1961-09-13

STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Valade: 1.	Has the C.N.R. sold the lots situated at the southeast corner of Sherbrooke and Viau streets in Montreal?
2.	If so: (a) on what date? (b) to whom? (c) what is, in square feet, the area of the land sold? (d) for what price, per square foot? (e) who authorized such sale? (f) have other adjoining parcels of land been sold thereafter to the same or other persons? (g) what was the sale price in each case? (h) to whom were such subsequent sales made? (i) were such parcels of land sold through public tenders? If not, on what other basis? (j) have all these transactions been authorized by the C.N.R. board of directors?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (for the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) August 10, 1953. (b) Bernard Dupuis et al. (c) Two parcels totalling 150,000 square ft. (d) 45.4 and 33.3 cents; total $60,000 for both parcels as shown in the records of the registry office division for Montreal, (e) The sale was processed and recommended by the company's real estate department through its general manager in the usual manner and approved by the board of directors, (f) Yes. (g) and (h) Sale price $10,750 to Bernard Dupuis. Sale price $11,700 to Bernard Dupuis. Sale price $17,550 to Bernard Dupuis. Sale price $10,375 to Lucerne Motel Cie Ltee. Sale price $7,625 to Lucerne Motel Cie Ltee. Sale price $240,779.28 to Christie Brown & Co., Ltd. All deeds are registered, (i) No. Negotiated price based on commercial value, (j) See answer to (e).


C.B.C. CENTRES, MONTREAL-TORONTO-VANCOUVER
Mr. Taylor: 1.	Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation planning construction of a radio-television centre in the city of Montreal and in the city of Toronto?
2.	If so, how much land is being purchased for the centres in Montreal and Toronto; and will such property be located in the downtown area or in the suburbs?
3.	What is the market value of the property to be purchased in Montreal and Toronto?
4.	What are the main requirements for locating a radio-television centre for C.B.C. operations?
90205-6-523J
5.	Is the corporation planning to build a centre in Vancouver on its property on Georgia street or elsewhere in Vancouver?
6.	What is the recommended acreage required for C.B.C. operations in Vancouver?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: This is a six part question, and I will answer accordingly, I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	33 acres of land have been purchased in suburban metropolitan Toronto. The area required for a Montreal consolidation site will be generally of the same order but precise areas cannot be determined until specific sites have been examined in detail.
3.	The Toronto site was purchased for the sum of $635,000 serviced. No decision has been made as to Montreal.
4.	Among other factors are:
(a)	Acceptability from a technical standpoint.
(b)	Sufficient area to permit the most economical construction of the known requirements together with provision for future developments.
(c)	Accessibility by public and private transportation during the full operating day together with adequate parking facilities.
(d)	Protection from present and future development which would be undesirable from a technical and administrative standpoint.
5.	Consideration has been given to this in connection with the long range plans for development of the corporation.
6.	When a decision is made the acreage will depend on the factors set out in No. 2 above.


FOREST FIREFIGHTING ASSISTANCE, NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Minister of National Defence in the past two years made any public statement on his department's intentions with regard to providing military personnel with training at forest firefighting, and of the availability of such a forest fire force for emergency situations in the country?
2.	If so, when and where?
3.	How many men have been trained to take part in forest firefighting in the past two years?
4.	What liaison and training facilities were developed with provincial forest firefighting services?
5.	In the summer of 1961, how was such a military force deployed to meet the forest fire crisis in British Columbia. Manitoba. Ontario, and Newfoundland?

Starred Questions


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	28,319 regular army soldiers received individual training in forest fire suppression during the past two years either during recruit training or during annual refresher training.
4.	Approximately 485 officers and men participated in forest firefighting training conducted in conjunction with or by provincial forestry officials. This training took the form of liaison visits, reconnaissance or planning activities and attendance by army personnel at courses, lectures or demonstrations conducted by provincial officials.
5.	British Columbia, no assistance was requested; Manitoba, 595 officers and men; Ontario, 14 officers and men; Newfoundland, 1,100 officers and men.



VOODOO PLANE


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 457-Mr. Fisher:
Donat Raymond: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes, this was one version released by a local representative of the public relations department.
2.	A piece of lighhearted and nonsensical whimsy that attracts reader interest and is good publicity through contrast.
3.	To "dig" the interpretation requires a humorous sense of the ridiculous, as delightfully illustrated by Mr. Richard Jackson in the Ottawa Journal of September 8.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

Mr. Robichaud: What was the amount to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund as of May 31, June 30, July 31, and August 31, 1961, as compared with similar dates for 1960?


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is a brief statistical table which the house might consent to have printed in Hansard at this point without being read.
1.	What costs above the basic purchase price are involved in placing one of the Voodoo planes in service with the Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	If the specific costs cannot be released for security reasons, is it a fact that considerable modifications have to be carried out in Canada?


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, the answers to parts 1 and 2 are as follows. No Canadian modifications to the aircraft are foreseen. As of the date of delivery to the R.C.A.F., all outstanding modifications to each CF-101B aircraft engine and frame will have been incorporated.



C.N.R. PUBLICITY RELEASE

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Canadian National Railways send out the following dispatch to any newspapers on July 19:
"JASPER PARK LODGE, Alta., July 19-Like, man, when the beats are next windin' up a jam session at your pad, why not give out with fodder that is really cool? Like an iceberg.
This way out number was dreamed up by the cookie at that big pad the CNR calls Jasper Park lodge. This Bill Schmidts is no square lad, dad. Like, he emotes with the mayonnaise.
So like, one day the lads who are with it in a far out way asked this Pastrami Picasso to put together a real cool number.
Now this cat was with it. He could dig. Like man, he took a piece of bread and sliced an onion on it. And then he sliced an orange on it. And then a slice of bread on top.
Like there you are. Dig? The guys who are in says its better than Bardot.
So be like the west, man. Get with it. Like, its crazy!"?
2.	If so, what was the purpose of this dispatch, and to whom was it sent?
3.	What does it mean?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: the table above referred to follows.]
May 31	
June 30 ....
July 31 ....
August 31 ...

$110,051,922.26 110,270,314.33 120,771,909.13 130,846,070.49 (Interim figure)



PROVINCIAL SALES TAX PAYMENTS BY CROWN COMPANIES

Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Which, if any, of the federal crown companies agree to the payment of sales taxes imposed by provincial governments on purchases made by such crown companies?
2.	Does the Ontario hydro power commission and the liquor control board of Ontario submit to payment of the 11 per cent sales tax of the federal government with respect to purchases made by them?


Richard Albert Bell: Could this question be made an order for return, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



PERMITS FOR OATS IMPORT FROM U.S.

Mr. Benidickson: On what dates, and for what quantities, and at what prices if stipulated, were permits issued since May I, 1961, by the Canadian wheat board for the import of oats from the United States of America?


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: The
answer is as follows. Permits issued by the wheat board for the import of oats from the United States are valid for a period of one month. There is no assurance that a permit issued to an importing firm will be filled in whole or in part. Since the release of details with respect to permits issued may imply a greater volume of imports than actually takes place, it is not considered in the public interest to reveal details which may not reflect actual import volumes and which might be detrimental to the board in its marketing operations in the commodity concerned. The import permits cover quantities only and do not stipulate prices.



CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE, MONTREAL  PLANS

Mr, Lessard: 1.	Have the plans of the approaches to the Champlain bridge in Montreal been altered?
2.	If so, could the minister tell the house at whose request such plans were altered, and give the nature of the changes and the approximate date when these changes will be made public?


Donat Raymond: The answers are as follows:
1.	The plans for the northern approaches to the Champlain bridge are in the process of being altered.
2.	Such modifications are being made at the instance of the joint national harbours board-city of Montreal committee, and it is not in the public interest to divulge details of the changes until expropriation proceedings have been completed.



REPRESENTATIONS FROM INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

Mr. Matheson: 1.	Has the government received any representation from the international monetary fund relative to the government's policy with regard to devaluation of the Canadian dollar?
2.	If so, what is the nature of such representation?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that no such representation was received.



ADDITIONAL WHEAT PURCHASES BY CHINA

Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Has China agreed to purchase additional quantities of wheat since the last report by the Minister of Agriculture to the house?
2.	If so, what are the particulars, and was it indicated to the wheat board that some of such purchases would be diverted and shipped to East Germany to cover sales under a trade agreement between China and East Germany?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The
answers are as follows:
Starred Questions
1.	Yes.
2.	The Canadian wheat board concluded a further sale of wheat to China under the long term agreement negotiated last April. The new sale involved approximately six million bushels of wheat for clearance from St. Lawrence ports during August and September. No indication has been received to date by the Canadian wheat board that the wheat involved in this contract would be diverted to East Germany.
SECTION 96a (2), INDIAN ACT



PROCLAMATION

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since November 1, 1960, has any Indian band in British Columbia submitted a resolution to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration asking that section 96A(2) of the Indian Act be proclaimed to be in force?
2.	If so, what is the name of each such band, the date of each such resolution, and the present status thereof?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there are some 37 bands in British Columbia that have submitted resolutions which are in various stages of processing at the moment which makes it difficult to give an oral answer. I could give full details on this matter if this question could be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



FIREFIGHTING ASSISTANCE BY ARMED SERVICES, N.S.

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence and the armed forces provide assistance to the government of Nova Scotia in fighting forest fires in 1960?
2.	If so, was any financial charge made for such assistance, and on what basis, and in what amount?


Egan Chambers: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Department of National Defence is seeking reimbursement for out of pocket expenses amounting to $60,102.33 relating to the assistance rendered by 410 officers and men of the armed services for fighting forest fires in the Sherbourne area of Nova Scotia during the period of September 3 to September 21, 1960.



TELEVISION SERVICE, MADAWASKA AND VICTORIA COUNTIES, N.B.

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the board of broadcast governors heard representations from station CJBR-TV Rimouski applying for permission to erect a satellite or a rebroadcasting station to provide television service to the population of northwestern New Brunswick, and particularly to the counties of Madawaska and Victoria?
2.	If so: (a) on what date or dates did such a hearing take place? (b) what was the nature of

Orders for Returns
the decision reached by the board of broadcast governors? (c) was the decision made public, and on what date?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 1.	Yes.
2 (a). The board heard two applications from CJBR-TV, the first at its public hearing on September 26, 1960, and the second at its public hearing on February 24, 1961.
2 (b). The board recommended that the application heard on September 26, 1960, be deferred and the second application which provided for increased power for the proposed rebroadcasting station, which was heard on February 24, 1961, be approved since, in the opinion of the board, the proposed station will provide a satisfactory French language service to the French speaking population of Madawaska county.
2 (c). The first recommendation was made public in the board's public announcement dated October 5, 1960, and the second in the board's public announcement dated March 3, 1961.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Benidickson: 1 Which, if any, of the federal crown companies agree to the payment of sales taxes imposed by provincial governments on purchases made by such crown companies?	.	.
2.	Does the Ontario hydro power commission and the liquor control board of Ontario submit to payment of the 11 per cent sales tax of the federal government with respect to purchases made by them?
SECTION 96a (2), INDIAN ACT-PROCLAMATION

Question No. 465-Mr. Howard:
1.	Since November 1, 1960, has any Indian band
in British Columbia submitted a resolution to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration asking that section 96A(2) .of the Indian Act be proclaimed to be in force?	.	.
2.	If so, what is the name of each such band, the date of each such resolution, and the present status thereof?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 158-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of the report of the Saint John river board on the effects of storage on power generation in New Brunswick.
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this motion with the hon. member and assured him of the information he is seeking. I believe he is agreeable to dropping the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion dropped.



TELEVISION SERVICE, MADAWASKA AND VICTORIA COUNTIES, N.B.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 159-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the board of broadcast governors or the Department of Transport or the Minister of National Revenue and all other persons concerning the granting of a licence for a television satellite or a rebroadcasting station to provide television service to the French-speaking population of Madawaska and Victoria counties in New Brunswick.
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with the hon. member and we have agreed on a beginning date of January 1, 1960 rather than the indefinite period to which the motion applies now. I would ask, therefore, that it be made an order for return, as it covers the various governmental and departmental agencies.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion shall be converted to an order for return, with the date indicated by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question, notice of which I gave to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is unavoidably detained, and which arises out of a report on the radio this morning of fighting in the Congo between UN forces, in which Canada is represented, and the Katanga provincial forces. Perhaps the Prime Minister would care to take this question as notice.
My question is whether the government has any comment to make on these reports, and particularly under what authority from the United Nations are United Nations forces empowered to use armed force in a situation of this kind.


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman has suggested, it would be better to take this question as notice, and I shall so do.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that he had given notice of a question dealing with the situation in the Congo. The Secretary of State for External Affairs received that notice this morning.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: He is right behind the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is a famous historical analogy, "Give me night or give me Blucher".


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I thank the Prime Minister for implementing his statement of the other day, namely that he never gets in the way of ministers.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that my interview with the foreign minister of Iceland did not last long enough.
It has been evident for several days now that a very tense situation was building up in Katanga, with the prospect that the United Nations might have to take firm measures to forestall the outbreak of large scale violence. While we do not yet have official reports on the latest developments, it would appear that the UN command now has moved to bring and keep the situation under control.
As hon. members are aware, there has been acute political tension in the Congo over the question of reintegrating the province of Katanga into the republic. One aspect of the resistance by some Katanga political leaders against a reconciliation with the central government appears to have been the revival of intertribal conflict in Katanga where, as the house will recall, there were heavy casualties in tribal clashes before the UN forces became established in that area.
One of the principal obligations imposed upon the United Nations command by the security council resolution of last February 21 was "to prevent the occurrence of civil war" in the Congo, and this was to include the prevention of armed clashes. The resolution specified that the measures which the United Nations might take in pursuit of this prime objective of preventing civil conflict should include the use of force "if necessary, in the last resort".
It is evidently the assessment of the United Nations authorities concerned that the situation in Katanga has now deteriorated to the point where strong measures offer the best likelihood of averting much more serious violence. Undoubtedly this decision is closely related to the recent reports that many thousands of Baluba tribesmen have sought United Nation protection in the face of reviving intertribal fighting. It is our earnest hope that by the present measures the United Nations will succeed in heading off more widespread trouble.
As far as we are aware, no Canadian personnel in the Congo have been involved in the current clashes in Katanga. There is one Canadian liaison officer with the UN units
Inquiries of the Ministry in Elizabethville. We expect to be having reports, of course, and when they are available I shall be very glad to inform the house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the story in this morning's Globe and Mail headed "500 Young Zip-Zip Canadians Wanted by Loblaw for U.K. Jobs", and in view of the fact that Mr. George C. Metcalf, president of Loblaw Groceterias Company Limited is a member of the national productivity council, does this advertisement reflect proposals of the national productivity council toward the lessening of unemployment in Canada?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I read in the newspaper this morning the article indicating that Loblaw Groceterias Company Limited were advertising for 500 Canadians for jobs in their stores in Great Britain.
I immediately got in touch with Mr. George C. Metcalf of the Loblaw company, who informed me that the only reason for this recruitment of Canadians is that this company is in the process of opening up 40 new stores in Great Britain in the immediate future. This company finds that there is a great lack of experience in the supermarket business in Great Britain. Consequently they are unable to recruit the type of help to which they are accustomed in the efficient operation of their stores. Their experience is that Canadians have been exposed to the supermarkets in Canada for a great many years and are easily integrated into that type of business.
I am also informed that Mr. Weston, who prides himself on being a Canadian and who knows Canadian characteristics, is anxious to have Canadians man these stores, in order to carry on an efficient business in Great Britain.
In view of this consideration, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who asked the question is putting a wrong interpretation on the whole situation.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that attempts were made by that company in the United Kingdom to obtain United Kingdom help, but that because of the small amount of unemployment there the effort was unsuccessful?
8288	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East usually gets his information from the wrong sources. I have given the house the true picture of the situation.



