen commission?


John George Diefenbaker: No, it does not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the Prime Minister say when the additional amount, whatever it was, was voted and what it was for.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Last year.


John George Diefenbaker: Last year approximately $46,000 was spent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That makes a total of something over $60,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
560.	Expenses of the royal commission on health services including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $125,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could indicate what progress has been made in this connection. Perhaps I should not even ask this question since the Prime Minister refuses to enter into the realm of prophecy, but can the Prime Minister say whether he has any target date for the completion of this royal commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to have an interim report by this commission in the very near future. I know the hon. gentleman is desirous of obtaining something of that kind too. I am sure that all of us would be very happy if we could have a report that would be helpful enough to give a lead as to what might be done.
I know that the premier of Quebec says that this royal commission is not properly constituted; but I hope that his feelings will not prevent the commission doing that which it was charged with doing, namely, not to interfere with provincial jurisdiction in any way, and with a full realization of the responsibility of the provinces for health matters, but to endeavour to find a way whereby the federal parliament might act for the benefit of all Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Governor General and Lieutenant governors-
162. Office of the secretary to the governor general, $220,633.
John Whitney Pickersgill: In connection with this vote, Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether any change has been made recently in the arrangements for the expenses of the lieutenant governors, apart from their salaries.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In the supplementary estimates, vote No. 529, there is an item to authorize reimbursement to the lieutenant governors of the provinces
Supply-Veterans Affairs of Canada of the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties, and so on. The amount of this vote is $43,000.
The purpose of this item is to increase by 50 per cent the amounts of the allowances payable to lieutenant governors to reimburse them for the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties.
The case for having these allowances is, I think, best stated in the words of the prime minister of the day, Mr. St. Laurent, when the proposal was first introduced. He said, in effect, that the government did not feel it was the mood of the Canadian people to abolish the office of lieutenant governor and that as long as the function was maintained as part of our constitution "it would not be desirable that it be one available only to persons who could, out of their own resources, provide the services that have to be rendered to the public".


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Depuiy Chairman: This completes the estimates of the privy council.

[Stage Direction]
453. Departmental administration, $2,550,941.
Gordon Minto Churchill: 
are still outstanding may be dealt with agreeably at the next session of the house. However, up to this point this is the progress which has been made and I hope, now, that the committee will give its approval to these estimates or, if there is some matter which hon. members feel should be dealt with, that they will bring it to my attention.


Mr. Carter:: I should like to thank the minister for the statement he has just made and also for his kind remarks about the efforts and the work of the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs.
As the minister has pointed out, these estimates were examined very thoroughly in committee. In fact, ten separate sittings were devoted to them. Officials in every branch of the department were available and gave detailed answers to all the questions which the committee asked. The reports of those meetings are in printed form and are available to all hon. members as well as to any members of the public who are interested in securing them from the Queen's printer. The estimates of this department are never controversial, and we of the Liberal party see no need for a prolonged discussion of them at this time.
The minister has referred to the changes which have been brought about in the veterans charter and particularly to the amendments to the Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act which gave across the board 20 per cent increases to veterans. The hon. gentleman also mentioned the change in the regulations governing the administration of the Veterans' Land Act. We are grateful to the government for what it has done in this regard, and I am sure this has been much appreciated by veterans across Canada.
I am sure the minister will not mind my reminding him that there are still a few little jobs of tidying up which remain to be done. In particular, I have felt myself that the 365 day qualification with respect to service in the United Kingdom in connection with war veterans allowance by veterans of the first world war should be abolished. I think, also, that most veterans are agreed that something more should be done for the widows of veterans. In particular we feel that widows of Canadian citizens who served in the Imperial forces have a special case which merits consideration, and that it would be a good thing if the government could see its way clear to granting free medical treatment to pensioners and their families and to the widows of non-pensioners, too, and also to members of families of the war amputees. We would like to see the ceiling raised with respect to widows of non-pensioned veterans, and that under certain conditions they be

granted pensions as of right. I gather also that the people of Canada, and certainly most veterans organizations, would like to see a change brought about in the legislation so that damages which a widow might collect out of the accidental death of her husband would be treated as life assurance and other assets and not taken into account when the widow's rights to a pension are being considered.
I also think that changes should be made in the legislation whereby a veteran's pension would be made payable to his widow for a full year after his death, and an adequate allowance provided after that.
The committee received representations from many veterans organizations, including the Royal Canadian Legion, the national council of veterans associations of Canada, the war amps association, the Canadian non-pen-sioned widows association, and other veterans organizations. A study of the briefs submitted by those organizations indicated also unanimous agreement with these proposals. Practically every brief referred to each of these problems and recommended that something be done to correct them.
I must express my own disappointment that when the government was making amendments to the Canadian Pension Act and to the War Veterans' Allowance Act they did not embrace that opportunity to extend the benefits of the veterans charter to the merchant navy, to the rescue tug service, to the fire fighters and to the Newfoundland forestry units of world war II.
I know the minister will not expect me to sit down without reminding him again that the veterans of Newfoundland still are waiting for the necessary changes in legislation which will give them the status of those veterans who served in the Canadian forces, as was stipulated in the terms of union. As it is now the widows of Newfoundland veterans are in a different position from widows of other Canadian veterans. They have no rights. If they are granted pensions it is done as a favour and they forfeit their pensions if they leave the country. I ask the minister and the government to give urgent consideration to this measure and I express the hope that before too long the minister will find it possible to bring about further amendments to take care of those problems. This is all I need to say at this time. There are a few questions which I shall ask on the various items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
456. Operation of hospitals and administration including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year for hospital and related services, $45,217,346.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Chesley William Carter: I think my question could be put on item 456; it is related to items 456 and 457. Can the minister outline to the committee the policy of the department with respect to discovery of new treatments and of new drugs which might be available for the treatment of veterans in the hospitals operated under the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I cannot give the hon. member specific instances but I have confidence that everything possible is being done with regard to changes, if necessary, in the treatment of veterans because they are so well served by a dedicated medical service across this country. The doctors who serve in our veterans' hospitals are men who are at the top of their profession. Many of them are also instructors or teachers in the medical schools of the universities. They comprise specialists in various aspects of medicine. They go beyond the call of duty in giving assistance to many of our veterans whether they are in hospital or not. Since they keep abreast of their profession, as I am sure they do, and I have met many of them, if any mode of new treatment becomes available it will be introduced. But I repeat what I said earlier; I have no specific instance to draw to the attention of the committee on this occasion.