VISIT OP RED CHINESE MISSION TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I should like to direct a question to the acting minister. Is it true, as reported, that a delegation from the government of communist China is coming to Canada to meet with the department, and if so, when is the meeting taking place and what are the subjects to be discussed?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall have to take the question as notice.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce, while he is abroad, expects to be in London. If so, will he impress on the United Kingdom government while there the necessity of bringing to an early conclusion the arrangements arising out of the uranium contract?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I expect, while the minister is abroad, that he will be dealing with all matters of urgent importance affecting Canada's trade.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister whether he has any further information concerning his proposed trip to Japan.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, an announcement was made yesterday in Tokyo to the effect that, following two invitations given to me to visit Japan, one by Prime Minister Kishi and the other by Prime Minister Ikeda, to which reference was made in the communique issued on the occasion of the visit of Mr. Ikeda, I had accepted.
These plans were made some time ago. The acceptance has been given. I point out


to the house that this of course is subject to intervening events. My visit will cover the last five days of October. We have tremendous trade relations with Japan and in the matter of world events concerning freedom Japan occupies a prominent place.
The last visit by a Canadian prime minister was by Mr. St. Laurent in 1954, and it brought benefits to Canada. I have found, and I think this view is generally shared by the leaders of the various countries, that these visits have a pronounced beneficial effect and are necessary. I know that if there is nothing during the intervening period which prevents my visiting there for that number of days, my visit will not only repay the visits made to this country but will strengthen our relationship with Japan and also lead, as Prime Minister Ikeda has said, to an extension of our trade relations.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO MEETING TO AMEND CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice if, now that the constitutional conference has concluded, he proposes to report to the house on the conclusions reached, particularly in the light of the published contradictory reports as to the results of the conference?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any published contradictory reports with regard to the conference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were given in the Globe and Mail of this morning.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The conference of attorneys general reached a very encouraging degree of agreement on the outstanding problems between us. As was stated in the official communique issued at the end of the meeting, most of the discussion concerned the question of a formula for the delegation of power as between the dominion parliament and provincial legislatures. This was the main point upon which agreement had not been reached in earlier discussions. Most of our discussions in the last two days were devoted to trying to arrive at agreement in principle on this matter. In this we were largely successful.
The position now is that the draftsmen assisting us have been instructed to prepare a final draft of all the proposals which have been discussed and upon which agreement has been reached. When that is done it will be placed in final form before the attorneys general for submission to and consideration by their governments. It is the hope that the

governments will find it possible to accept this as a basis for proposals to lay before their respective legislatures.
If that should be the case, then the work of the attorneys general conference is concluded. If, however, differences of substance emerge in the course of consideration by governments it may be necessary to reconvene the attorneys general conference in a further effort to reconcile points of difference.
I would also advise the house that at the time the final draft is placed in the hands of the attorneys general for them in turn to place before their governments, the text of our recommendation will be made public.


PEACE RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I apologize for not giving him notice, but this was caused by my attention being directed to other matters related to my heavy responsibilities.
My question arises because a group of us watched the minister's participation in "Close-Up" last evening. Is the government giving consideration to blocking the development of the Peace river by the government of British Columbia by the use of the Navigable Waters Protection Act or any other federal statute?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that this government is giving consideration to all measures which would bring about a logical, orderly and sensible development of the power potential of British Columbia, which of course means that the Columbia river development should be started first.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister advise the house whether the government has accepted the recommendation of the board of broadcast governors approving the application of station CJBR-TV, Rimouski, for the erection of a satellite station to serve Madawaska and Victoria counties?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, a large number of recommendations have been processed and dealt with by the board at its recent hearings.
Inquiries of the Ministry I am not certain of the identity of these various matters. I shall have to check and answer at a later date.



TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twillingate):: May I ask the Minister of National Revenue a question arising out of the answer he gave yesterday to an earlier question of mine about the private television station in Toronto. Has the minister drawn-and if not, will he draw-to the attention of the broadcast governors the fact that the transfer of a substantial ownership in this station to the American Broadcasting Company would be contrary to the sentiments expressed in this house at the time the Broadcasting Act was passed, and would certainly not be in the national interest?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sure the members of the board of broadcast governors read Hansard, and they will notice the remarks made by the hon. member, which I suspect may express the sentiments of this house; but it is not the responsibility of the minister to convey any instructions as such to the board.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct the question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources based on a question I posed to him on June 26, as reported on page 7035 of Hansard relating to certain correspondence between himself and the Canadian Marconi Company. At that time the minister indicated that the correspondence was current, which prevented him from tabling it. Could the minister bring the house up to date as to the state of the correspondence, and advise whether he is in a position to table it?
Hon W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources): Mr. Speaker, I shall investigate that matter and bring in a report for the hon. member.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pose a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister as yet

Inquiries of the Ministry in a position to advise the house what action if any is to be taken by the government to implement the recommendations of the royal commission on the publications?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on previous occasions, when the government is in a position to do so, it will advise and inform the house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. On July 22, 1961 the Ottawa Citizen carried a story called "Canada Urged to Peg Dollar" the first sentence of which reads:
Canada was advised by the International monetary fund today to return her dollar to a pegged exchange rate hut informants said Canada gave no firm indication she would accept the advice-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member has laid sufficient foundation for his question.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. Is there any truth in the story carried in the Ottawa Citizen of July 22, 1961?


Mr. Speaker:: It has not been the practice to ask the simple question, can the minister advise whether or not the newspaper report is true.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Especially one of last July.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, as pointed out by the Minister of Justice, the matter is not one of urgency and, furthermore, was the subject of a question which was dealt with this morning.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a question, but not a supplementary.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, you are quite correct in checking me on the use of that phraseology in my question. My question is this. In view of the apparent conflict between the answer given by the parliamentary secretary to questions today and an earlier announcement of July 22 on the same subject, would the parliamentary secretary look into the matter and bring forward a statement on the situation?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will examine

Hansard, of September 7 at page 8057 he will find an answer of the Minister of Finance which deals with the matter in full detail.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask whether, in the light of the statement by the Minister of Transport some time ago that the assistance for ship construction would include assistance for small fishing vessels, any other fishing vessels are included in this assistance except 75 foot steel trawlers. If so, what they are?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member studies the regulations that have been printed he will find that the definition of ships which qualify for assistance is those that are used in some commercial enterprise, which would include fishing. In addition there is a subsidy for certain classes of fishing vessels, which is administered by the Department of Fisheries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question for clarification. Would the minister indicate whether there is in fact any new or additional assistance for any kind of fishing vessel except steel trawlers 75 feet and over?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The types of fishing vessels which come within the regulations published by the Department of Transport. The fact that they are fishing vessels will not exclude them from the general terms.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he could say whether the board of broadcast governors has received and, if so, whether it has considered an application to establish a new radio station at Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia by the Colchester Broadcasting Company. If so, what disposition has been made on such application?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not in a position to give a full answer, Mr. Speaker. My impression is that that application was considered within the last few days, but I shall have to check to be positive of it.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My question is based on his recent statement concerning fall-out levels resulting from recent nuclear test explosions. Can the minister say whether the calculations he gave to the house yesterday included the fall-out levels from the last two Soviet union explosions, one of which at least was of greater magnitude than any of its predecessors?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge they did not.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Acting Minister of Finance whether he is in a position to inform the house of the personnel of the Canadian delegation of officials that will be meeting with other commonwealth government officials in London in the next week or so to discuss problems arising out of the United Kingdom application to join the European common market.


George Clyde Nowlan: I will take that as notice.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.



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.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the one item with which I will deal at this moment will be the emergency measures and the organization in general, in order to place before the committee some indication of the measures that have been taken for survival. I take it
Supply-Privy Council that this will provide the committee with an opportunity to hear the views of various members regarding this matter. I trust that after discussion general support will be given to the measures and plans which have been evolved and are in effect.
The committee started with a consideration of external affairs and proceeded to a general discussion of the problem of defence. As indicated by me the other day, I hoped for an early opportunity to place before the committee something of the views of the government in the application of the principles of survival as developed by co-operation among federal, provincial, and municipal authorities.
On September 7, the Minister of National Defence and I made statements to the house regarding decisions that had been made on certain emergency preparations in the defence field. At that time I indicated that I would make a more comprehensive statement on emergency measures. I am not going to repeat any of the matters or deal with the questions that were dealt with earlier, except to say that the progress made by the Department of National Defence in respect of the order in council for emergency planning passed in 1959 which has resulted in the formulation of plans that can be brought rapidly into action at a time of crisis is in the opinion of the government confirmation of the wisdom of the decision that was made to assign to the Department of National Defence certain major responsibilities in the emergency planning field.
The statement made by the Minister of National Defence on September 7 dealt more particularly with the national survival role of that department. I wish at this time to say something further with respect to other aspects of emergency planning as they affect the public in general.
Two matters are very much in the minds of the Canadian people at the moment. One is that at a time of stress and difficulty, with the ever-increasing threats made by Mr. Khrushchev and the increasing number of explosions of larger and larger instruments of destruction, the people are asking what are the possibilities of evacuation or dispersal of residents of larger urban centres, and in particular those that are probable target areas. The other question is the matter of individual shelter, what can be done to provide helpful and meaningful action to reduce the number of persons who would die in any area should such an event take place, and in particular in large cities.
Some say that action in this regard will be ineffective. That is not the point of view of those who know and have given study to this matter not only in our country but in the United Kingdom, the United States and other

Supply-Privy Council countries. Indeed, without going into detail at the moment, may I say this. According to the recent announcement of the President of the United States on this important matter, a number of those things which we in Canada had adopted earlier have been accepted now in that country as important steps toward survival. A certain degree of voluntary evacuation is certain to take place and we believe that all cities should have in hand plans to assist in controlling those movements. A corollary, of course, is the planning of suitable reception preparations for those who would need them following their evacuation from their homes.
The other consideration, as I mentioned, is the provision of shelter. A distinction must be made between shelter against the blast and fire effects of nuclear weapons and shelter designed to protect against radioactive fallout. The former type of shelter has much significance to residents of larger cities which might be the object of direct attack. For the majority of the Canadian people, however, protection against fall-out is much more significant and necessary, since it is the peril which is most likely to affect them. Even in the larger cities, if they are spared direct attack so that blast effects do not arise, fall-out shelters are of importance.
The government has given attention to many of the problems that arise with respect to fall-out. Target cities in arranging their survival plans must give and are giving attention to the positive steps they can take in the direction of both evacuation and shelter, and these plans will vary according to the different circumstances in existence from city to city.
The problem of appropriate types of shelter for Canadians in the varying circumstances is a complex one. Some live in private homes; others live in apartments, and there are considerable numbers in institutions of various kinds. It is felt that in addition to the information concerning shelters which offer a degree of protection and shelters suitable for occupancy for up to 14 days, consideration should be given to adaptations which would provide the same degree of protection at less cost. We should also suggest improvised types of protection suitable for shorter use, and makeshift arrangements where the protection offered is admittedly lower than might be considered reasonable but which will nevertheless give a degree of protection for short periods at least.
In this field of shelters, tenders have been called for construction at the Canadian civil defence college at Arnprior of a variety of prototype shelters. Some of these are designed for single families. Others will take

groups of families or other persons totalling as many as 30 occupants. Some will be blast resistant and some are designed to protect against fall-out only. These prototypes will serve for instruction and display, and will make possible investigation of living conditions in them, and, of course, they will be available for use in an emergency.
In addition to shelters in homes and other places of residence, it has been recognized that many larger buildings offer a good deal of potential fall-out protection. With modest preparations possibly involving relatively small costs, fall-out protection can be secured in such buildings for countless thousands of people. With a view to ascertaining which buildings have such possibilities and what their capacity may be, the government in the spring of 1961 authorized suitable surveys. The Department of Public Works proceeded with the work and has completed surveys of all federal buildings with a view to determining the amount of fall-out protection in them.
Members may be interested to learn that new techniques have been developed which enable the Department of Public Works to make these surveys quickly. I refer to the use of special cameras to determine the nature and character of the construction of buildings and the use of electronic computers to speed the securing of early results. This latter procedure came about through cooperation given by the Ontario department of highways, to whom the thanks of the government are extended. This is the type of survey now to be initiated in the United States. I understand that the Canadian methods have been reviewed favourably there and may be adapted for use in the survey recently announced in that country.
Some 4,820 buildings in Canada have been checked, and the Department of Public Works is now engaged in determining those that have adequate fall-out protection, those that can be improved to provide such protection, and others that cannot be thus improved due to the excessive costs involved. These surveys and their results will be available to the planners concerned shortly, and it will then be possible to determine how much of such accommodation could be made available to the public.
A new technical manual entitled "An Engineer Looks at Fall-out Shelter" has just been printed. It is designed for use by engineers and architects who will be responsible for carrying out surveys of existing fall-out protection in buildings and the possible incorporation of protective measures against fall-out in new buildings. These manuals are now being distributed and

should be invaluable to provinces and municipalities in undertaking their fall-out shelter surveys generally throughout the country.
In planning for the survival of our people, accurate public information is of vital importance, and during the past two years the government has authorized the publication of a series of pamphlets under the general name "Blueprint for Survival". These have included such booklets as "Your Basement Fall-out Shelter", "Fall-out on the Farm" and, more recently, "Eleven Steps to Survival". These pamphlets have been very much in demand, and as a result of the present international situation there has been a very large increase in requests in the last few weeks. More than a million copies of the publication "Eleven Steps To Survival" were printed up to July of this year, but it has become necessary to arrange for another large printing which is now in hand. This is indicative of the attitude and the feeling of Canadians as a whole. It is felt that publications which relate to the protection of the people under the possible perils of nuclear war deserve top priority in view of the widespread demand for full and up to the minute information.
Furthermore, there are other media of public information that will be used both nationally and locally, including the press, television and radio. The C.B.C. has been charged with the responsibility of developing an emergency radio broadcasting plan whereby adequate information can be made available to the public in the event of nuclear war even if normal broadcasting facilities are disrupted. C.B.C. studios are directly connected with army warning centres, and are capable of transmitting vital information to the public should the need arise.
In so far as a national exercise is concerned, the announcement was made recently that there will be another national exercise to test emergency plans. The last one was held in May, 1961, and served to inform the public of the plans that have been developed nationally, provincially and municipally. The forthcoming exercise, which I think will take place in early November, will enable the various warning arrangements to be used. It will bring home to individual Canadians and to the various levels of government their responsibilities and will enable an exploration of what can be done to meet the potential dangers. In short, the aim of such an exercise is to check the readiness of this country to meet the actual challenge of war if perchance that challenge should confront us.
The planning and preparations made by provinces and municipalities are important and cannot be overemphasized. I might refer to the financial assistance program of the
Supply-Privy Council federal government, which recognizes that planning of this sort is most significant as it gets nearer and nearer the people affected. That is why local planning is of such great importance. While the federal government can develop broad measures for Canada as a whole, and the provinces likewise within their respective boundaries, planning in detail can only be done at the local level. Hence the case for support and assistance in the costs that will be involved.
For some years the federal government has provided such financial support in respect of personnel and administration costs, supplies and equipment, training and all the other items that arise in the course of local planning. Included are communications equipment, construction costs for local emergency government headquarters, payment of fees for first aid training, purchase of protective clothing for volunteers and other emergency personnel, rescue equipment, vehicles, cost of local training exercises and publication of local survival plans including material on evacuation and shelter such as has been done by some of the larger cities. These costs are supported on approval to the extent of 75 per cent and when I say that these costs are supported I mean that they are supported from federal sources.
The federal government has provided $4,350,000 for this financial assistance program during the current fiscal year. To date projects totalling $3.5 million have been approved, of which the federal share exceeds $2.5 million, and a further volume of projects of an approximate value of $1.5 million is now being reviewed. It would appear that eventually more than $5 million in provincial and municipal projects will have been submitted this year, of which the federal government will pay some $3,700,000. This program of financial assistance has been generally admitted by the provinces to have been extremely helpful in provincial and local emergency planning.
In order that municipalities should have a degree of guidance in developing their local emergency plans, several significant steps have been taken by the federal government including the distribution of a publication "A Survival Planning Guide for Municipalities" and the provision of courses for mayors, reeves and councillors, as well as courses for municipal officials. This feature has been widely accepted by municipal officials.
I might point out that at the conference for mayors, reeves and wardens held in May at the Canadian civil defence college, some 69 attended. There were 64 present in October, 1960 at the Canadian civil defence college conference in respect to the provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova

Supply-Privy Council Scotia and Newfoundland. At the conference in Edmonton from November 4 to 7, 1960 for the three prairie provinces, British Columbia, Northwest Territories and the Yukon, 56 attended. A further course took place in Ontario from November 6 to 10, 1960 at the Canadian civil defence college, and 81 attended. There were further courses in March and June this year for the maritime area and also for the western area. In all, these courses were attended by some 414 mayors, reeves and wardens.
The foregoing measures are largely concerned with survival. There is a related and important aspect of emergency planning, and that is the continuity of government. This is being provided for in all NATO countries to assure that there shall be such continuity in the event that war comes. This continuity of government is being provided for, so far as it is possible to do so, for all levels of government. If people are to survive they will need leadership, not only national but provincial as well as municipal. The government has authorized the construction of emergency headquarters in each of the provinces to provide facilities for governmental operations in wartime.
Since permanent emergency headquarters will not be completed for some months, it has been found desirable to make available immediately interim emergency headquarters. These will have the necessary communications to ensure that operations can be carried on. Arrangements are in effect with regard to the provision of central facilities for the federal government. Similar facilities are now being provided in the provinces designed for use by a nucleus of federal public servants in each province and by various elements of the provincial government and its officials, and by the Canadian army. These regional headquarters are protected against radioactive fallout but are not provided with protection against blast effect. The headquarters are not in the so-called target areas.
This is an aspect to which reference is made from time to time. It is one of those things that are absolutely necessary. It was found to be necessary in the days of the last war when the probabilities of complete disruption of government by the destruction of capital cities was far less direct and fearsome than it is today.
With regard to other aspects of emergency measures, I should like to refer to the fields of transportation, meteorology and defence production, as well as health and hospitalization. In the field of transportation we have provided for the establishment of an emergency organization for the control of all types of transport, inland, coastal, water, civil aviation, and
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
road. The Department of Transport is working in close relationship with all agencies involved. Qualified individuals have been and are being selected to serve on emergency transport organizations. Plans have been made for the control and administration in wartime of the whole civil and national telecommunications system to ensure the best possible use of communications that survive attack, and the identification of alternate routes where existing systems have been disrupted or destroyed.
Provision is being made for the continuation of meterological services across Canada, for they are vital from many points of view, not the least of which is the assessment of fall-out patterns.
The Department of Defence Production has planned the organization of a war supplies agency which will be responsible in wartime for the control, production and distribution of all supplies and the establishment of rationing and price controls if required. Individuals are being selected to serve on the war supplies agency in wartime, and studies are being made of the need for the stockpiling in peacetime of certain supplies to be located so as to be readily available for use by the population. The department has already achieved a certain capability to operate such an agency, both nationally and regionally, and has a well developed plan for a system of damage analysis in order to be able to calculate immediately what supplies remain after attack and from this to determine their best use.
Now I come to the question of health. The Department of National Health and Welfare is responsible for arranging and stockpiling essential medical items. This has now reached a cost of $9 million, with supplies placed at strategic points throughout the country. In many cases they have been redistributed and so located as to be available to provincial health services. Eventually this program will cost $18 million. Arrangements have been made to have available 200 emergency hospitals with total accommodation for 40,000 patients. These emergency hospitals can be set up on short notice, thereby adding greatly to the national capacity for taking care of the victims of a nuclear war. All nursing schools in Canada and six of the 12 medical schools have introduced into their curricula a study of emergency nursing and health procedure. Through the co-operation of the St. John's Ambulance and Red Cross, tens of thousands of men and women have been trained in first aid and home nursing procedures. It has been estimated that some 50 per cent of all hospitals in Canada now have disaster plans.

These are examples of the work of particular departments and agencies. Others are doing comparable work. A case in point is the planning by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which will help support the efforts of the various attorneys general in maintaining law and order.
With a view to providing the necessary authority for control of all these areas of emergency action, special orders and regulations will have to be available for use in wartime. The federal departments concerned have already submitted proposals for the orders, and these are now being assessed with a view to assuring their adequacy and also to prevent duplication.
There are additional measures in a number of fields that are being studied, such as the following:
1.	The authorization for the emergency measures organization, through the C.B.C. and otherwise to arrange appropriate notices to draw public attention to shelter and other survival measures such as those set forth in the pamphlet "Eleven Steps to Survival".
2.	Determination of the costs that will be involved in bringing selected federal buildings up to at least minimum standards of protection against fall-out and in providing essential facilities and supplies for survival of occupants under fall-out conditions.
3.	Consideration of measures giving priority to target areas, which in the main include our larger cities, for increasing fall-out protection for those dwelling in private houses or apartment houses by making it possible for people to make use of government, privately owned, commercial and industrial buildings.
4.	Arrangements for an early conference of federal and provincial ministers in the civil emergency planning field to review planning programs, training programs, financial aid measures and related matters.
5.	Development by EMO of a pattern of decentralized units of emergency government on a zonal basis, each of these zones being smaller than regions, in order to provide the necessary backup to emergency arrangements for regional government and to ensure that survival programs are understood by the people concerned.
6.	Consideration of measures to ensure the training of the great numbers of civilians required in rescue and radiation monitoring to be undertaken by federal, provincial and local authorities, this planning being additional to the army's current program in these fields.
I should stress that most of the items of planning to which I have made reference have been under way for some time but the present international situation has tended to emphasize their importance. Looking back
Supply-Privy Council to what has taken place since 1959, may I say this. The basic arrangement then made, assigning the main civil defence responsibilities to four departments of government, has worked out very well. As I said a moment ago, the arrangement announced within the last few weeks by President Kennedy with respect to civil emergency planning parallels in many respects the arrangement which we have brought into effect. The assignments now given to the secretary of defence in the United States in respect of survival planning are very much similar to those carried out here by the Department of National Defence in the fields of warning, radiological monitoring, emergency communications and damage assessment.
There is a significant difference in the responsibility for the development of the shelter program, which is placed in the privy council office through the emergency measures organization. The current stress given to shelter in the United States, particularly with respect to the use of surveys to determine the protective capacity of existing buildings, is similar to the work we have been doing throughout the year 1961.
The creation of the office of emergency planning in the United States, which will be charged in the main with the co-ordination of all civilian wartime planning and with the responsibility of developing useful measures for the continuity of government, has brought into existence an agency comparable to the emergency measures organization which we have here.
I think these points are worthy of emphasis, for they indicate that Canadian planning, while it was focused on Canada and the specific needs of the Canadian people, is not unrelated to planning in the United States and, I might add as well, among our NATO allies generally.
This, Mr. Chairman, is not the kind of report one would relish bringing before the house. It is, however, necessary. We realize that in our country and in the free world there hangs over us from day to day the cloud of successive test explosions by the U.S.S.R., threatening in their import and I only hope not prospective of their use in the days ahead. I know there are some who say, "Why do anything about it?" These are measures designed as insurance to the highest degree possible for the survival of Canadians. I pray that they will never be used.
When I read some of the headlines I think it must be emphasized and re-emphasized that scaring people is not the course that democracies follow. Democracies, however, are sometimes slow to realize the danger, namely that the challenges of communism which

Supply-Privy Council
know no restraint but power, are being increased daily. The devotion of this government is to peace. The continued advocacy of disarmament has had that one purpose in mind. However, when you arrive at a point where everything you endeavour to do in order to bring about disarmament is met by the stone wall of formidable indifference coupled with continuing threats, the people in the free world must realize that every action a government can take for survival must be taken.
Peace is our aim. Peace is our dedication. Peace is the purpose for which the hours of government are taken. But at the same time we would be remiss if we did not do everything we can to preserve and maintain our country against the dread contingency that has been made more frightening by the repeated statements, each often more threatening than the last, that have characterized Mr. Khrushchev and his international revelations and plans during the last few months.
I do not say that what has been done is perfect. No plan that can be made will ever achieve the measure of perfection that all of us have in mind. Last evening I was reading Lord Hankey's book, which is in two volumes, on the days of war. He was the clerk of the British cabinet. After all, clerks of the cabinet are closer to international and national events than even the cabinet ministers themselves, for they have all the departments within their knowledge. He points out the number of trials that turned out to be errors. All the same, advances were made each time.
We are in a field that has never been seriously considered as a necessary one in the past. We are in a field of danger that has developed nationally and internationally. It has developed in increasing measure since 1948. I think we owe the thanks of the house and the country to those who are devoting themselves to this administration, to the voluntary workers, to those who are in charge of the organization, to Mr. Curry and those associated with him. After all, in so far as voluntary workers are concerned, they are giving their services, often thanklessly in the public mind, in their individual contributions to the survival of us all. Such service is of the highest order of good citizenship.
I have taken longer than I intended, but I ought to place before the committee in some detail the action that is being taken and some conception of the additional steps that we have in hand.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee has been indeed interested in the statement by the Prime Minister this morning. It was- a comprehensive statement in

many ways. It covered a great deal of territory. It also reflected an awakening of the government's interest in the subject of civil survival. It was delivered in a very serious tone. One cannot help but wonder whether that tone is reflected in the action being contemplated by the government.
It is interesting to note that another exercise will be held in November to test the adequacy of measures taken so far. We hope there will be a considerable improvement shown from the last exercise. We are sure this will be so. However, we still suspect that it will show up a considerable number of very fundamental gaps, and we feel these have to be discussed in greater detail. In considering this subject one must look at a fundamental question, is passive defence worth while? This depends on the kind of world in which we and our children will have to live.
It is a fact, as the Prime Minister indicated, that the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have great stockpiles of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. It is also a fact that they are continuing the production and development of these weapons. Much time and effort has been spent attempting to negotiate a disarmament agreement, so far without success. This is a matter of profound regret to all of us. At the same time we must face the facts as they exist. If we must live under an umbrella of thermonuclear terror for a prolonged period, it may be advisable to take such effective steps as are open to us. As Rogers Cannell said:
A non-military defence program is very much more than a passive aspect of preparation for allout war. An extensive, well planned, thoroughly co-ordinated civil defence program is one of the best, most positive steps we can take to avoid war or blackmail threats of war.
The Russians know that we have as yet no real protection for our population. Knowing this, they are in a much stronger position to attempt atomic blackmail. The threat of an attack which would kill a large proportion of our population cannot be taken lightly.
Also, the Soviet know that we have no defence now. A dozen Bomarc squadrons and a dozen squadrons of Voodoos would not begin to provide us with any protection. As a matter of fact the fall-out from these so-called defensive weapons alone, if they are equipped with nuclear warheads, would be sufficient to wreak tremendous havoc amongst our civilian population. No, Mr. Chairman, we have no protection from these devices; we are as exposed as babes in the wood.
The true value of any defence program lies in its contribution to national objectives. If total war should come, and like the Prime Minister we pray that it will not, the survival

of the people-and they are the nation- would be a primary objective. It is virtually certain that at the present time and in the foreseeable future the most effective measures for national survival in the event of war are those which contribute most to the survival of the people. These same measures act as a considerable deterrent to those who would contemplate the launching of a total war.
The Russians themselves appreciate this position. They have already taken steps far in advance of ours, and most of the adult population has received extensive instruction in civil defence measures emphasizing radiological protection.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman to give his authority for that statement.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My authority for that statement is the Stanford Institute research program. The Russians, aware of the facts, train their population in such activities as decontamination, shelter improvisation and atomic, biological and chemical warfare protection. Our government, too, is in possession of the facts, but so far does not seem to take the subject as seriously as one might expect, if the information available to the civilian population is true.
I have often said that it is important, in considering a large problem, to first admit that it exists and then to gauge its magnitude. Once this has been done it is possible to take action on the required scale. If the job is worth doing it is worth doing well. It is useless for some people to have shelters, for example, and others not. In this case chaos would result, if war were launched. As someone said the other day, "What sort of a problem would there be if the sirens sounded; if one person in a neighbourhood had a shelter and if women and children from other homes in the neighbourhood began to congregate there for protection?" On what basis would the selection be made? What tests it would impose on human behaviour.
It is a question of all or nothing. If the job is to be an all-out job, it can only be done if the government provides the leadership, and in particular if it provides the financial assistance necessary to do the job. The magnitude is too great for individual initiative. Strong leadership is required, and strong leadership has not yet been forthcoming. The Prime Minister himself said this morning, "If people are to survive, they need leadership". We agree with that. We are glad to see this new interest.
As the Prime Minister indicated, at least by inference, it would not even be sufficient to have a shelter in every home. The requirement would depend on the time of day at which the attack took place. If it occurred
Supply-Privy Council during the day, for example, many children would be at school. It would be necessary to have effective fall-out shelters in schools and other public buildings. The Prime Minister has indicated that surveys are going to be undertaken to determine the adaptability of public buildings for fall-out shelters. The thing that would concern many people in a casual reading of the right hon. gentleman's statement would be the number of surveys which are now to be undertaken. One would wonder why some of them had not been undertaken sooner if the threat is as grave as was reflected in the Prime Minister's tone this morning.
The Prime Minister referred to evacuation. Certainly to have evacuation, warning would be required. Undoubtedly there might be some cases when evacuation would be necessary in the cold war. In times of extreme crisis or if we were under the threat of atomic blackmail, if adequate facilities were available for partial evacuation of our great cities it would add something to the credibility of the deterrent. But this is no substitute for urban residential shelters.
Then, too, the warning systems must be realistic, and as yet they are not. The sirens themselves are practically useless and often do not work. The signals are sometimes not understood. Sometimes they cannot be heard in all areas, and certainly not inside buildings with the windows closed. They cannot be heard when the weather is inclement, when there are storms, and they certainly could not be heard, in most cases, by sleepers at night. If the system is going to be of any use at all and if it is to effectively fulfil its function it has to be properly arranged. There is no question but that an effective warning system would require an individual type of warning, some device within every home and building which could be instantaneously activated either by telephone or by radio in the event of attack. The period of warning has become so short that no other means of communication would be adequate. Some automatic device would have to be developed which would be capable of coping with the situation.
In addition to the shelters and an adequate warning system, many other measures are required. The Prime Minister outlined a number of them in his statement this morning. These include facilities for the storage of food and materials, the provision of medical supplies and other necessities of life, facilities for re-entry and for rehabilitation. All these things must be attended to. It is obvious that to do the job properly even on a minimum scale is a major and expensive project. Any guess as to the probable cost without benefit
8298	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council of a thorough study would be highly speculative. It is obvious, however, that an expenditure of $3 billion or $4 billion would be required in as many years if shelter protection and warning systems were to be installed on a universal basis for our population.
It is the responsibility of the government to say whether or not the job is worth doing. The government is presumably in possession of all the facts; indeed, it sometimes gives the impression that it is endowed with prescience. If the job is essential we should be told and advised of the consequences. If the government does not think the task is worth undertaking it should say so and give the reasons, explaining at the same time why it is spending money on partial and inadequate measures.
What has the government done so far? In fact, very little, and in reverse order. It is true that it has set up an emergency measures organization. It is also true, as the Prime Minister reminded us this morning, that it has divided the responsibility among four and perhaps more departments. There are those who think this authority is too divided, that it is unworkable, because it lacks a straight line command.
I join the Prime Minister in his tribute to the individuals who are members of the emergency measures organization and others engaged in this work. They are doing the very best they can under extremely difficult circumstances. They are dedicated, competent individuals, and we wish them every success in what they are undertaking. But the real problem is the lack of leadership on the part of the government. This case has been put many times, once by the Globe and Mail in an editorial on Thursday, May 18, 1961. The article is entitled "Survival Without Defence" and reads in part as follows:
The core of the difficulty in evolving a comprehensive civil defence policy is the lack of a clear defence policy, which in turn would have to stem from a well-defined foreign policy.
In the opinion of some of us at least we still do not have a clearly defined defence and foreign policy. The government has, of course, built a shelter for itself. This is fine. The Prime Minister mentioned the necessity for the continuity of government. We hope he is not preoccupied with the continuity of the present government.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member need not worry about that; we are sure.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the Prime Minister spends a great deal of time worrying about it. The government has purchased very little equipment. The government is now talking about prototype shelters. I must say I was surprised to hear that reference in the Prime


Minister's statement. I would have thought the prototypes would have been undertaken many months ago. Particularly I would have thought the prototypes would have been completed before pamphlets were prepared and distributed to the public indicating methods of construction.
In addition to those things mentioned by the Prime Minister this morning, most of which in substance are in the planning and survey stages, the government has mentioned the training of 100,000 additional troops for civil survival. This, on the face of it, sounds like a very fine idea. We certainly need more trained people to assist in the event of a national calamity. According to the figures given to the committee yesterday by the Minister of National Defence, the cost of the training of these individuals will be approximately $5 million per month for pay and allowances alone. On the basis of the total figure he gave us it is obvious there is no provision whatsoever for equipment. We are going to have a broomstick army. I can just see them now, the 100,000 men out with their brooms sweeping up the radioactive debris. Of course I forgot one thing. They will all be dead; they will, that is, unless an adequate shelter and warning system has been established in the meantime. The whole program has been backwards. It is useless to have a training scheme without the essential requirements of shelters, warning systems and a stockpile of supplies, etc.
It would be difficult to establish priorities, but certainly a proper priority would be to build the shelters, to install adequate warning systems and to undertake the training simultaneously.
So far we have been shadow boxing; so far the whole talk about civil survival has had an air of unreality. The people of Canada have a right to be told, and on behalf of the official opposition we demand that they be told, whether the government really takes this problem seriously or whether it does not; whether the government feels that we must have an adequate shelter and warning system or whether it does not. If the answer is positive, then there should be a positive program for effecting it. If the answer is negative, then there should be positive reasons given why they are not required. This is the responsibility of the government. This is what the people expect of their government.
This morning the Prime Minister said that the democracies are sometimes slow to realize the danger. I think that statement can be underlined. The question the Canadian people ask is whether this government has been slow to understand the danger. I hope that before the debate is ended someone will again

intervene on behalf of the government and tell the committee in clear and unequivocal terms whether the government is going to make the program work, whether it is worth working, or whether we are just going to continue, as we have in the past, to dabble with it.