Mr. McGrath:: Would it be apropos under this item to ask the minister just exactly what the department has in mind with respect to the operation of the veterans hospital which is now under construction as an annex to the General hospital in St. John's, Newfoundland.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The same purpose as was served elsewhere, namely to provide an increased number of beds for the treatment of people who require treatment; to improve the active bed situation and also to provide what is known as domiciliary care for people who qualify for that type of treatment in our veterans hospitals.


James Aloysius McGrath: I do not think my question was understood. Does the department intend to operate the hospital?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is attached to the St. John's General hospital as a pavilion and will be under the administration of that hospital.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
460. Veterans' bureau, $716,012.
Chesley William Carter: I should like to make one brief observation here, Mr. Chairman. It seems that the personnel in the veterans bureau in the various districts are sort of up a blind alley. There does not seem to be much opportunity for advancement.
8812	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
In the past I have advocated an increase in the staff of pensions advocates, and particularly that full-time advocates be employed in Newfoundland. After looking over the situation over a number of years it has occurred to me that that might not be necessary; that we are now getting in this office in the various regions a personnel who are very experienced in handling veterans problems and in preparing their cases. I would ask the minister whether he would consider setting up a classification of personnel in which we might have assistant pensions advocates who might not have legal training but who, because of their experience in this work, might be able to do it just as capably and just as competently as members of the legal profession. This is just a suggestion that I would ask the minister to consider for the next year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will. As a matter of fact, I was talking about this subject with the deputy minister just yesterday. I had the opportunity of meeting the solicitors who are doing this work and who had assembled in Ottawa for a two-day conference. I had the opportunity of meeting them and talking to them, as did the parliamentary secretary, so that suggestion of the hon. member is under consideration at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
461. War veterans allowance board-administration, $170,994.
Chesley William Carter: There is just one point I should like to bring to the minister's attention with respect to recipients of war veterans allowance who are under the age of 60. In order for such a veteran to qualify he must somehow get a medical certificate to the effect that he is permanently unemployable. It seems to me that it is very difficult for a man to get such a certificate because in this day of rapid scientific advance, particularly in the medical field, it is most difficult to say that because a person has suffered from a disability for a number of years he will always suffer from it and that there is no chance of his ever improving to the point that he will be able to work. I suggest to the minister that if a person has been disabled for a number of years, say two or three, he should be considered as being sufficiently disabled to qualify for the war veterans allowance. His case could then be reviewed from year to year to see whether any improvement had taken place. I suggest that a person should not be barred until the age of 60 or until he can get somebody to certify that he is permanently disabled.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The problem is not new. It is an important one and has been given consideration in the past. The line is normally


drawn at age 60, of course, but there are quite a number of recipients under that age. As a matter of fact, over 4,000 are already on the roll who are under the age of 60. The war veterans allowance board has been very reasonable and lenient in considering these cases. I think it is important though to have this matter drawn to the attention of hon. members as the hon. member has done today. If instances occur where some member thinks that somebody requires attention and perhaps has not been getting it, I would ask the member to write me a letter about the matter and remind me of it again, if he does not get an immediate answer, and we will see that something is done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous payments-
465. Burials and memorials, $1,435,500.
Chesley William Carter: Having had the privilege of visiting the memorials at Vimy and Beau-mont-Hamel last July, I should like to take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the work that is being done by the department in caring for our memorials and graves of our war dead. I had the opportunity of seeing this at first hand and I was much impressed by what I saw. I am sure that parents, other relatives and friends who have loved ones resting over there will be very pleased to know that these graves are being cared for so well.
I should also like to take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to Mr. Allan Chambers, who also looked after the arrangements for the visit to the memorials, for the splendid work he is doing in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian pension commission-
468. Administration expenses, $2,693,268.
Chesley William Carter: I have only one question which arises out of a case that came to my attention a short time ago. What is the policy with respect to a veteran who may have been deprived of benefits because of a wrong diagnosis on the part of the D.V.A. medical board that happened to examine the veteran? I have heard of a case where a wrong diagnosis was made on two occasions. On one occasion one diagnosis was made and 10 per cent disability was granted. On another occasion another diagnosis was made and 60 per cent disability was granted. On still another occasion the diagnosis was entirely different and 100 per cent disability was granted. Nothing in the veteran's condition had altered from the beginning to the end. The person was totally disabled right from the beginning and had to employ an attendant. It took several years before the