Mr. Pitman:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all hon. members were impressed with the seriousness of the situation as described by the Prime Minister this morning. I am sure also we were impressed with his frankness in indicating that this plan could not achieve perfection because we do not know exactly what kind of attack it will be, what the extent of it will be, or even the kind of weapons which will be used. Indeed, that is an understatement. We cannot achieve perfection, but surely we can give the Canadian people some sense of urgency, some sense of purpose and some sense of direction, something which has been entirely lacking over the past ten years.
This morning the premier of Ontario was quoted as saying, "For the first time we have order out of chaos because for once the army has been brought into this whole matter." This statement is made ten years after we have been threatened with thermonuclear war. The premier of Ontario called the efforts chaos. Evidently the only way a democratic nation can get out of chaos is by calling in the army. I think this is something which we as parliamentarians should be rather sober about. Indeed, I think the measures which were put forward this morning could have a good effect, but only if it is completely proven to the people of Canada that this government is serious about what is going on.
I thought the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence made a very good point yesterday when he said that we cannot put our heads in the sand. We cannot assume that because thermonuclear war will be so terrible, so horrible, therefore no human being would bring it about. We cannot be so completely devoid of recognition of human madness as to believe that war could not come. He is quite right. All of us in this house have been disgusted, have been angry and supremely disappointed over what the Soviet union has done in the past two weeks. Perhaps if some of us have not belabored Mr. Khrushchev as thoroughly as others-and this includes all parties-it may be because some of us have felt that there is no great advantage in belaboring Mr. Khrushchev.
There is a second way in which we can put our heads in the sand, and that is by failing to recognize the extent of the next war and the kind of attack which will be made. It is the feeling of many, I am sure, that our defence policies and our emergency measures policies are based on some kind of limited nuclear
Supply-Privy Council war. We have been told by people who should know that the U.S.S.R. has hundreds of bombers, and our emergency measures organizations are based on the assumption that only a few, maybe ten to 20, will get through.
This is an assumption for which I can find no strategic basis. We know the U.S.S.R. has missiles well on the way to development. We know they are capable of being fired now, yet our defence policies and our emergency measures organization policies are based on the belief that only one or two or three or four missiles will be fired in the first few hours. This seems unbelievable. We know that the Russians have a number of submarines. Some of them may be equipped with nuclear weaponry; yet we assume that only a very few will reach our shores, and only a few shots will be fired. I think this is the reason the people of Canada are so completely immune to the pleadings of the emergency measures organization people throughout the entire country. This feeling is found everywhere. People just cannot get very interested.
The Prime Minister mentioned the pamphlet which was sent out showing how to build a fall-out and blast shelter for $500. In Peterborough last March we tried to find out how many shelters were in the city. We could not find one shelter that had been erected. There had not been a building permit taken out for one shelter. This shows the extent to which the people of Canada are completely oblivious to the danger. They are basing their belief on the hope that there will be no war, or that it will be so complete that there is simply nothing that can be done about it, largely because of the attitude of the government which is based on the assumption that the kind of war which will take place is a limited nuclear war. Yesterday I sat in this chamber and was shocked by the remarks of the Associate Minister of National Defence when he said, as reported at page 8241 of Hansard:
If the worst should come, and If we have to fight again, I do not hesitate to say that we shall once again win the battles of tomorrow just as we won the battles of yesteryear, and this for many reasons. The main reason is that we have right on our side and that right in the days of tomorrow will triumph as it has always triumphed in former years.
We shall win the war of tomorrow. Is this the kind of war it will be? I wish the minister had stated that he meant a limited war. I can only assume he does not see the possibility of an all-out nuclear war in the future. Surely hon. members are convinced that no one will win the wars of the future, and any attempt to talk about winning thermonuclear wars is a deception.
8300	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council
This is what worries me most, the tact that the Associate Minister of National Defence, who has the information in regard to the kind of defence we are building, should be talking about a limited war. If he is sure that Russia has only a few missiles capable of reaching United States and Canadian shores, if he is sure that she has only a few submarines, then he should tell the people of Canada and not talk about winning wars of this kind. He should tell the people that they have nothing to worry about other than a limited war, for which the defence which we have and the emergency measures organization we are preparing will be sufficient. But that is not being done. We have no information whatsoever that this government believes it will be that kind of nuclear war.
I turn now particularly to the emergency measures organization. I do not intend to go into the background, the history of confusion, lack of purpose, lack of material resources and divided authority which makes Mr. Frost's comment about chaos very descriptive. If there is any government which should be concerned about taking the lead in this matter of national survival, it should be the federal government. As I have said, I was much impressed this morning, and I hope we are at the beginning of a new era. I hope we have turned the corner, and that the national government is going to do something about national survival.
I speak as a representative of a community which is not crying or whining for help. It has done as much as it is humanly possible to do to deal with the matter of an emergency measures organization. I have been to other communities where it is nothing more than an office held by some person who has pretty well given up trying to get co-operation. We have a mayor who has taken the lead as the head of the organization. I was shocked when I saw in the newspapers the remark of the mayor of Ottawa, who asked "Shall we get out or shall we get under"? If she does not know it is certainly a terrible situation, because I understand that the federal government expects the mayors of the various municipalities to take the lead in this matter and to be aware of what is going on and what is being planned.
In the community that I represent the authorities have organized in every direction, including the police and fire departments and the Red Cross disaster service. It has been determined what the restaurants and cafeterias can do. It has been determined what Canada Packers, Quaker Oats and other industries can do. They have even brought the ham radio operators into the picture. Every effort has been made to determine exactly


what the community can do in terms of a national disaster. What the authorities are looking for is some direction from the top.
Last January an exercise was held in many parts of Canada, when the siren systems were tested. In my community 100 people were listening for them, and a very small percentage even heard them. The survival operation came and went with very few people even knowing that it had taken place. Some of us feel that the sirens are inadequate. Some even say that they are useless, that the pitch is too high and that they are completely unsuitable having in mind the conditions we have in this country. I would hope that serious reconsideration would be given in the very near future to the type of sirens being used. As soon as the exercise was over a letter was written indicating that the people of the area could not even be warned if a national disaster took place. Yet today nothing has been done; we still have the same five sirens.
The Minister of National Defence gave us to understand that a new test is going to be made with the idea of trying to fill the gaps that were indicated in the previous test, but so far nothing has been done. The Prime Minister talks about the gaps shown in exercise Tocsin. Let us get rid of the gaps that existed even before that. I would say that the whole idea of individual shelters in the basements of homes has to be reviewed in terms of the kind of all-out nuclear war which a great many experts are predicting. The very fact that protection for the Canadian people is based wholly on whether a person has $500 to build a shelter is in my opinion a national shame. Having in mind the hundreds of thousands of unemployed last winter, and the fact that a great percentage of our farmers are not even making $2,000 a year, how can it be expected that these people are going to be able to pay $500 in a year to build a shelter? There is the additional fact that if you build a shelter you are then assessed more on the building containing the shelter than previously. In other words, you will pay for the shelter for the rest of your life.


Mr. Speakman:: Would it be worth while having it to be alive?


Walter George Pitman: If I could be sure of being alive, but that is the whole point that needs reassessment in terms of the type of war being predicted. We need to reassess the whole basis of our thinking. We would not sell Salk vaccine at $10 a shot, and neither should we be selling national survival on the basis of $500 for shelters in the basements of our homes.
In the pamphlet "Eleven Steps To Survival" there is set forth step by step a method by

which we can survive. I am very concerned about information I have received to the effect that this publication is not entirely reliable. I have a letter here written by a gentleman in my area who is a Ph.D. in nuclear physics, who has worked on nuclear reactors for some nine or ten years and has even invented and patented instruments to detect radiation. He has studied this pamphlet and has reached some very interesting conclusions as to the validity of the bases on which it has been written. He has this to say in the letter, and I am pleased to place this on the record:
My main concern is with the advice EMO is giving on fall-out shelters. Take first your booklet "Eleven Steps To Survival". On page 10 under "Know the Facts About Radioactive Fall-out" it is implied that the fall-out comes from activation of "earth, stones, buildings" etc.; but the decay rate stated on page 12 is that for fission products from the fission of U-235. But regardless of this inconsistency, if the radioactivity were from the earth, the lifetime of that radioactivity would depend on the locale, and one could not make any such general statement as is made on page 12. On page 14 the pamphlet states that the shelter given in "Blueprint For Survival No. 1" will stop 99 per cent of the radiation. This is not true. Eight inches of solid concrete will only stop about 90 per cent of the radiation; the difference between 99 per cent and 90 per cent may sound trifling but it means that the occupant of the shelter receives ten times as much radiation in the 90 per cent case as in the 99 per cent case.
Do you wish to call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, in view of what will take place at 2.30 this afternoon, with the president of Iceland in the chamber, could we now rise and report progress so that Mr. Speaker will be in the chair at that time?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, having had these general statements from the opposition, I would suggest that we return to the defence estimates this afternoon. I made my statement this morning because of the undertaking I had given to the Leader of the Opposition and in accordance with the arrangement that was made.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know whether the Prime Minister has consulted with those in our party about that, but I understand that what he suggests would not be too convenient for us. If it is not too inconvenient for him, we would prefer to continue with the estimates of the privy council today and then return to the defence estimates tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: As the president of Iceland will be in the gallery we have to break in any event, out of courtesy to him, and I suggest that the committee should then continue with the defence estimates. I wanted to get my statement before the house so the widest possible discussion could take place.
Distinguished Visitors


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the members of this group support the official opposition in their request to continue the discussion of the civil defence item this afternoon and if possible finish it before we adjourn at six o'clock. I think we could do that very easily and we would then have all the discussion in Hansard in the one place. Would the Prime Minister reconsider his suggestion?


John George Diefenbaker: I always want to consider such matters, but the president of Iceland is here, which necessitates absences from the house. I would not be able to be here for the discussion. I wanted to carry out my agreement with the opposition that I would make my statement this morning. I have done so, and I would appreciate it if the house would permit me to be free this afternoon.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house I should like to refer to the presence in the gallery of the president of Iceland, Mr. Asgeir Asgeirsson, who is not unused to parliamentary institutions. He was, for a period of years, a member of the parliament of Iceland and occupied successive portfolios, finally that of prime minister. Throughout the years, he has made a great contribution to freedom and to the maintenance of good relations amongst the nations. This country and Iceland have had close relations going back for a thousand years. Indeed, it is not for me to become controversial, but it is recorded that the discoverer of Canada, Lief Erikson, was of Icelandic origin and came here 400 or 500 years before the recorded discovery. Throughout the intervening years there have been close ties between our nations.
Today, there are around 24,000 people of Icelandic origin in Canada, and they have two representatives in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson), and in the other place Senator Thorvaldson. This is an

Distinguished Visitors
indication of the persuasive influence that the possession of a parliamentary form of government for ten centuries has had on the thinking and the lives of those either born in or descended from that country.
During the days of war, Canadian troops were stationed in Iceland in the years 1940 and 1941. Later on, there was a Royal Canadian naval base at Iceland which made it possible to bring about, at an earlier date, victory in the battle of the Atlantic. Since the war Iceland has been one of those countries which has given itself to freedom. It is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its position, so strategically placed, has made it an important bastion in the north Atlantic community.
I am sure I speak for all hon. members in the house in extending to him a warm welcome, to his wife and, if I may join therewith the foreign minister, Mr. Gudmundsson and Mrs. Gudmundsson, as well as other members of their party. I hope that their stay in Canada will be an enjoyable one and that in the years ahead, as in the past, we shall walk together in freedom.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest appreciation and pleasure that I associate the Liberal party with the welcome the Prime Minister has just extended to the president of Iceland, his wife and to the members of his party. I do so, Mr. Speaker, with all the greater pleasure because I have, myself, had the privilege of visiting Iceland twice and have been the beneficiary of the legendary hospitality of the friendly people of that island.
The president is the representative of a people who, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) has said, have deep and close links with our own country. It is a country which has sent many of its men and women to Canada who, with their descendants, have enriched every aspect of Canadian life, including the arts, the sciences, law and the public service. As we have just been reminded by the Prime Minister, there are two members of our own house who are of Icelandic descent. At a time when there are in the world those who are trying to gain respect by brute force and braggadocio, it is a refreshing privilege to welcome to this house and to our country the distinguished leader of a people who, a thousand years and more ago, had learned how to govern themselves peacefully through free parliamentary institutions and who, ever since then, have earned the respect of all peoples not by their power but by their civilized decency and their passionate devotion to liberty under law.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group I associate our members with the best wishes that have been expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Pearson) to the president of Iceland and his colleagues who are present in the house today.
Iceland has been referred to as the grandmother of parliaments, having been in existence exactly 1,031 years this year, I believe. But through the reading of history and the developments that have taken place, I think it would be more correct to say that Iceland was the great aunty of parliaments. Incidentally, just a little while ago I was informed that the Icelanders formed the first republic in the British commonwealth of nations. In the northwest territories that was later incorporated in the province of Manitoba I am informed that an Icelandic republic was formed but it was later incorporated in the confederation of Canada without any difficulties whatever.
I believe our opinion of people is often related to our personal relations in addition to our reading and our attempt to understand other people. I am happy to say this, if you will pardon a personal reference, Mr. Speaker. Our family landed in Manitoba in the early days of this century, hoping to get started on a cattle farm. My father, who was rather green as far as Canadian ways were concerned, built a shack at a point where Cathedral avenue in Winnipeg bisects the railway that runs to Winnipeg Beach. It was a single board shack made out of shiplap. During the winter the temperature fell to 57 degrees below zero. Had it not been for the kindliness of an Icelandic dairyman-I think his name was Thorgeson-who lived somewhere close to us, we would all have been frozen to death that winter. We therefore have that memory for which to give them credit. Perhaps some hon. members on the government side wish we had frozen to death. We think of the great kindness of these people the first time we had ever been associated with people of Icelandic stock, having regard to the things they did for us. They were extremely practical compared to our impractical approach to Canadian life at that time. I understand that President Asgeirsson has had a long and distinguished career in the service of his country as a public official, a member of the Icelandic parliament, minister of finance and prime minister. I am informed that he is now serving his third term as president, having been elected in each case without opposition. Without doubt we have with us today a very distinguished representative of a very democratic state.

To me it is also interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that he was always interested in education. He has been a leader in education in Iceland. I cannot resist mentioning the fact that the new national president of the New Democratic party is also a leader in education. I hope this direction in history that has been followed by the president of Iceland will be followed with similar success in the days to come in Canada.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
232. Departmental administration, $3,455,378.
Mr. Forgie:: Mr. Chairman, the matter I should like to discuss for a few moments this afternoon should really be discussed under one of the later items. However, owing to the fact that I shall be unavoidably absent after three o'clock this afternoon I crave permission of the committee to allow me to speak on this one matter.
I wish to bring to the attention of the committee a situation with regard to hospitalization at the Petawawa military camp. It is my hope and also that of the dependents of the army personnel at the camp that some remedial action will be taken to cure the situation existing at camp Petawawa at the present time. The population of camp Petawawa, according to the figures given to me just recently, is approximately 10,000 made up of army personnel of 3,700 and dependents- wives and children-of 6,300. Those figures are approximate.
In 1959, the Pembroke Cottage hospital decided to make an addition to its facilities, this addition to be financed by subscriptions from the personnel of my constituency, as has been done in the past. However, owing to the fact that in the Petawawa military camp and outside in the village of Petawawa there were 6,300 civilian personnel, it was decided that some relief should be sought from the Department of National Defence. On March 21, 1959, a letter was written to the deputy minister of national defence by the chairman of the board of governors of Pembroke Cottage hospital. I will read just four paragraphs of this letter which are as follows:
An examination of hospital usage has shown that dependents of D.N.D. at Petawawa military camp have taken up 15 per cent of our capacity during the year 1958. Moreover, the expansion program indicated for Petawawa would suggest that 35-45 per cent of our present bed capacity would be needed to service the dependents of D.N.D. personnel by 1961 or 1962.
This expansion, together with a general population increase in the area and our present situation, poses a problem. It is obvious that we should increase our facilities and such increase should provide for the expansion of need at Petawawa.
Supply-National Defence
Until now, the Cottage hospital has in the main been financed by local industry, business and townspeople. There have been, of course, government grants. However, all grants seldom exceed 35 per cent in total.
For our future needs we will require financial help beyond the scope of the town's ability to pay. As D.N.D. is a large employer and has shown acceptance of providing facilities such as modern schools, it is our belief that hospital facilities are in the same category and merit your financial support.
On March 31, 1959, the deputy minister replied to that letter. I should like to read paragraphs 2 and 3. The letter is addressed to the chairman of the board of governors of the Cottage hospital. Paragraphs 2 and 3 read as follows:
The Department of National Defence is not authorized to contribute towards the cost of the extension of hospital facilities such as yours. Any contributions that are made by the federal government are made under the Hospital Grants Act administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare. Since we cannot assist in this matter there appears to be no purpose to be served by meeting with your official board.
I note in your letter that you have assumed an extension program at Camp Petawawa which would result in a very substantial increase in the number of dependents there. There is no planned extension of the number of military personnel to be located at Camp Petawawa and I think it is a correct assumption that there would be no wide variation in the number of dependents there under these circumstances. While the number of married quarters are being increased by the present construction program, this should not result in any significant difference in the total number of families of military personnel in the area.
I do not think that is a statement of fact at all. On April 3, 1959 the camp commander wrote a letter to the chairman of the hospital board. I should like to read what he said:
Whether the above figures represent an actual increase of 815 families is hard to state at this time. As you are probably aware, there are over 500 army families living in civilian accommodation in Pembroke-Petawawa area, and there are a further 150 who have no accommodation in the area. Another major unit has been added to the camp and will be located here by this fall. The first 415 houses will take care of the majority of those families now living in the area. There is a rotation between here and Germany this fall by two major units. It is estimated that the married strength of the unit returning is greater than that of the unit leaving the area. Therefore it is expected there will still be soldiers' families living in civilian accommodation.
With all new quarters occupied by late 1960 the actual increase in the area might only be approximately 400 families. However the army does not cater for 100 per cent of its married strength and I think it would be safe to assume there would always be at least 200 families living in civilian accommodation. There could therefore be a net increase of 600 families in the area. The size of our families is remaining fairly constant at 2.7 children per family so that the increase of 600 families would mean approximately 2,200 additional wives and children.
Just as an aside I should like to say that in the Petawawa military camp today there are 92 school teachers and the school strength


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take the opportunity provided on this vote to place before the committee certain criticisms that the party to which I belong feels should be made with respect to NATO. We recognize that the formation of NATO 12 years ago might well have been a wise move only because it might have been tempting to the Soviets at that time to fill the military vacuum that existed in western Europe. We were informed that NATO's original aim was to maintain the peace. Our fundamental criticism now stems from the fact that NATO appears to be becoming a vested interest of more importance in itself than NATO's original aim. In our opinion if NATO had consciously sought peace throughout the years it is most unlikely that we would have the so-called Berlin crisis today. From correspondence I have received within the last two or three days I am able to say that many intelligent Canadians are of the same opinion.
In our opinion until 1955 there was a real possibility that German reunification could have been bought for the price of German neutrality on a basis similar to Austria's. However, already in 1955, those who view history only in military terms, those who believe that foreign policy is merely a question of armed strength and who depend on that alone, were already on the ascendency in NATO. Rather than doing everything possible to bring about a peaceful settlement to the problems created at the conclusion of world war II, other steps were taken. In the opinion of the party for which I speak NATO aggravated those problems by decid-
90205-6-524
Supply-National Defence ing on the rearmament of Germany. If anything could have been better designed to prevent the reunification of Germany and to aggravate the problem of Berlin, I do not know what it could have been.
Hon. members will remember the policy of the C.C.F. at that time was to oppose the re-arming of Germany. We took that position in this house.
I wish now to deal with certain statements made in other places by Senator Wayne Morse of the United States. We appreciate the fact that everyone taking part in this debate is expressing his sincere conviction. We recognize that every hon. member seeks to advance proposals that in his or her opinion will preserve world peace. It is my responsibility and duty to bring to the attention of the committee the point of view of the party I represent.
Senator Wayne Morse who is a very courageous and independent thinking member of the United States senate recently raised a question of the appointment of General Heus-mger. He brought this to the attention of United States senate, as a result of representations made to him by the American Jewish congress which were supported by their brother organizations in Canada.
The American Jewish congress issued under date of November 22, 1960 a memorandum which points out that:
The statement on extermination of Slavs and Jews quoted above in Gilbert's "Nuremberg Diary", was made in an affidavit to the Nuremberg tribunal.
Heusinger initialed and forwarded for action two military orders that were decisive in the Nuremberg judgements-the so-called commissar order and the so-called command order under which thousands of civilians and partisans were shot by Nazi occupying troops in various countries.
It was reported to Hitler that under the direct order of General Heusinger, there was carried out an order that called for the massacre of men, women and children. This was dealt with in correspondence between General Heusinger and Hitler. Also in his reference to the carrying out of his order General Heusinger mentioned that this order provided the opportunity to exterminate the Jews and the Slavic race.
Senator Wayne Morse brought this matter to the attention of congress. There was not much reference to it in the United States or the Canadian press. As a result of these representations which occupy a page or two of the Congressional Record of April 19, 1961, the matter was dealt with by a United States assistant secretary of state. He sent a lengthy letter to Senator Morse trying to explain the circumstances and justify the appointment of General Heusinger. In reply to that, Senator Morse wrote as follows:

Supply-National Defence
June 1, 1961.
Hon. Brooks Hays,	,
Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional
Relations, Department of State,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Secretary: Thank you very much for your letter of May 25, in regard to the appointment of General Heusinger.
Frankly, I find it very unconvincing. The United States should have been no party to such a shocking appointment.
Sincerely yours,
Wayne Morse.
In his explanation Mr. Brooks Hays points out that this appointment had received the endorsation of all governments within NATO. Before this debate concludes I should like the minister to inform the committee whether he was consulted with respect to the appointment of General Heusinger, and whether he agreed to his appointment. I bring this matter to the attention of the committee because it is of serious concern, and even a matter that was discussed on platforms in the elections in Norway which were reported yesterday, and had some effect in the election of two or three socialists who now hold the balance of power in the Norwegian parliament.
Mr. Pallet!: All the other members supported it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes. I meant the ones who were elected. They ran on an anti-NATO ticket and were elected with overwhelming majorities.
Let me say also that other members joined in conditional criticism of this appointment. I mention this sincerely because it is a matter of serious concern to many people. I think this type of appointment is a most unfortunate thing and causes a lot of distress as to the ultimate direction in which NATO will go.
Can you expect a man of this type who has ordered the massacre of civilian populations, according to his instructions from Hitler, to be fighting for democracy? Can you believe this man is interested in the saving of Christian democracy? I cannot believe it, and I know there are many other Canadians who agree with what I say in this respect.
I wish to quote very briefly from a recent edition of the Nation. This is an extract from "NATO joins the Wehrmacht ... Heinz Pol."
This increasing militarization of the German mind is one of the three great dangers arising from present trends in the federal republic. The gradual linking of the Bonn Republic with the "glorious military past" is taking place almost unnoticed.
I ask members of the government to remember that in orders issued by the German army at this time repeated reference is made to the glorious military traditions of the past. I continue:

Several important persons in Germany, and isolated newspapers and periodicals such as the Frankfurter Rundschau or Der Spiegel, point to the growing danger and have enough guts to criticize Strauss' nuclear policy. The others either don't grasp what is going on, or else play along. Consider the Free Democratic party, which describes itself as liberal. In the forthcoming elections, it will presumably gain votes, which will give it a key position in a future coalition government. In a pre-election speech on May 1, 1961, Erich Mende, its chairman, announced amid tremendous applause that Germany's military tradition would finally have to be restored. Among the heroes to be honored, he named half a dozen prominent Hitler generals.
We fear that these people are becoming the predominant influence in NATO and we fear also the increasing strength of the German armed forces. I had an interesting thing brought to my attention last night by a lady who came from the United Nations to see me. She is an observer there. She gave me the following information, and I quote:
The information which is not printed today is more disturbing than the misinformation and propaganda which appear. The fact that General John S. McCloy, chief of the U.S. disarmament administration, is a brother-in-law of West Germany's arms-minded Chancellor Adenauer-as is also Lewis O. Douglas, high also in government planning-in itself means little or nothing. But the fact that any proof of the relationship is missing from Adenauer's biography in both American and British Who's Who, that no American newspaper or broadcaster, to my knowledge, has ever mentioned it, and that Dean Acheson, describing a meeting between McCloy and Adenauer in a recent Harper's article, made no mention whatever of their relationship, is much more significant.
We in this group are concerned over the fact that these generals are having an increasing influence in NATO. When Germany was re-armed we were told it was to integrate its forces, to bring Germany under the control of the NATO forces and under the influence of the democratic nations. I could go on reading extract after extract to show that these people, these German generals, are obtaining increasing influence and are having more and more to say. Members of this group object very strongly indeed to Canadian soldiers being asked in reality to march behind General Heusinger a man who gave effect to the terror orders issued by Hitler, who in his orders pointed out that here was an opportunity to destroy the Jews and the Slav races.


James Stanley Speakman: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


James Stanley Speakman: Will he tell us whether the party for which he speaks believes in opening the door to a new enemy by keeping alive those old hatreds and by trying to drive a wedge into the defence of our allies in NATO?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly not, a great deal of the information I get comes from democratic German friends of mine and from German publications.
All we are suggesting is that instead of this type of appointment, surely there are people who can be asked to command NATO troops whose record is clean from the political point of view, and whom Canadian troops would not be ashamed to march behind. I tell the minister that I have had this question also mentioned to me by Canadian soldiers, now retired.
Supply-National Defence changed. "Now the democracies are strong and if we stand up to Russia, I don't think we will have any more trouble.
I don't think we shall have a war and I am sure the Russians don't want war if they can avoid it. I know the Russians for I have spent about two years there at various times and I would say the Russians are looking for security and trying to build a defence against Germany.
They have been invaded twice during a generation and they have had casualties beyond any other combatant. The devastation caused by the Germans invading Russia had to be seen to be believed.
I think their fear of the Germans is at the bottom of the Russian attitude."


Mr. Harkness:: Is the hon. member aware that General Heusinger does not command anything?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, not directly, but he is chief of the general staff's committee of NATO. Is he not chairman of the general staff's committee? He is a leading official in NATO. He does not march at the head of Canadian troops on the roads. He is one of the senior planners in NATO and the minister cannot deny that in fact and in spirit he is the leader of Canadian troops who are in NATO at the present time.
And I believe that at the present time.
"I would say they are not aggressive like the Germans for two reasons. They do not have the German urge for what Hitler called living space because they have plenty of land and they do not have the aggressive German belief that Germans can run a country better than anyone else. I do not think that Stalin and the other Russian realists believe that they can do that. They would like to spread communism into Europe, but I doubt if physical aggression and domination is in their minds.
Then he goes on:
"The Germans are the most dangerous people in Europe. If I were a Russian I would be nervous about a resurgence of Germany."


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do deny it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 
Douglas Scott Harkness: That is right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Which means in effect and in spirit Canadian troops march behind him because he is one of those who plan the actions that they take.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It does not mean that at all.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is obvious that the minister and others are on the defensive. They wish to intimate that he is not really in the leadership. If they were proud of his appointment they would not attempt to point out the fact that he is not in direct control of Canadian troops.
However, I have another quotation here which I wish to read before proceeding further. I never forget what Lord Wavell said when he was in Ottawa on November 14, 1949 as reported in the Ottawa Journal of November 15, 1949. This is what he had to say at that time:
Field Marshal Earl Wavell, commander in the African desert and the first allied victor of world war I told a press conference he considered the Germans a greater problem to the world than the Russians.
He believed the Russians did not seek world domination, but he did not think the nature of the Germans, aggressors in two world wars had
90205-6-524J
That is what a very distinguished field marshal had to say when he was in Ottawa in 1949. I believe there is a great deal in what he says, that we have aggravated the situation as a result of the rearmament of Germany and as a result of the appointment of generals such as I have mentioned, and that is becoming a question for discussion in more and more countries.
I know that much has been made of Soviet intransigence but it also seems to me that far too little was done in the west to make an honest and sincere attempt to arrive at a general settlement with the U.S.S.R. in the new spirit that prevailed immediately after the death of Stalin. I think a great opportunity was afforded at that time if we had not had this irritant of the rearming of Germany. NATO, it seems to us, has simply ignored the Rapacki plan for disengagement and disarmament in central Europe-they cast it aside although it was proposed by prominent United States officials and proposed by various
persons in the parliament of Great Britain___
even though this plan was markedly similar to the plan proposed some years ago by the then Right Hon. Anthony Eden.
We consider that there is nothing sacred about NATO. Secure the return of Soviet forces within the frontiers of the U.S.S.R. and we believe the need for NATO will disappear provided, of course, that a mutual security pact for central Europe is worked out under the aegis of the United Nations at the same time. I might say that we were very pleased

Supply-National Defence to hear the Prime Minister and the Leader o f the Opposition say that we should work for Berlin to be brought under the jurisdiction and control of the United Nations. That might seem a bit idealistic at this time but I think it is something we should all work for and in my opinion it is a proposal that can bear fruit if we understand the reasons for Soviet fears under the present circumstances.
Some will cry out: "What about the Atlantic alliance? What about western unity?" We reply that military alliances essentially are for war and not for peace, and in our case we have formed this military alliance to protect ourselves. Although the New Democratic party is willing to accept the temporary necessity of NATO to prevent a military vacuum in western Europe, we look forward to the day when a United Nations world security force can make all regional alliances obsolete, a day when our defence will be found in a United Nations police force. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we do not intend merely to indulge in wishful thinking; we intend to strive with all the means at our disposal for the attainment of this ideal.
We certainly support all measures tending toward greater economic and political unity of western Europe. That has been demonstrated by our attitude in the house. Undoubtedly if true political unity is achieved then military unity will follow. We would accept this, for we believe in the cart following the horse. But what we do object to is NATO as it has come to be in practice, in effect a military organization dictating the foreign policies of its member states. We simply follow along. Major decisions are made and we have very little effect upon them.
In our opinion, if NATO had remained true to its original concept it might well have served, through clause II of its charter, as the vehicle for a greater European economic integration. That opportunity has been lost. I know the efforts that were made by the present Leader of the Opposition to give more effect to article II when he was a member of the committee known as the three wise men. As I have tried to show, Mr. Chairman, NATO is now purely a military organization limited in its scope and seemingly barren of the capability of bringing a fresh approach to the problems of the day. Its whole approach is becoming increasingly military all the time.
The New Democratic party, though it has reservations, has accepted that Canada should remain in NATO for the present, provided NATO does not become the vehicle for the further spread of nuclear weapons. This is the condition upon which the New Democratic party would agree to remain in NATO.
IMr. Herridge.]