board actually made the correct diagnosis and awarded 100 per cent disability and an allowance for the attendant as well. Is it the policy of the department to reimburse veterans for losses they have incurred as a result of faulty diagnoses?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In some instances the pension has been paid retroactively. The problem of diagnosis admittedly is difficult and I presume there are differences of opinion in that regard. However, the reexamination of anyone who is in doubt is always possible under the pension commission. The commission stands ready to assist in matters of this kind. If a veteran feels that on re-examination his case might be diagnosed somewhat differently, I presume it is perfectly all right for him to seek reexamination. In some instances but not in all the pension would be retroactive.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the vote carries I should like to mention something to the minister that came to my notice a few months ago. If a pensioner dies before the date in the month when the cheque has been received, the cheque for that month or part of the month that the pensioner was still alive cannot be cashed, naturally, but there is no payment made to the estate except on application and by grace. In the particular case to which I am referring this really did not matter at all, but it seems to me that there could be many cases where it would be really quite important that the pension should be paid. In my opinion it seems only reasonable and surely it was the intent of parliament that a pension that has been granted should be paid up to the date of the death of the person, even though it is only a fraction of a month. I do not know whether it is the law or whether it is merely a regulation but it does seem to me that this is something which might well be tidied up, not retroactively but for the future.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was under the impression that was under control but we will look into the matter. My information is that the pension is payable up to the end of the month in which the person died. The head of the pension commission is here and is listening attentively. The matter will be looked into.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: This completes the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Henry Frank Jones: May I, on behalf of the minister, thank the committee for their courtesy and the speed with which these estimates have been considered.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Gordon Campbell Chown: I have before me the supplementary estimates for the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
548. Departmental administration including Canada's share of the expenses of the "resources for tomorrow" conference-further amount required, $31,334.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the departmental administration item, and before it carries I should like to ask the minister if he would give a fuller explanation than he gave the Leader of the Opposition the other day as to why it is taking such a tremendously long time for the government to make up its mind what it is going to do about the Red river floodway in Manitoba?
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern
Affairs and National Resources): Mr. Chairman, I think the passage of time in respect of these matters is a matter of relativity. As a matter of fact the Winnipeg floodway project has been under discussion since about the year 1950 when the disaster flood occurred in the city of Winnipeg. As a Manitoban I was very much aware of the nature of the disaster that occurred even though my own city of Brandon was not affected directly by the flood. We did, at that time, feel the full impact of the refugee situation that was generated by the flood.
In the past decade there has been a continuing discussion as to how this recurring disaster to the city of Winnipeg might be dealt with, and it is only in recent years, since 1959 as a matter of fact, that a decision has been made to proceed with the Winnipeg floodway which was proposed by the factfinding committee set up at the time of the disaster. I believe considerable progress has been made on this matter. There is a joint committee of engineers representing the provincial government and our own federal government which has been working on the matter since last spring. They have made considerable progress in considering the engineering problems that arise in connection with a project as extensive as this one. Only in the past few days information has become available in this regard.
As to the matter of sharing the costs, we have had continuing discussions and negotiations on this important point. We have almost reached the point of agreement, but a special problem arose in this connection because, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate knows full well, this is an international river which rises south of the border. It cannot be regarded, therefore, as one which comes

Supply-Northern Affairs directly within the terms of the Canada Water Conservation Act which would be the act which would normally apply. This has meant that a special formula has to be worked out, and it is upon this problem we are working at the moment. As I indicated in reply to the Leader of the Opposition the other day, the discussions are proceeding very happily and we hope to make an announcement very shortly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I read the Winnipeg newspapers and I suppose, like time, happiness is also a relative matter. I think perhaps the minister may be happier than the people with whom he is negotiating in Manitoba because the impression one gets from reading these newspapers is that the provincial government is anything but happy with the niggardly way they are being treated by the treasury, as compared with what they were led to expect before March 31, 1958. However, this is not the time to go into that subject.
In order to save time going into the matter on the next item, I should like to ask the minister on this item whether or not the department has in contemplation any special winter works program for national parks, such as it had last year?


Mr. Dinsdale:: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we feel that there is a very strong necessity to continue our winter works program much along the same line as we have followed during recent years. This arises particularly from the tremendous upsurge in the numbers of people using the parks. We have preliminary statistics on tourism during the past summer which indicate that there is at least a 15 per cent increase across the board. Our parks have been packed to capacity. We have campsite extension programs under way in almost every one of the national parks and we hope to continue these works under the winter works program during the forthcoming winter.


Mr. Pugh:: I should like to ask a question with regard to Rogers pass, having recently come over the route. I find that the federal government has practically completed their portion-that is the part in the national park -of the highway. But as you move eastward a very different story unfolds. You hit the province of British Columbia's part and at that stage it is not so good. I was wondering whether the minister could advise us if a date has been set for the opening of the highway. I should also like to ask what facilities will be available for the travelling public in the nature of camp sites and places to stop over night actually within the park limit.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am glad the hon. member raised this point, Mr. Chairman. I have been quite concerned with the importance of the progress on the road through the Rogers pass, particularly in view of the fact that an important international fair gets under way in Seattle next year. This will be one of the main access routes to that fair. We think it will have a significant bearing on our tourist potential in that area.
As to the progress on the part of the highway through the national park, may I say this. We are giving special attention to this section. The hon. member will realize, of course, that this is the only section of the highway for which I have direct responsibility. However, we are hoping that it will be completed for use next summer, which would suggest that we could have an official opening ceremony some time in the early spring. We are fully aware of the situation. I am glad to have had this opportunity to bring the members of the committee up to date on the progress being made.


David Vaughan Pugh: I should like to ask a supplementary question while we are on this point. When I came down this fall I took the opportunity to drive through the park. The reason I am pressing this matter a little further, Mr. Chairman, in asking the minister if he knows the intention of the provincial government as to when they are going to open their portion is that work on the provincial portion of the road, to my own way of thinking, is so far behind that it will be practically impossible to open the road next year. I am wondering whether there is any correspondence on file in the minister's office from the provincial government in regard to their portion of the road.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This is the trans-Canada highway, of course; and, as such it comes under the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. I shall be happy to consult my colleague the Minister of Public Works and bring this query to his attention.