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a question? I am trying to ascertain precisely the position of the hon. member's party. Assuming that no other NATO members acquire nuclear weapons, do I understand that the position of the hon. gentleman's party is that it supports NATO even though it may be at this time, as my hon. friend says, essentially engaged in military pursuits? Does the New-Democratic party agree to support NATO in its present imperfect form provided none of its members acquires nuclear weapons other than those that have them now?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am quite ready to answer the question. The policy of the New Democratic party is exactly that. The convention approved a policy that support should be continued to NATO on the condition that nuclear weapons were not extended to any other country than those that have them at the present time. That is the position of the party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That being the case, would the hon. member explain how he can possibly make the criticism that he is now making about NATO?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this is conditional support given to NATO as a result of the convention decision of the New Democratic party. At the same time I am trying to bring to the attention of the house certain other features with respect to the administration of NATO that are causing serious and increasing concern, and that is why I mentioned the appointment of General Heusinger. The New Democratic party has accepted that Canada should remain in NATO for the present provided NATO does not become the vehicle for the further spread of nuclear weapons. The majority in the New Democratic party hope that on coming into power the New Democratic party government will be able to effect the basic changes in NATO's policies, strategy organization and attitudes that have in our opinion become essential. In our view the aim of western diplomacy should not be to perpetuate NATO but rather to strive to bring about those conditions that will make NATO obsolete. To achieve success in this endeavour is in our opinion to fake a long step forward to achieving peace.
When the second world war started, Mr. Chairman, the western aim was to prevent Germany attaining hegemony over eastern and central Europe, but at the end of the war the western aim had become to destroy Germany's power for generations, if not forever. I am speaking of her military power and not the power of her people to rise again and develop a great culture. The result was that the west allowed the Soviets to attain

that consolidation in eastern and central Europe which we had sought to deny to Germany.
In 1949 the aim of NATO was to maintain the peace. Now all we hear in NATO is the necessity of maintaining western unity. There is a difference in perspective and outlook there. History is repeating itself and it will continue to do so as long as we allow military thinking to dominate NATO and the minds of western statesmen.
What use was the winning of the last war when we so obviously lost the peace? What use will there be in maintaining western unity when we will all be united only in the grave if we go on as we are now?
Let us get back to the original aim of NATO-peace. Let us strive to bring the NATO powers to work for a settlement in Europe. Remaining in the position reached by our victorious armies 16 years ago is not a settlement. It is not even an armistice, for we are now engaged in an arms race with a former ally who, incidentally, lost some six million men in battle and uncounted millions owing to the savagery of the German armies that they were fighting.
Because of these considerations, Mr. Chairman, we object most strongly to the present so-called military build-up. In terms of the terrible power of the thousands of H-bombs that would be unleashed in the event of war breaking out, the sending of 2,000 additional troops by Canada to Europe is absurd. It is also provocative, for it shows not determination, not a desire to strive for the original aim of NATO which was peace, but rather a desire to strive by force of arms to maintain the status quo in Berlin. If the west was truly protecting the freedom of West Berliners, then our reaction could be understood. However, all our troop reinforcements really indicate, and apparently are intended to indicate, is the bareness of new concepts in the minds of the leaders of the west.
What makes our military gesture all the more farcical, all the more silly, from our point of view, is that we are not sending a single additional military unit to Europe but are simply making good the attrition or wastage of front line troops caused by the well known inclination of peacetime military forces, like other bureaucracies, to indulge in luxuries when no one is looking. We know that they have extra batmen, extra cooks, extra gardeners and extra people doing chores. What we are actually doing is replacing the loss of combat troops who are now performing other services. When our military forces went to Europe initially, they went as a full establishment at least, we were told that. If they are not at full war establishment now
Supply-National Defence the reasons can be found in the administrative headquarters commanded by a full colonel in Antwerp and in the officers clubs, leave centres and recreational facilities in which peacetime armies abound.
If the Minister of National Defence really thought the front line units should be brought up to strength, he had only to round up and send forward all the rear echelon types who have grown up around our army brigade group and our air division over the last ten years. Anyone with any experience in military affairs knows that this happens.


Egan Chambers: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Egan Chambers: Is he suggesting that our troops who spend three years overseas, should have no leave?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly not; I have some other material with which I intended to deal, but the chairman tells me that my time has about expired. I have tried to give the point of view of the members of this group. I trust our views will receive serious consideration. We are not making these criticisms lightly. We are not making them to be awkward or different. We are making them because we believe that the circumstances I have mentioned here, and the circumstances surrounding NATO and its administration, as well as the government's point of view, are deserving of criticism at this time in view of the situation the world faces.


Mr. Jung:: I intend to speak very briefly on this item. Before I do so, I should like to ask the last speaker the following question: I listened to his remarks and I understood him to say that the government's stand in sending a further 2,000 troops to reinforce our brigade in Germany was a provocative gesture. Then, he followed that up by saying these troops would really not add to the fighting efficiency of our forces, they would only serve as extra batmen and so forth. If that is so, is that as provocative a gesture as the Russian resumption of nuclear testing? I should like to have the hon. member's opinion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I very willingly answer the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I said a provocative gesture, and possibly I should have more correctly said, could be taken as a provocative gesture without providing the military build up that the government talks about I think it has been reported as a military build up and could be misunderstood; that is my point of view.

Supply-National Defence


Douglas Jung: I am quite sure an intelligent person such as the hon. member for Kootenay West could understand that it is not a provocative gesture.
I should like to speak very briefly in order to pass along a suggestion to the Minister of National Defence, and it is this: some way should be devised whereby some members of the general public could attend lectures on survival operations. I make this suggestion because so many of the people of my constituency have communicated with me making this request. These people are deeply concerned about this aspect of the subject and do not know where to turn in order to get the necessary information. I suggest to the minister that if we are going to train 100,000 militia in survival operation, we should also be able to make available to the members of the general public, shall I say, night lectures on this subject. They might be given once a week in the local armoury. While these lectures may not give complete consideration to the subject, nevertheless they could give some indication of what the people could expect and what they, themselves could do. I believe that such a lecture was held recently in Ottawa and the turnout was so great many could not get in. If this is an indication of the general attitude of the public, then I think we have a responsibility to ensure that all those who wish to receive instructions in this vital subject are given an opportunity to do so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make a speech on this item but it is not possible for him to be here this afternoon. The hon. member for Trinity requested that we allow this item to stand on the understanding that the Leader of the Opposition would be given an opportunity to speak. I think it must be understood too, that I must have an opportunity to reply if I think that is necessary. We would then go on with the other items. I should like to get the agreement of the committee to that course of action, however.
Before actually going on with the other items, I should like to comment on the various points that have been made by members in this debate and to answer the questions which have been asked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister does that, and if no one else has any specific point to raise about departmental administration, I have a point I should like to raise very briefly. Perhaps it might suit the minister's convenience if I did so before he speaks so that he can deal with this matter as well.


Frank Charles McGee: I
wonder if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would allow me to put the proposed agreement to the committee at this stage?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the chairman could allow me to continue for a moment. The point I was going to raise is important and has nothing directly to do with defence in the ordinary sense. It has to do with the administration of the Department of National Defence and of the armed services. I do not think they ought to be mixed up. I would not want to mix it up with any question directly related to defence. If it were understood that every other hon. member of the committee who wished to raise points on this item had concluded, then that would be fine with me. I think it would be distracting to have this question mixed with the defence debate.
I can say right off that it has to do with the use of the armed forces in firefighting. Everyone will see that is not directly related to defence, but this is the proper item under which to raise it.


Frank Charles McGee: What I propose to do is to obtain the consent of the committee to the proposal put forward by the minister which is, in effect, that the administrative item will stand following the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Then in effect there will be two further speeches on this item, one by the Leader of the Opposition and one in reply by the Minister of National Defence. Is it the pleasure of the committee to accept that proposal, subject to the remarks which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may be the case that there might be other hon. members who would wish to say something about the subject which I am going to open. What I should like the minister to do is this. This morning I asked a starred question which was answered by the parliamentary secretary. When he replies I should like the minister to explain precisely what the basis is on which aid is given by the Department of National Defence in the fighting of forest fires and what the basis is on which financial charges for that purpose are made. Before entering on that subject, however, I feel I should recall the fact that on June 24, I asked the Prime Minister a question about forest fires in Newfoundland and the Prime Minister directed the question to the Minister of National Defence who made this reply, as found at page 6988 of Hansard for that day:
Mr. Speaker, I received information just before coming into the house that Newfoundland has asked for help from the Royal Canadian Navy and the R.C.A.F. They have asked for both personnel and

vehicles to fight forest fires in the vicinity of the northern portion of the St. John's area. Eastern command Halifax has instructed the Newfoundland area commander, Brigadier Morres, to make arrangements to honour the request to every degree feasible by the resources of the R.C.N. and R.C.A.F. that are there and able to be used.
Then I made this comment:
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to thank the minister for his reply and say that I am sure his attitude will be greatly appreciated.
I should like to say that more than once during the summer I happened to be in the area in which both the naval helicopter and the air force helicopter were operating and to see the work of the personnel. Nothing could have been finer than the efforts they made under extremely difficult circumstances indeed. There is no doubt whatever that without the help provided by the R.C.N. and the R.C.A.F. it would have been impossible even to keep the fires in check to the degree they were kept in check. As is well known, on that terrible Thursday when, because of a sudden change in the weather, it began to look as though the whole of the eastern side of Newfoundland was going to be burned up in three or four new fires that had got started a day or two previously and the government of Newfoundland felt that they must appeal for help on a much larger scale and the premier made an appeal to the Prime Minister the response was immediate. The work done by the army personnel, of which I saw something while I was there-I visited the camp at Gander bay and saw a good deal of what was being done-was excellent and was greatly appreciated, I am sure, by everyone in Newfoundland. It so happened that the day after the troops were sent in, fortunately there was help not merely from the national defence department but from Providence; and I am bound to say that the providential rain contributed even more to the checking of the fires than did the armed forces, although their help was certainly greatly appreciated.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member might be interested to know that we in the cabinet attributed that providential rain to the prayers of the delegation that we sent over, particularly those of the cabinet member for Newfoundland and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I say that their prayers must have been answered before they got there because the rain started before they arrived. As a matter of fact, I will not soon forget that day. I had arrived in Clarenville, making a vain attempt to get to St. John's in the middle of that Friday afternoon when the troops first arrived. I could not get any
Supply-National Defence farther because Clarenville was filled completely with smoke and the road east was closed. I spent about three hours in Clarenville when nearly everybody was leaving the place not knowing exactly where to go or where the fire was.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Just
like the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might tell the committee that the fire in question the night previous had been ten miles from Clarenville. It is extremely hard to imagine that a fire, in an area which is not heavily wooded, could move eight miles, as that fire did, in the course of a single day. However, that is what happened.
I think the facts of this situation are not nearly as well understood as they perhaps should be. For two successive summers there has been virtually no rain in Newfoundland and during last winter the ground froze before the snow came. The result was that when the snow melted there was a quick runoff and the ground was drier than anyone who had seen Newfoundland only before 1960 could have believed was possible in that province. I am not amazed that there were as many fires as there were. I am really amazed that there were not even more of them. I think it says a good deal for the care that was taken by the whole population that there were not more fires and that most of them were kept in as good control as they were kept. However, there is no question whatever that, without the rain that came on that particular week end, while the troops might have saved a few settlements they would not have been able to do anything more to stop the fires in the forest any more than were those people who had previously been fighting them. However, the two things-the arrival of the troops and the rain-happened fortunately to coincide, although there have since been outbreaks. It is really very sad but each time the rain comes and even in spite of heavy rain, the ground is dry again within half an hour because there is just no moisture in the soil, and the rain evaporates so rapidly.
However, to come back to the point about which I am really concerned, may I say this and I think there will be a good deal of surprise about this situation. I know that most people I have talked to were surprised to discover that although the federal government acted with the greatest possible promptitude when requested to do so on both occasions and everybody has the greatest possible gratitude for that fact I think there is a good deal of surprise not only in Newfoundland but on the mainland when people realize that this assistance is not a national service given in a national emergency but is something that has to be paid for. It is

Supply-National Defence true that not the whole of it has to be paid for, as was pointed out by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George in answer to a question this morning, but there is a considerable charge. I feel that the committee would wish to know what this charge is, what the basis of it is and what is behind it.
I think every sensible person recognizes the fact that the armed forces cannot be at the beck and call of every local authority or even every provincial government every time a house burns down and that there must be some reasonable safeguard against that sort of thing. However, we know that there have been other kinds of disaster in this country, even this year, in which the greatest possible generosity was shown by the federal authorities at the cost of the national treasury. The loss in this particular case-I refer to the case of the fires this year-in the province of Newfoundland is in some respects a loss that is going to go on as far ahead as the human mind can conceive because what has happened in part of that area-and happily only in part of it-is this. The situation is not just that the trees have burned. It is not just that the forest has burned. The situation is that the soil, or what there was of it, has also all burned. What is going to happen to a good deal of the cape Freels peninsula, is that when the winds come the ash will be blown away and there will be nothing left but bare rock. Then we will have to think in terms of geological time before anything will ever grow there again, except perhaps a little moss and maybe some blueberries. This is a really tragic loss of our forest resources.
Happily, in many other areas the fire raced through so fast that only the foliage on the trees was burned. The wood can be salvaged and the land is still there. But it is a tremendous blow to the province. I am not seeking in any way to be controversial or critical; I am merely seeking to get all the facts. I hope that when all the circumstances are taken into account, whatever the practice may have been in the past, the government will come to the conclusion that this was a matter of such national importance that it would not be appropriate in this particular case, in this particular circumstance, to follow the practices of the past. I hope the government will consider that whatever the armed forces may have done in Newfoundland should be regarded as a national contribution to that province in the face of a great disaster that is going to cost the province a great deal in its budget this year, taking into account the other measures it has taken to fight the fires. Unhappily-and this is the worst part of it- it has taken away the livelihood of a large number of our citizens.


Mr, McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat? I do not mean for a moment to minimize the magnitude of the fire and the tragic consequences to the province. Perhaps the hon. member would enlighten me and the other members of the committee by telling the committee why-I am sure the hon. member knows this, because he is very close to the government of Newfoundland-the government of Newfoundland waited at least three months before asking for federal aid which was obviously ready to be given?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know whether federal aid was ready to be given. The hon. gentleman may know more about this matter than I do. I do know that aid-as I indicated from reading Hansard-was asked for and provided as early as June 24. I think the fires only started about June 15. That aid was given continuously from that time on. Therefore the hon. gentleman's observation about three months seems to be rather a miscalculation.
I know there has been an effort made in certain quarters to suggest that more aid should have been asked for earlier. I was there all summer. Of course, I am only a member of the opposition. There is a member of the government from Newfoundland. I believe the minister came to Newfoundland just after the troops came there.
It would appear to me that if this aid was ready, and if in the opinion of the hon. member for St. John's East it should have been sent earlier, perhaps that same opinion should have been shared by the hon. member for St. John's West, who is a member of the government. Perhaps the aid should have been offered, instead of the hon. gentleman staying here until a request was made.
I do know that the government of Quebec did not wait to be asked; they offered help and they sent help. The government of Ontario did not wait to be asked; they offered help and they sent help. I have not sought to be provocative and controversial, and I do not think I will allow the hon. gentleman to draw me into any kind of controversy about this matter. But I think the question of sending for the army was perhaps bound up with this question of what it was going to cost, and what burden it would be upon an already heavily burdened provincial treasury, burdened with the unexpected costs-and they are going to be very considerable costs to the treasury-of the firefighting that had already been done.
I do know that the aid was requested after the Gander fire started-which was only two days earlier-after the Glenwood fire

started, which was only two days before, and after the Dunns river fire really got out of control, which was only one day before.
It was only then that there really did seem to be a great crisis, and immediately there seemed to be a crisis the additional aid was sought. Up until that time, as the hon. gentleman knows if he was in Newfoundland -or, indeed, he ought to know-there were only two fires that were causing much concern. One was the fire in Bonavista north- and even if we had had the whole Canadian army in Bonavista north, that fire could not have been stopped in the forest after it really got going late in July.
Notwithstanding all the disadvantages of weather, it is a remarkable thing that not one life was lost. It is also a remarkable thing that only a very small number of houses were destroyed in the settlements, which until the rain came were the only places where the fire could be fought, where there were roads and facilities and where it was possible to fight it.
I travelled back and forth in this fire devastated area three or four times during the summer at various stages, and at every stage people, with good reason, felt it could be brought under control if the weather became favourable. But the weather continued to be increasingly unfavourable. The wind would blow first from one direction and then from another in a way that has never happened, I think, in anybody's experience in the summer in Newfoundland.
That fire could not have been stopped under those conditions. It might have been stopped at the very beginning but it certainly could not have been stopped at any time in late July or early August.


Mr. McGrath:: Joe "goofed", and you know it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was not heard in Newfoundland to say or do very much about this matter. I do say that it would have been a tragedy if we had not had the help-and I do not wish to disparage that help in any way-and it would be unfortunate if the overburdened taxpayers of Newfoundland, with all the difficulties they have to face, have this added burden laid upon their shoulders.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall item 232 carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I feel I should perhaps comment briefly on some of the statements made and on some of the questions asked during this debate. The hon. member for Trinity seemed to devote the major portion of his remarks to his own
90205-6-525
Supply-National Defence appreciation of the defence policy being followed in the United States and the strategy being followed by the United States. It was quite apparent from his remarks that he was labouring under a great many illusions and I wondered if he was also labouring under the illusion that he was speaking in the American congress rather than in the Canadian parliament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Very funny.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He gave his appreciation or his understanding of what was the defence policy and strategy of the United States. Unfortunately for him this does not agree with any of the written statements, or the general tenor at least of the written statements of the members of the defence department of the United States, the chiefs of staff and the leading generals of that country. Also it certainly does not agree with any of the information which they have given to me in various talks I have had with them. In other words, the picture painted in that regard by the hon. member for Trinity is, I think, a highly imaginative one, conjured up by himself and does not bear a very close relationship to the facts. The reason I mention this at all is that on the basis-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the minister has just alleged that my statement did not bear any relationship to the facts or any written statements from any of the senior officers of the United States, and so on. The picture as I painted it was based on authoritative statements from the commander in chief of the United States armed forces. The minister should have read these statements so he would know what is going on.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is not a question of privilege; it is actually a matter-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is keeping you from distorting things again.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -of consulting a large number of statements. If I had the time, I could demonstrate in detail that what the hon. member sought to convey as the general policy and strategy of United States is not very closely in accordance with the facts of the situation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then that is what you should do, instead of making broad statements.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I mention this because on the basis of his improper and incorrect appreciation the hon. member then adduced a number of arguments. It is a well known fact

Supply-National Defence that if your premises are wrong your arguments are bound to be wrong. That is the unfortunate position in which the hon. member left himself.
Let me deal with some of the remarks in which the hon. member engaged. As reported at page 8230 of Hansard of September 12, the hon. gentleman said:
It is interesting to note that in the long list of priority items presented by President Kennedy to congress on March 28 last there did not appear one of the major items on which the Canadian government is relying. Not one American penny for the Voodoo, the F-104, the Bomarc or the Honest John. The Canadian defence department has become a pawnshop for second hand American hardware.
I deeply deplore that the hon. member has in this debate and on other occasions attempted to convince the Canadian people that the equipment possessed by the Canadian forces is inferior, obsolete and outdated. I submit that the hon. gentlemen has been doing a very serious disservice to the Canadian forces, to the Canadian nation, to NATO and to the western position generally in attempting for political purposes to present an absolutely false picture in that regard. The equipment of the Canadian forces is excellent. The Canadian forces themselves are splendid. Every NATO commander we have ever had at various levels who has had experience with the NATO troops in Europe, both the air division and the brigade group, has stated that there were no better troops than those of Canada and that the equipment was tops. This attempt for political purposes to discredit the equipment and efficiency of the Canadian forces is a highly deplorable thing.
In connection with the specific allegation made that none of these weapons we have secured is on the priority list of items presented by President Kennedy, let me say that the fact is that this was a supplementary list which was presented by the president.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Supplementary and priority.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It did not call up funds for articles which were already funded. The Bomarc and the Honest John were completely funded. The same is true of the Voodoo. As I said yesterday the production run ended in December 1960 although tooling is still available for it. It did not call up additional funds for the F-104 as this was also funded. What the hon. member did not point out and what is more important is this. The list of priority items was accompanied by a list of items which were to be deleted from the defence program. I should like to stress the fact that not one item relating to the air defence of North America was recommended for deletion by the president. The hon. member is therefore completely incorrect in 
making statements to the effect that this department had become a pawnshop for secondhand American hardware. The hon. gentleman should be thoroughly ashamed of his attempt to create the impression that all these weapons are obsolete and worthless.


Mr. Ricard:: Do not ask for too much.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In that connection the hon. gentleman also took to himself the credit of being the father of what he said was a great change in the United States defence picture. Apparently the president and other people in authority took under consideration the hon. member's policy speech of last year and put his recommendations into effect so far as the United States is concerned. As I said, apparently the hon. member suffers from many illusions. This is not the least of those illusions.
To begin with, Mr. McNamara, American secretary of defence, made it clear when he appeared before the congressional committee that there had been no great reversal in the United States program as the hon. member would have us believe occurred. Let me read what Mr. McNamara said on the subject:
There may be many possible situations in which it would not be advisable or feasible to use nuclear weapons. What is being proposed at this time is not a reversal of our existing national policy but an increase in our non-nuclear capabilities to provide a greater degree of versatility to our limited war forces.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Exactly.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, exactly. It was not a reversal.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A change of emphasis.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Let us now examine the extra amount of money which was asked for by President Kennedy. The sum was $2,703 million. Of that sum, $1,856 million or 68.6 per cent was for strengthening the nuclear deterrent and $717 million or 26.5 per cent was for strengthening the conventional forces. I mention this merely to indicate that the hon. member appears to have completely misunderstood what the defence policy of the United States is and what they have been doing there. That, of course, I think is symptomatic of the various statements and allegations the hon. member made throughout his speech.
The hon. gentleman and other members of his party have been going about the country talking about the Liberal defence policy. The hon. member for Trinity made reference to it yesterday. I submit there is no such animal.
At the Liberal rally last January the Liberal party got itself into a terrible mess with respect to defence. It adopted one thing, threw it out and then adopted something else. The entire thing ended in confusion. Since that

time no one has really known what the position of the Liberal party is with respect to defence or where the Liberals stand in the regard. The Leader of the Opposition realizing the mess the Liberals were in with respect to defence as a result of the January rally, has been crossing the country making speeches in which he has withdrawn and changed the position taken at the January meeting. Every time the hon. gentleman makes a speech the position changes. I have followed this rather closely because, after all, I am the minister of this department and I am curious to know what the policy of the opposition is. The only thing I have ever been able to ascertain about Liberal policy in this respect is that it changes each week.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps the minister cannot understand the policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is impossible to know from week to week what the policy is. Of course, I was not at the January meeting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Really?


Douglas Scott Harkness: A very good summary of what transpired at that meeting was carried in the January 13 issue of the Halifax "Herald" in an article written by a newspaperman who was present to observe the situation at that meeting with respect to defence. The article reads:
Within the three days, the assembled delegates, or committees of them, proposed the country be taken out of the North American Air Defence Command (NORAD), then put it back in again and finally favored it being left half in and half out. And it was practically the same with the problem of what to do about nuclear weapons. When the delegates started heading back for home yesterday and were able to find time to collect their thoughts, many undoubtedly were still wondering just where their party stood on many aspects of these issues.
I have no doubt they are still wondering. Everyone else is wondering too because, as I say, the policy changes practically from week to week.
One military commentator who was quoted yesterday by an hon. gentleman opposite had the following to say in connection with the position of the Liberal party with respect to defence. This is to be found in the February 1961 issue of the Canadian Commentator in an article by John Gellner:
This month's Liberal party rally has provided a dismaying example of what must happen if a military problem is resolved entirely on the basis of political considerations. The problem in question was that of Canadian participation in the North American Air Defence Command (NORAD). The resolution, as it was reported, suffers somewhat from confused terminology-it approves "identification" of suspected aerial intruders by Canadian fighter aircraft, but not "interception", although the former action is not possible without the latter. Still, it is quite clear what the stand is which the Liberals are taking in this matter: They want 90205-6-525J
Supply-National Defence to leave all arrangements as they are except that Canadian forces in NORAD would not actually shoot. In other words, we would warn the Americans that the enemy was coming, we would tell him who he is, we would fix and track him, but then we would virtuously withdraw and let the Americans do the killing. This is a solution worthy of Pontius Pilate, not of a Lester B. Pearson and his associates.
I think this is a very good summing up of the position taken on defence at the Liberal meeting and is one of the great reasons why everybody has been in doubt on it since. Gellner goes on in this way:
The policy which the Liberal party has adopted in this matter does not even make sense.
That is the situation. Until the Liberal party itself produces something that makes sense I really do not think we should spend too much time discussing its deficiencies.
The hon. member for Peterborough of course made a speech in favour of peace. Well, we are all in favour of peace and nobody will quarrel with him over his desire to attain peace; but I must say to him, in the language of a gentleman who is well remembered in this house, the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, "in a kindly way", that I do not think he had very much to say really about defence. Therefore I have not very much that I can say about his contribution to it.
There is only one point really that I should touch on. He said we should have a mobile force capable of taking action in any part of the world under the United Nations. Well, of course, we have it. We have had it right along. We have been in the position for several years that whenever the United Nations made a request to us for a force we filled that request. The only way in which we can be in a position to meet any requests along this line that the United Nations may make is to have an army in being. We have got to have people trained in all arms, particularly people in the engineers, RCEME, signallers, and so forth. If you have a balanced army of that kind, in which you have all arms, when you are called upon to make a contribution to a force in NATO you are in a position to make it and make it immediately. This is the only way in which it can be done.
Up to date, every time the United Nations has called upon us to supply a force it has been a different type of force, and the only way we have met those demands, as I say, is by having a force of all arms, and having it well trained. Then when a demand is made on you you can meet it. We are in that position and have been in that position for some time past. This is a proposition which is stated very frequently as if it were something that did not exist and something that we should produce, namely a force for

Supply-National Defence the U.N. Well, as long as we have a standing army, as we have, then we can produce the force that the U.N. may require from us, within the limits of that army, of curse, at very short notice whenever we are asked, and up to date that is exactly what we have done.
The hon. member for Peterborough did not say much about NATO membership. The hon. member for Kootenay West went into it to some length. I would just like to say there is no doubt at all that the New Democratic party-is that the name of it?-is in a very equivocal position so far as NATO is concerned. The C.C.F. party, of course, condemned NATO. They said that we should get out of NATO and it should be done away with. They condemned NORAD. They said that we should reduce our armed forces very materially; that we should devote the money instead to foreign aid. In other words theirs was a pacifist and neutralist position, although they always denied that this was so, but in effect this is what it was. It called on Canada to get out of NATO, to get out of NORAD, but it was a definite position; it was one that you could understand, and if you accepted certain premises it was one for which I think you could argue. The hon. member for Kootenay West was a strong proponent of that position and he indicated in his speech today that he still believes in it, but he is in the unfortunate position of supporting a party that does not believe in it and therefore I sympathize with him.
The New Democratic party came about as a result of the union of the C.C.F. and the labour union people. The labour union congress, of course, takes a totally different view from the C.C.F. They believe in NATO. They say we should belong to NATO. As a matter of fact, I have here the two latest issues of the official labour magazine, the Journal of Canadian Labour Congress. Mr. Jodoin has an article in one and Mr. MacDonald has an article in the other. They both say that NATO must be supported; that we must remain in NATO; they condemn neutralism and so forth. I will not bother reading these various articles. Anybody can get these magazines; in fact I shall be glad to lend them to the hon. member for Kootenay West, if he has not read them, so that he may learn just what the attitude of the labour party is toward NATO.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have copies.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member has them I wish he would pay attention to them because the position taken by the labour party is pretty realistic; whereas the position taken by the C.C.F. and gentlemen like the hon. member for Kootenay West has been anything but realistic.

However, we have these two divergent views. There was a great argument at the founding convention of the New Democratic party, and as a result of that they came up with what I expect was looked upon as being a compromise, something along that line. It was essentially this as reported in the newspapers at least, that if NATO as a whole or individual NATO members are to control nuclear warheads, then Canada should make it clear that she cannot remain in the alliance, and should get out and so forth. Well, the people who produced that resolution either were completely ignorant of what the situation in NATO is or they were trying to hoodwink the people who were at that conference as well as the Canadian people. Because it is a well-known fact that NATO accepted a nuclear strategy back in 1954.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A tactical weapon.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. They accepted a nuclear strategy in 1954. They have made affirmations about it, which are matters of public record, on numerous occasions since. Various countries in NATO have entered into bilateral agreement with the United States and as far as having nuclear weapons on their soil is concerned, they have them available under the command of the NATO commander for use and so forth. In other words, NATO has been a nuclear power in effect for years and NATO adopted a nuclear strategy. Therefore, this proposition that if NATO as a whole adopts nuclear weapons, or any of the countries individually, that Canada should not belong to it, is contrary to the situation which exists. This has been the case right along and this resolution which was adopted by the New Democratic party is merely eyewash. It is merely a means by which the people there were deceived and the country generally; or otherwise the people who drafted this did not know anything about NATO and did not understand NATO. This matter is very clear. I hold in my hand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization handbook of 1959. It has in it various resolutions that have been passed in different years. Here is one, for example. It is the text of the declaration and communique of the December, 1957, ministerial meeting of heads of government. It states this, in connection with countering the Soviet threat, both nuclear and conventional:
To this end, NATO has decided to establish stocks of nuclear warheads, which will be readily available for the defence of the alliance in case of need.
In view of the present Soviet policies in the field of new weapons, the council has also decided that intermediate range ballistic missiles will have to be put at the disposal of the supreme allied commander Europe.
The deployment of these stocks of missiles and arrangements for their use will accordingly be