David Vaughan Pugh: I have just one further question. Have we a budget for expenditures on campsites within the park limits for next year?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am sorry I neglected to answer that part of the hon. member's question. As he no doubt knows, the policy with regard to the construction of campsites and picnic sites along the trans-Canada highway is to have a picnic site every 50 miles and a campsite every one hundred miles. This policy will apply to the entire length of the trans-Canada highway.


David Vaughan Pugh: There is just one further matter. I hate to keep on pressing these things.

Having cleared up all the questions, may I say to the minister that I hope he will give heavy publicity to this Rogers pass route. It is a beautiful route through the Canadian rockies.


Mr, Chevrier:: There is just one question I should like to ask the minister. It comes under another vote in the supplementaries but I think I could ask it under vote 548. I raised it when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were under consideration but I was not given a satisfactory answer. It has to do with the water levels at the port of Montreal, a matter which is a very serious one for that city. As the minister knows, there is a board of control. I think the chairman of that board of control is one of his officers. Can the minister tell me what is being done to provide the port of Montreal with a sufficient amount of water to take the kind of ships that it has been in the habit of taking? I refer to deep sea vessels. What provision is his department making to protect the down stream levels at Montreal?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This problem became a matter for consideration early in the year, as the hon. member will recall. At that time my department was consulted because of its responsibility in the field of water resources and one of our experts was assigned to the task of dealing with this difficulty. I must confess that I have not been in touch with the activities of this particular branch in the past week or so. If I can assist the hon. member I should be happy to send him a letter which provides up to date information as to where the matter stands.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether I could just leave the matter this way so as not to delay the passage of the item. This is a matter of vital concern not only to the port of Montreal but to downstream interests. It is also a matter of vital concern to upstream interests. I am sure that the officers in question are doing their utmost, and that particularly the officer in the minister's department having to do with water resources is doing his utmost to put into effect a plan which will be satisfactory to all concerned. It so happens, however, that the plan is not satisfactory to all concerned and that it is causing grave prejudice to the rights to water resources first, for domestic and sanitary purposes and second, for navigation. These are the two branches as set out in the order of approval of the international joint commission. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister and I ask him to see to it that there is put into effect a plan which will
Supply-Trade and Commerce not in any way prejudice the downstream interests on the St. Lawrence river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northwest Territories and other field services-
555. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $1,317,300.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 555 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before it carries, may I say that this is a fairly big vote for a supplementary one. I looked in the explanatory material at the back and found that it is just a repetition of what is here. It seems to me that if we are going to vote $1J million, we ought to know a little bit more than we are told there.


David Vaughan Pugh: Consult C. D. Howe.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unfortunately he is not available at the moment.


An hon. Member:: He might be to you.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As the general statement in connection with this vote indicates, it is for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, lands and equipment relating to the Northwest Territories and other field services. If I were to itemize each of the matters under this vote, I think perhaps it might take too much of the time of the committee. Perhaps it would be satisfactory if I indicate that a large part of this vote will be applied to the development work that will be undertaken at Frobisher bay during the coming year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has that work gone on a little bit faster than was expected or was there a bad estimate earlier in the year?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The reason for the substantial supplementary estimate arises from the fact that the decision to proceed with this development has taken place since the main estimates were considered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I congratulate the minister on one decision made by the present government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: That completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
582. Exhibitions branch-further amount required, $307,050.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I notice that this item is for exhibitions. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance could tell us whether any part of this vote is for the travels of the present minister, under the item "exhibitions".

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman may be quite satisfied that such is not the case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: That completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Auditor General's office-
41. Salaries and expenses of office, $1,115,400.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the parliamentary secretary should be allowed to say a word. Could he explain the large increase in the vote this year.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: The increase is largely due to an increase in the establishment from 141 to 159, or a total addition of 18 personnel. This is due to the addition of six auditors 6, four auditors 5, one auditor 4, six auditors 3, and five auditors 2; less four auditor 1 positions which have been abolished.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the parliamentary secretary say whether this very considerable increase in the cost of auditing is directly related to the phenomenal rise in the total government expenditures over the last four years.


Thomas Miller Bell: Of course, Mr. Chairman. I would not agree entirely with the hon. member when he suggests anything phenomenal in the increase. It has been in accordance with the efficiency of the service which has been provided to the public of Canada. Of course when those services increase, as they have, the audit costs also rise. This has been in accordance with a study which has been undertaken by the public accounts committee. This committee has seen what the Auditor General has been doing, and I think the public accounts committee has been entirely satisfied that this is desirable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Insurance-
164. Departmental administration, $783,123.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary has any comment to make on this item.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have no special comment, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: Is there any intention of amending the Insurance Act?


Thomas Miller Bell: There were, of course, amendments considered this year to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and the Foreign Insurance Companies

Act. These amendments are of very considerable significance, as the hon. gentleman from Laurier knows. I am not aware of any immediate intention with respect to the Department of Insurance Act itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one question I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary. Does this department cost the treasury a five cent piece, net? I know we have to vote money because of the antiquated way we have of keeping our public accounts; but is this branch of the government entirely selfsupporting?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman is entirely correct. This is charged back on an assessment basis against the companies which are licensed or registered. I think there is no net cost to the government of Canada with respect to this vote, except for the Civil Service Insurance Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is there any profit made?


Thomas Miller Bell: No, I do not think so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The Speaker of the Senate-
190. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, it has been the practice in the past-and I would not want to depart from it-to allow these estimates to go through without any discussion. It is certainly not my intention to hold them up, but perhaps the committee would allow me to just say a word in connection with the manner in which the Speaker has dealt with many of the representations which have been made to him from time to time by those of us who sit on this side of the chamber. I have reference now to not only the secretaries and the stenographers who look after our work, but to others as well.
I know it has not been possible for the Speaker to do everything he has wanted to do, but he has always been kind and considerate in his approach to the problems which we on this side of the chamber have brought to his attention. May I just add this, sir, and I will resume my seat.
As the Speaker knows, always during the period of recess some of the secretaries ana stenographers are without work. In this instance, it is not going to be too long until we meet again; it will only be a matter of two months because I understand there will be a new session of parliament in early December. It has been brought to my attention that because of the hardship that is being felt by some of these persons the Speaker might wish to give consideration to

allowing them to stay on for that short period of time. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether consideration could be given to that matter.


Douglas Jung: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words, following the remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken, regarding the secretaries of the House of Commons. In so doing, I am sure hon. members will agree that they are all hard working and loyal, and that they deserve even greater recognition. It is therefore my intention to bring to the attention of the committee certain suggestions which I hope will not only improve their working conditions but will also help the members of parliament in the discharge of their responsibilities.
No doubt there will be some hon. members who will greet my suggestions with the reply that this is the way it has always been done. I do not have the advantage of knowing what conditions existed when we were in opposition, so I base my remarks purely on my own experience since I was elected in 1957.
When I first came to Ottawa, Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that parliament at the most sat for six or seven months out of each year. Those who were employed as secretaries to the members of parliament understood, therefore, that there would be a period of five or six months when they would not be employed by parliament and that it would be their own responsibility to find other employment or just take a holiday. For a long time we had a considerable number of married women on the staff who found this arrangement quite satisfactory because it enabled them to supplement the family income and during the adjournment they were able to spend a few months at home.
I believe the situation has now changed and that a very large number of single girls are now employed who, as the hon. member for Laurier said, because of the irregular pattern of the sessions of parliament find it extremely difficult to make plans for other employment. Under the best of circumstances, when our secretaries go to the civil service to look for other employment during the recess or adjournment they take a considerable cut in pay, even though because of the experience they have received in the House of Commons they are given greater responsibility than other girls in the civil service with whom they work.
I can understand the reluctance of the civil service to employ secretaries from parliament hill because they can in no way be considered permanent employees. But even so, the girls who need work do not object too strenuously to this arrangement because there is at least other employment.
90205-6-556
Supply-Legislation
However, in these last two sessions of parliament more secretaries have experienced difficulty in finding work with the civil service because the recess and the adjournment have been so short that the civil service did not even want to hire them. It may be answered, Mr. Chairman, that these girls can draw unemployment insurance, but I have received a number of complaints from secretaries who filed their claim on the day parliament went into recess last July but who had to wait almost a month before they received their first unemployment insurance cheque. I wrote to the Minister of Labour about this, and after he looked into the situation, he confirmed that some benefit payments had been delayed because the records of contribution had not been forwarded to the local unemployment insurance commission office. Surely, we have had enough experience with recesses and adjournments that a secretary need not suffer any embarrassment caused by waiting for her unemployment insurance. In this connection I have been assured by the Minister of Labour that a close watch will be kept on the situation so that it will not happen again.
The argument has been put forward that the rates of pay for the secretaries of the House of Commons are deliberately fixed higher than those received by other secretaries working for private firms so that they are compensated somewhat for periods of unemployment. I suggest that this is unfair, because no matter what salary you give to our secretaries they only receive that rate for the number of months during which they are employed, and the extra salary they receive in no way compensates for the months during which they are unemployed; neither does it help to make up the salary which they receive during the adjournment from the civil service to the level of the remuneration which they receive when working in the House of Commons. At the same time, there might be some secretaries who are not as highly qualified as we would like them to be, or according to civil service standards, but that is the fault of the member of parliament for hiring her and not the fault of the girl.
It has also been said that these secretaries do not have to work in the House of Commons if they are dissatisfied with the conditions. I feel that this statement is not quite fair, because these girls would be the first to admit that they enjoy their work here, and surely we should not take advantage of their desire to work for us. None of us has to be here, but we are here because we want to be here. If we find a girl who is a topnotch secretary we want to keep her, but unless we can offer her better working conditions I am very much afraid that they will be forced

Supply-Legislation
through economic reasons to look for employment elsewhere. We all realize that it takes a long time to train a secretary so that she becomes familiar with your own work, and that is another reason why we should make it attractive for her to stay on at the House of Commons.
I repeat that under ordinary circumstances and with shorter sessions, the problem of secretaries would not be as great. However, with longer sessions the problem is very urgent. Lest it be thought that 1 am thinking only of the welfare of the secretaries, let me emphasize that I am also concerned with the efficiency of the members of parliament in the discharge of their duties, and our efficiency is lessened by not having our secretaries available for work during our evening sessions; by not having secretaries during the recess and adjournment, and by not having dictating machines so that we can put work on tape for our secretaries. I am sure that all of us recall the earlier part of this session when many were attending committee meetings which started at 9 or 9.30 a.m., and then going to the House of Commons at 11 a.m. If we spent all our time sitting in the house, which did not rise until 10.30 p.m., there was no time left to look after our correspondence. If we had dictating machines, many of us could do a lot of work in the evenings, particularly when we sit from 7.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m., when the secretaries have gone home.
We have now reached a stage where the government has recognized that it is in the interest of greater efficiency that each member of parliament should have his own secretary. This is a very recent move but I think that it recognizes that improvements were overdue. I suggest we should now carry these changes one step further by granting to each member of parliament an allowance for a secretary who would be on a full time basis, which allowance would also be sufficient to cover her travel expenses to and from the House of Commons from her home. It would then be up to the member to decide if he wants to employ her only when the house is in session or if he also wants her to work in his own constituency. There might be a danger of different salaries being offered by individual members of parliament but I think a standard contract could be worked out. I also think the member of parliament should still have the privilege of recommending a girl for employment as his secretary, although the House of Commons would do the actual hiring.
I think that by having a secretary on a full time basis, we would have greater efficiency and continuity. I am sure hon. mem-

bers will appreciate how difficult it is to get any work done while the house is in recess or while it is adjourned, and if you do not have a secretary in your own office, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make any replies or do any work satisfactorily.
I think we should also bring the salary range into line with those received by secretaries assigned to the other place. For example, a secretary to a member of parliament must wait five full sessions before she reaches the maximum rate of pay. Secretaries in the other place, however, reach their full maximum after only three sessions. In my opinion, secretaries in the House of Commons work a great deal harder and are under much greater pressure, and I see no reason why there should be this disparity.
The government of Canada is the biggest business in the country. Surely we can apply good business methods of administration to running this colossal undertaking. In my discussions back home I have pointed out some of the problems facing members of parliament, and I always received the classic answer "You are in power now, why don't you do something about it?" I believe that by assigning a secretary to each member of parliament the government recognizes the need of some improvement. I think the suggestions I have made are consistent steps, and if sessions keep up the way they do then I suggest it is time we consider parliament being placed on a full year basis at it is in England.
Certainly, I personally find that because of the nature of the present sessions, my law practice in Vancouver is completely lost and so I might as well devote my time to politics. And if I am to devote my full time to politics, I may as well become a professional in this field, because government is now so complex that it is no place for amateurs. We no longer dabble in politics as if it were a hobby. We work very hard at it.
I think that if the government were to implement my suggestions, the over-all cost of administration would not be great. The secretaries would be much happier; their morale would increase considerably and, equally important, I think the work output for each member of parliament would reflect this increased efficiency.
198. General administration-estimates of the Clerk, $2,215,340.


Mr. Speaker:: So that I shall not lose en-tierly this single opportunity of the year to speak from the floor of the house, I want to thank the hon. member for Laurier for his very generous reference to my administration of the staff of the House of Commons. I also

wish to thank the other members who have spoken for their very constructive suggestions which it will be of great pleasure to take into account and bring before the commissioners of internal economy, particularly at this time when consideration is being given to new estimates and an opportunity is available to make good some of the deficiencies.
The administrative responsibilities are substantial, but I have enjoyed the assistance of a very competent staff. I should like to thank them and to pay my tribute to the Clerk of the house and to his assistants, to the Sergeant-at-Arms, to the legislative council and to all the chiefs of the various branches of the house and their respective staffs.
The continuous staff are, I think, particularly badly off because in this unusual session perhaps they have not received the compensation which would make good to them the extra time they put in when the house sits for long hours over many months, inasmuch as such compensation is not adequate for the pattern which this particular session has taken. A good deal of thought has been given and is being given to what alternatives are possible not only for the continuous staff but for the sessional staff to which the hon. member for Laurier and, as well, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre made reference. It is true that many of those who work here sessionally do it by preference because they like part-time work; but there are many others who are working sessionally who are dependent upon their earnings for their livelihood. How to meet that difficulty is a problem. If sessions are to be as long as this one, we suggest that perhaps when we are sitting most of the year consideration might be given to an annual rate. It is true that the sessional rate has been rather better than the normal rate because of the disadvantage of a period of recess.
Various alternatives are being presented. One alternative proposed is for parliament to adopt the procedure of sitting at regular times so that those who work in parliament will know when they will be employed and when they will not. Another alternative suggested for consideration is that of an annual rate. With respect to stenographers, another suggestion is that an allowance might be made to members which will enable them to supply themselves with stenographic service the year round.
In any event, I think hon. members will agree that during the latter part of this session we have improved the service to the extent that every member who required stenographic service has been able to receive it.
I do not want to break the rules myself.
90205-6-556}
Business of the House


Lionel Chevrier: No one would dare call you to order.


Mr. Speaker:: I do appreciate the things that have been said and the helpful suggestions that have been made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Pallet!: I wonder whether the permission of the house could be given at this stage for the preparation of the order paper with respect to divorce bills so that they will appear next Tuesday as separate items. I believe the arrangement was made when the notice was given by the hon. member for Halifax who, as we all know, is at an international conference. On his behalf I would ask that this arrangement be made with respect to the order paper for next Tuesday.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I see no objection to that.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house then accept this as notice in accordance with its previous order?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Pallet!: They could be separated for Monday in the event that we arrived at that position; I do not think it is possible.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed that the divorce bills be printed in total in the order paper for Monday and the following days?


Lionel Chevrier: In the light of what has happened today, and of the progress made,
I think we were well advised to sit on Saturday. Will the leader of the house give an indication of what the business will be from now until the end of the session?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, again I should like to thank the house for the expedition and the care with which it dealt with estimates today.
We have now left for the consideration of the house Bill No. C-131, which deals with fitness and amateur sport. This will be the first item to be called on Monday; then, Bill No. C-126, dealing with the so-called Pine Point railway. This will be called as the second item on Monday.
The remainder of the business would be Bill No. C-122 with regard to tax collection agreements between the government of Canada and the provinces; the estimates of the Department of Finance and the remaining estimates of the Department of Transport.

Business of the House For Monday I would propose to call the two bills I have mentioned, the fitness bill and the Pine Point railway bill and then, during the course of the day, determine the situation because we have to take into account this problem of the divorce bills, and the time that may be required by the other house to give its consideration to four measures which will likely reach it by Monday night, namely the centennial bill, the civil service bill and the two that we will be dealing with on Monday. Therefore it is difficult to determine at this moment what time will be required
for winding up the business of the House of Commons. It looks now as if on Tuesday night parliament will be finished.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it that there will be no other legislation over and above the three measures to which the minister has made reference.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Unless something untoward occurs between now and Monday I do not foresee any other legislative items.
It being ten minutes past six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



PRIVY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
312.	Payment, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $7,500.
Privy council office-
313.	General administration, $563,390.
Prime Ministers' residence-
314.	Maintenance and operation, $25,000. Emergency measures-
315.	Administration and operation of the emergency measures organization, $1,053,453.
316.	Construction of houses for officers at regional emergency headquarters, $200,000.
Special-
317.	Expenses of the royal commission on railway problems including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $40,870.
318.	Expenses of the royal commission on government organization including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $750,000.
Governor General and Lieutenant-governors-
162.	Office of the secretary to the governor general, $220,633.
163.	To authorize reimbursement to the lieutenant-governors of the provinces of Canada of the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties up to a maximum per annum for each as follows:
(a)	where the population of the province at the last decennial census did not exceed 500,000, $5,000;
(b)	where the population of the province at the last decennial census exceeded 500,000, $5,000 plus $1,000 per each 100,000 or fraction of 100,000 of population over 500,000, but not exceeding $12,000 in any case, $86,000.
529. To authorize reimbursement to the lieutenant-governors of the provinces of Canada of the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties-further amount required and to increase the maximum amounts set out in vote 163 of the main estimates, 1961-62, as follows:
(a)	where the population of the province at the last decennial census did not exceed 500,000, $7,500;
(b)	where the population of the province at 'the last decennial census exceeded 500,000, $7,500 plus $1,500 per each 100,000 or fraction of 100,000 of population over 500,000, but not exceeding $18,000 in any case, $43,000.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
556.	Expenses of the royal commission on railway problems-further amount required, $56,580.
557.	Expenses of the royal commission on
government	organization-further amount required, $1,577,480.
Supply-Items Passed
Special-
558.	Expenses of the royal commission on Canadian magazines and other periodicals including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $35,600.
559.	Expenses of the royal commission on the motor vehicles industries including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $16,000.
560.	Expenses of the royal commission on health services including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $125,000.

[Stage Direction]
453.	Departmental administration, $2,550,941.
454.	District services-administration, $3,556,427.
455.	Veterans' welfare services, $3,891,673. Treatment services-
456.	Operation of hospitals and administration including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year for hospital and related services. $45,217,346.
457.	Medical research and education, $389,000.
458.	Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, $5,362,000.
459.	Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year for prosthetic and related services, $1,417,258.
460.	Veterans' bureau, $716,012.
461.	War veterans allowance board-administration, $170,994.
War veterans allowances and other benefits____
462.	War veterans allowances, $59,845,000.
463.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowances). $3,745,000.
464.	Treatment and other allowances, $2,400,000. Miscellaneous payments-
465.	Burials and memorials, $1,435,500.
466.	Grant to army benevolent fund, $18,000.
467.	Grant to Royal Canadian Legion, $9,000.
Canadian pension commission-
468.	Administration expenses, $2,693,268.
469.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and including Newfoundland special awards, $147,484,000.
470.	Gallantry awards-world war II and special force, $24,500.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act_____
471.	Administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,982,050.
472.	Upkeep of property, Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property; taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities, $35,050.
473.	Grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act and grants to veterans settled on dominion lands, in accordance with an agreement with the
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act, $75,000.
474.	Grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 39 of the Veterans' Land Act, $60,000.
475.	Reduction of indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement of a settler in respect of a property in his possession, the title of which is held by the director, or such soldier settler loans which are administered by the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, by an amount which will reduce his indebtedness to an amount in keeping with the productive capacity of the property or his ability to repay his indebtedness under regulations approved by the governor in council, $1,000.
476.	To authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, necessary remedial work on properties constructed under individual firm price contracts and sold under the Veterans' Land Act and to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible; and for such other work on other properties as may be required to protect the interest of the director therein, $6,000.
Terminable services-
477.	Veterans benefits, including assistance and the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council, $769,450. Repayments in such amounts as the Minister of
Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of amounts equivalent to the compensating adjustments or payments made under the act hereunder referred to, where the persons who made the compensating adjustments or payments received no benefits under the Veterans' Land Act, or where, having had financial assistance under the last mentioned act, they are deemed by the minister on termination of their Veterans' Land Act contracts or agreements to have derived thereunder either no benefits or benefits that are less than the amounts of the compensating adjustments or payments-
478.	Repayments under subsection (3) of section 12 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, $5,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
494.	Protection of security-soldier settlement, and refunds of surplus to veterans, $3,300.
495.	Purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; and protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act, $34,743,975.
Treatment services-
595.	Operation of hospitals and administration-further amount required, $350,000.
596.	Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land-further amount required, $200,000.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
597.	Treatment and other allowances-further amount required, $525,000.
Miscellaneous payments-
598.	Burials and memorials-further amount required, $185,000.
Canadian pension commission-
599.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and including Newfoundland special awards-further amount required, $31,250,000.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
610. War veterans allowances-further amount required, $15,300,000.

[Stage Direction]
548.	Departmental administration including Canada's share of the expenses of the "resources for tomorrow" conference-further amount required, $31,334.
National parks branch-
National parks and historic sites and monuments-
549.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $987,750.
Water resources branch-
550.	Contributions to the provinces towards the construction of dams and other works to assist in the conservation and control of water resources in accordance with agreements entered into between Canada and the provinces-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Northern administration branch-
Education division-
551. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $280,400.
Welfare and industrial divisions-
552. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $66,600.
Yukon Territory-
553.	Operation and maintenance-to extend the purposes of vote 302 of the main estimates for 1961-62 to include the grant detailed in these estimates, $1.00.
Northwest Territories and other field services-
554.	Operation and maintenance-to extend the purposes of vote 304 of the main estimates for 1961-62 to include authority to sell electric power and fuel oil (and to provide services in respect thereof), in accordance with the terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, to private consumers in remote locations where alternative local sources of supply are not available and to provide for grants as detailed in these estimates, $110,000.
555. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $1,317,300.
National parks branch-
National parks and historic sites and monuments- 609. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required in respect of a program which will provide employment in Cape Breton, $1,100,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General administration-
581.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $299,335.
582.	Exhibitions branch-further amount required,
[Stage Direction]
Auditor General's office

41. Salaries and expenses of office, $1,115,400. Insurance-
164.	Departmental administration, $783,123.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
The Speaker of the Senate-
190.	Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
191.	General administration, $799,862.

House of Commons-
The Speaker of the House of Commons-
192.	Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000. Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons-
193.	Allowance in lieu of apartments, $1,500. Members of the House of Commons-
194.	Allowance to the deputy chairman of committees, $2,000.
195.	Expenses of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group, of delegates attending other inter-parliamentary conferences, expenses connected with visits of delegates from other legislatures and Canada's fee for membership in the inter-parliamentary union, $20,000.
196.	Canada's share of the expenses of the commonwealth parliamentary association including subscriptions to publications of the association, $21,000.
197.	Grant to the Canadian North Atlantic Treaty Organization parliamentary association, $14,000.
198.	General administration-estimates of the clerk, $2,215,340.
199.	Estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms, $1,032,470.
200.	Pension to the unmarried sister of the late colonel Harry Baker, M.P., $700.
The Senate-
535.	General administration-further amount required, $5,000.

[Stage Direction]
Production and marketing branch-
496.	Agricultural Stabilization Act administration -further amount required, $142,479.
497.	Contribution to Manitoba for expenses incurred in the period July 18, 1959, to May 24, 1961, in respect of crop insurance in the amount that would otherwise have been paid if the agreement entered into on the 24th day of May, 1961, by Canada with Manitoba pursuant to the Crop Insurance Act had been entered into on the 18th day of July, 1959, $174,393.
498.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, $250,161.
Dairy products division-
499.	Grants and other assistance in accordance with the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act-further amount required, $56,383.
Fruit and vegetable division, including maple products and honey-
500.	Assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council-further amount required $69,594.
Health of animals division-
501.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $582,690.
502.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $51,500.
503.	Compensation for animals slaughtered-further amount required, $1,380,000.
504.	Contributions to the provinces, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, of amounts not exceeding two-fifths of the amounts paid by the provinces to owners of animals that have died as a result of rabies since the first day of July, 1960, $15,000.
Livestock division-
505.	Special grant to Calgary exhibition and stampede, $200,000.
Production and marketing branch-
Livestock division-
603.	To extend the purposes of vote 23 of the main estimates for 1961-62 to authorize, subject
Supply-Items Passed
to the terms and conditions thereof, the issue by the Minister of Agriculture of premium warrants for high grade lamb carcasses, and to provide a further amount of, $380,000.
Plant products division-
604.	Contributions to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Minister of Agriculture, of one half of the amounts paid by those provinces in respect of the transport of fodder and haying equipment and the movement of cattle to feed in the period from the 26th day of June, 1961, to the 31st day of March, 1962, $1,500,000.
605.	Contribution to Prince Edward Island, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, of one half of amounts paid by that province to potato growers in respect of their 1960 crop as compensation for losses due to fusarium rot to a maximum contribution by Canada of $300 in respect of any one farm, $125,000.
Civil service commission-
506.	Salaries and contingencies of the commission -further amount required, $211,455.
Atomic energy-
Atomic energy control board-
37.	Administration expenses of the atomic energy control board, $69,515.
38.	Grants for researches and investigations with respect to atomic energy, $700,000.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-
(Research program)-
39.	Current operation and maintenance, including expendable research equipment, $29,756,200.
40.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake construction of works near the Whiteshell Nuclear research establishment for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $9,197,700.
Loans, investments and advances-
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-
479.	Advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in such amounts and on such terms and conditions (including the delivery of Her Majesty, in satisfaction of the advances, of obligations or shares of the company) as the governor in council may approve, to finance the construction of the Douglas Point Generating Station (formerly described as an atomic reactor (CANDU) and auxiliary buildings, etc.), $9,075,000.
Library of parliament-
201.	General administration, $352,828.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Geological survey of Canada-
536.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $50,000.
Mines branch-
537.	Administration, operation and maintenance- to extend the purposes of vote 220 of the main estimates for 1961-62 to include Canada's share of the cost of the Commonwealth committee on mineral processing and to provide a further amount of. $25,375.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
Dominion observatories-
Dominion observatory, Ottawa and field stations-
538. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $39,000.
Dominion astrophysical observatory, Victoria, B.C.-
539. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $84,000.
General-
540.	Purchases of air photography and the expenses of the inter-departmental committee on air surveys-further amount required, $338,000.
National research council, including the medical research council-
270.	Salaries and other expenses, $32,902,571.
271.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $5,162,943.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 25, 1961