decided in conformity with NATO defence plans and in agreement with the states directly concerned. The NATO military authorities have been requested to submit to the council at an early date their recommendations on the introduction of these weapons in the common defence. The council in permanent session will consider the various questions involved.
As I say, NATO has had a definite nuclear strategy for all these years and therefore this is in complete contradiction of the resolution passed only two months ago, I believe, by the New Democratic party. According to the resolution passed by the New Democratic party, we should have been out of NATO several years ago. The thing is nonsense. It is just nonsense of the worst kind.
I have been surprised that this has not been pointed out long before now by some of the newspapermen who attended the convention, because it is a self-apparent fact that the resolution just does not make sense.
In addition to the official handbook of NATO which makes the position quite clear, it has also been made known in the newspapers on numerous occasions-I have some quotations I could give but I do not think I will take the time-that a number of NATO countries have made bilateral agreements to have nuclear weapons on their soil, which they now have, and to exercise joint control of such weapons with the United States. There are several countries of NATO in which that is the situation. Therefore when members of the New Democratic party and other people say that Canada should not be the first to join the nuclear club meaning the three countries who are actually producing nuclear weapons, the United States, Great Britain and France, they are not stating the situation correctly at all. Several countries have already, as these people refer to it, joined the nuclear club. Nuclear weapons have been placed on their soil and are there. I think certain matters along this line should be made clear because there seems to have been a great deal of confusion in the minds of many people as to what the actual situation is.
There was another point mentioned by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in the external affairs debate which I think I should clear up because great confusion has been caused. He said that there were so many tons of t.n.t., ten tons or something like that, in the nuclear stockpiles of the United States and Russia for every man, woman and child in the world, and surely we did not need any more because this was enough to blow up the whole world. The whole point is that you might have enough nuclear power in a stockpile in a particular spot in Russia to blow up the whole world a hundred or a thousand times over but if they do not have the means
Supply-National Defence of delivering that nuclear power it does not do them any good. In fact, it can only serve as a potential danger to them.
In other words, the important thing in connection with nuclear weapons really is not the total number that you have some place in a stockpile but the means of delivery that you have for those nuclear weapons. As I pointed out in the speech I made and as I have pointed out on numerous occasions during the past several months, the Russians have not, as a lot of people are always attempting to show, an unlimited number of rockets and intercontinental ballistic missiles. In fact, they have a very limited number of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons to this continent. Actually their chief means of delivery at the present time would still be by bomber and would have to be by bomber.
I mention this point particularly because I see letters and articles in the newspapers all the time. I recall one particularly in which it was said that a thousand of these nuclear weapons will be landed in Canada by intercontinental ballistic missiles. This is a complete impossibility. I am afraid that many of the people who are talking this way are doing so with the deliberate idea of trying to scare people and frighten them into adopting a pacifist or neutralist attitude. In other words, this is really a means of carrying to the Canadian people the terror tactics of Khrushchev. Khrushchev is talking about creating a 100-ton megaton bomb and dropping it on us. This is a terror tactic and we must recognize that it is a terror tactic. When he does this a lot of people in this country say, "Well, you know how much damage was done by the bomb dropped on Hiroshima which was only one fifth of 1 per cent as large and if one such bomb were dropped on Ontario the whole of the province would be wiped out".
A certain gentleman who writes letters to the newspapers has complained about the fact that he predicted such a bomb would be produced and that some of the papers had scoffed at him, and that I had scoffed at him. The important point in this connection is that the destructiveness of such a bomb does not increase directly in relation to its size. In fact, it is on the basis of the square of the cube root of the distance or something along that line. In any event, to put the matter in terms that people can understand I had our experts on these matters produce a little table for me. Let us take a 20 kiloton weapon. It has a certain power of destruction. The area of complete destruction is 1.1 square miles and the radius of complete damage is 2.2 square miles.
My arithmetic is not very good but let us take a weapon a million times larger. To make

Supply-National Defence it simpler, let us take a five megaton weapon and a 100 megaton weapon. With the five megaton weapon you have a radius of complete destruction of 3.9 miles while in the case of the 100 megaton weapon it is 10.5 miles. It is not 20 times as great; as a matter of fact, it is not quite three times as great. This point has to be kept in mind. The area of complete damage in the one case is 47 square miles and in the other case it is 346 square miles. The area of damage of all kinds, light damage and so on, is in the one case 610 square miles and in the other case 3,900 square miles. The area of dangerous fall-out in the case of the five megaton bomb is 2,500 square miles and in the case of the 100 megaton weapon it is 8,000 square miles.
I mention this because of the fact that the Khrushchev terror tactics of threatening to drop these 100 megaton weapons on people are being helped, I think, by a lot of people in this country who automatically take it for granted that if a one megaton bomb does so much damage a 100 megaton bomb will do 100 times as much. This is not the case and, as anybody who is familiar with explosives knows, the force of the explosion dissipates quite rapidly, with distance. I think we should know what the actual facts are. The people of Canada are entitled to know what the actual facts are in connection with these matters and those people who are trying to persuade them to accept something which is incorrect should themselves be exposed to the truth if they are not already aware of it.
The hon. member for Fort William spoke about the need for an armoury at Fort William. We are well aware of the need for armouries throughout Canada. There is a long list of places which need armouries and we would like to build them. However, armouries do no come very high on the priority list. There is only a certain amount of money available for defence and it is not possible for us to build all the armouries we would like to build. We have an armoury construction program under which we built a certain number of armouries, but nothing like the number that are being requested. In so far as Fort William is concerned, however, one of the companies of the Lake Superior regiment has recently been moved from Port Arthur to Fort William and hired accommodation has been acquired for them. This is not entirely satisfactory, but I think it will meet the need to some extent at any rate.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired. Has the minister completed his answers?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I have a few more questions to answer.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee give the minister leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Leeds stated that the members of the House of Commons and people generally were in ignorance of whether or not United States airplanes carrying atomic weapons were flying over Canadian air space. This is a matter that has been dealt within the house on a number of occasions. On June 3, 1958, at page 781 of Hansard, the Prime Minister made a fairly lengthy statement on the subject. Several other statements have been made since, referring to this statement, and indicating the situation is the same now as it was then and as it was before this government took office.
I should like to read a part of the statement made by the Prime Minister. It is quite lengthy and refers to questions asked and statements made previously in regard to it. The Prime Minister said:
In the passages to which I have referred the house was informed that United States bomber aircraft carry nuclear weapons over Canada only with prior permission from Canada; that each flight is dealt with separately by specific application, and there is no blanket authority; that the weapons are inactivated in order to avoid the possibility of accident; and that the procedures being followed are unchanged from those which had been instituted by the previous government.
This is still the situation. When the hon. member for Leeds said the members of the house do not know what the situation is- well, he is a new member and perhaps has not heard of this statement but there is no reason for anybody here not knowing what the situation is. It has been outlined on several occasions.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke gave an interesting speech on civil defence and proposed the building of underground garages which could be used as shelters. This is something which does not come under this department. He has put the matter on record and I will be glad to refer it to the Minister of Public Works and others who may be concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is surely one of those under whom civil defence comes. It comes under three ministers, including certainly the Minister of National Defence.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Civil defence is not the proper term with relation to what comes under this department. We are concerned essentially with survival operations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do shelters come under the Prime Minister?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The entire emergency measures organization comes under the Prime

Minister and the privy council office. All the emergency measures, civil defence measures, survival measures and so on, are co-ordinated through that office.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo asked about ideological and psychological warfare and what was being done in this regard. I recognize, as he does, that perhaps there is some need for something more definite being done along that line. We have not any ideological or psychological branch in the Department of National Defence. This is, I think, something which, if it were done at all, would have to be done by some other department or by the government as a whole.
He asked about hydrofoil vessels; they have of course, been under study for a number of years. It just so happens that there was a release by the Department of Defence Production on this very subject on September 8, in which it is stated:
There is a long history of Canadian hydrofoil craft design effort dating back to Alexander Graham Bell's design which exceeded a speed of 60 knots at Baddeck, Nova Scotia, in 1919. In recent years, Canada has been active in the hydrofoil area through studies conducted by the defence research board at Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Current technological advances in such areas as lightweight high strength alloy metals and gas turbine power plants, now make feasible the construction of much larger hydrofoil craft than could have been contemplated in the past. These advances form the basis of the present study.
In other words, we have been carrying on the study of hydrofoil craft for a considerable time and their use as anti-submarine craft. We are going ahead with this study in connection with which this announcement was put out because we are working in close cooperation with industry.
Then, the hon. member made some comparison between the costs of defence in Sweden and the cost of defence in Canada, at which time there was a reference to the rates of pay of the armed forces. Somebody asked him a question with which he had a little difficulty in connection with the cost of living as it related to the pay differential between the two forces. Any comparisons along this line, I believe, are extremely deceptive. They depend on so many factors which may vary greatly from country to country. The hon. member mentioned particularly the submarines which Sweden had. Well, they are getting some small submarines which take only a few people to man. However, these submarines are useful only in coastal waters and in narrow seas. They would be no good for our purposes because we have to hunt submarines out on the wide Atlantic. Once again, this comparison is not valid.
I think the hon. member said that the Royal Canadian Navy destroyer escorts were not good enough to deal with the latest type of
Supply-National Defence submarine; that they were not going to be any good in a limited war. This is not correct. The anti-submarine vessels we have are just as good as any that exist. They are recognized, as a matter of fact, as being the finest of their kind in the service of any navy in the world. Shortly they will be fitted with helicopters which will extend their range of operation and enable them to deal with the greater speed of some of the modern nuclear submarines. In this way these vessels will continue to be extremely effective.
I have a few more notes here, but time is passing so I do not think I will mention too many other points. The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville made some statements, and the associate minister will deal with those. The hon. member for Renfrew North spoke about the hospital at Peta-wawa. The situation is that this is one of the areas in which the department was asked to put up extra money to help pay the cost of the local hospital. We did this in one area he mentioned, namely, Middleton, Nova Scotia because of the percentage of military dependent personnel that came into that area. It was in excess of 10 per cent of the population, and thus constituted an undue load on the municipality. A number of places have asked for that same sort of thing. Any place where the percentage of military dependents does not bring the total population up more than 10 per cent beyond what the general level was, we have not paid a grant because we do not think it is justified. As far as these people not paying their way is concerned, just the same as any other citizen, there is nothing in that suggestion. Of course they pay their way. They pay rent and through their rents they pay taxes, or otherwise they buy houses and pay taxes. They contribute to the upkeep of local hospitals just the same as does any other person who comes into the area, whether he comes in there to be a barber or butcher or whatever it may happen to be. To try to segregate the military personnel and say that they do not pay the general cost, of course, is to do something that just does not stand up. They help to pay for all of the hospital services and everything else just as does any other resident in the municipality.
As to the hon. member for Kootenay West, I have already dealt with his position on NATO. I may say that I deplore his attempt to stir up and play on anti-German feelings. I do not think this sort of thing does any good whatever. In fact, I think it does a great deal of harm. On this basis, I could go about the country in various areas making speeches and stirring up hatred against almost every national group we have in the

Supply-National Defence country. In fact I could go to certain Highland communities and stir them up. My own family is Scotch.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Be careful.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I could stir up one clan against another clan just in one small part of the country. Therefore, as I say, I deplore this matter of attempting to stir up, to play on and to try to get advantage in some way out of anti-German feelings, and things of that sort.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Nothing of the sort.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the hon. member says, it is mischievous.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mischievous to talk against Heusinger?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member asked me how Heusinger was chosen?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He was chosen by a committee consisting of the chief military officers of each of the NATO countries. In other words the 15 chief military officers of NATO constituted a committee and various nominations were made to that committee. General Heusinger received the majority support and as a result was appointed. As it happens, the chairman of the committee at that particular time was Earl Mountbatten. The chairmanship rotates from country to country. That is the whole story of General Heusinger's appointment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 1 do not support it and many other people do not support it even in Germany.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman may say he does not support it and that other people do not support it. However, I am simply explaining to him how it was made. That was the question he asked. He asked me how this appointment happened to be made and that was the way in which it was done.
The hon. member for Kootenay West stated that he and his party were against sending any more troops to Europe, that this was just a waste of men, that no new units were being sent, and that the people being sent over were only replacing troops from the combat units that had been taken out for administrative duties to be cooks, batmen and goodness knows what, according to the story. This is completely incorrect. This is not the case at all. First of all may I say that two new units are being sent. An Honest John battery is going to be sent. I think it takes 235 men. A light helicopter reconnaissance unit is going to be sent. It takes some 75 men. The other 800 men are required

really because, contrary to what the hon. member for Trinity has said, the equipment of the brigade in Europe has been steadily built up and increased during recent years. The brigade was sent over there with one squadron of armour. It now has a full regiment of armour. One squadron of armour represents approximately 200 men. A full regiment at full strength represents approximately 800 men. That is a difference of 600 men right there. The brigade has been supplied with a great many other pieces of equipment since it went overseas, such as recoilless rifles and so on. It has been supplied with many more vehicles so that the whole brigade is mobile. They can all be put in the vehicles and moved at one time. That is why these extra men are required, not as cooks or batmen or to replace cooks or batmen. In other words the hon. member was speaking of what he knew not when he made that statement.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre wanted to have arrangements made for members of the public to attend lectures on civil defence. He mentioned the example in Ottawa here. This is something which has been looked upon as one of the municipal responsibilities in civil defence. With the increased interest now apparent in civil defence I would hope that other cities will do the same as Ottawa is doing and put on these lectures for the general population in order to inform them of what the situation is, what can be done and to advise them in regard to it.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate spoke of the Newfoundland fires. We were all-and I think this includes everybody throughout Canada-extremely concerned over the fires in Newfoundland. We realize the tragedy that they cause and the terrific loss in resources that was caused by them. The Canadian government was extremely glad to render all the assistance asked for. The hon. member wanted to know the basis upon which we give assistance for forest fires. There is a laid down procedure of which the premier of Newfoundland and the ministers of the government concerned down there I think were fully aware. They were all written letters only about five or six months ago reminding them again of the procedure and pointing out that, if they required assistance, all that was required was that they sign a declaration to that effect, give it to the local military commander, the area commander as it happens in Newfoundland, and he was and is authorized at all times to meet that request up to the limit of the forces he has at his disposal. If he has not enough forces to meet that request, then he is authorized immediately to telegraph or telephone Ottawa to report the matter so that



19B1

[Stage Direction]
authorization can be given to some other military commander in another military command such as that in Quebec, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, to send men over. That is the procedure.
As far as the costs are concerned, may I say this. The costs which, on the normal basis, a province is expected to pay are not the pay and allowances. We charge nothing for that. But if there are any militiamen who are called out, then the province is expected to pay the extra pay and allowances for those militiamen. Then there are the transportation costs or in other words what it costs to bring the troops from the point at which they are located to where the fire is. Then there is the cost of equipment which is used up and lost, such as fire hose; or if there is a vehicle that is caught and burned in the fire and so on-any equipment which is used up or lost. Also it includes extra costs which may be incurred for lodgings, meals and things of that kind, whenever it is applicable. Generally it is not applicable. These are really a small portion generally of the total cost of the operation. As far as the government is concerned, there has been, as far I am aware, no discussion as yet with Newfoundland with regard to costs. There is a laid down procedure. Under the regulations the army commander, before he moves at all, is supposed to get a written demand from the premier or the designated ministers. In this case we did not wait for that. The premier of Newfoundland telephoned the Prime Minister here. The Prime Minister got in touch with me immediately. I gave the orders for the air force to commit the airplanes and for the army to get the troops ready. Then I telephoned the premier and asked him about equipment. He had not said a word about equipment. I said, "What equipment do you need?" and so forth.
This was the way it was done in this case. There was no mention of costs in this particular case. The army commander there subsequently went to the premier, explained the situation and asked him if he would sign the usual authorization. The army commander is required to do this under the regulations. I am sorry to say that the premier refused to sign it.
In any event, there has been no discussion of costs in this regard and I think this will perhaps be looked at from the general point of view of the size of the disaster, and so forth. Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is a matter I should go into further at this time.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would permit me to ask just one more question. As the minister knows, a helicopter was lost.
Supply-National Defence Happily, the crew and passengers of the helicopter escaped. I notice that if any equipment is lost, the user will be expected to pay for it. I doubt whether the minister would really expect the government of Newfoundland to pay for this helicopter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Under normal circumstances this would be one of the things for which the province would be expected to pay. There is just one other point in connection with this matter. I regret that some question was raised that the Solicitor General, the minister from Newfoundland, had not been doing anything in connection with this disaster. I can assure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the committee generally that the Solicitor General was extremely active in regard to this matter.
He spoke to me on several occasions about sending assistance to Newfoundland. He asked what assistance they had, what had they asked for, and so on. I explained to him what the general procedure was, which I have already outlined to the committee, and assured him that we were willing to give further help just as soon as it was asked for. But we could not force our way into Newfoundland with this help. If we had done so we would no doubt have got into quite serious trouble with the provincial authorities.
Therefore I would not wish any implication or idea left that the Solicitor General was not taking an extremely active interest in this matter and was not expressing very great concern throughout the course of these fires in Newfoundland.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to participate in the debate at this stage, but in view of the minister's apparent confusion I feel I must do so. I realize that the minister has been travelling across the country making speeches, some of them causing considerable confusion in the country. I now realize the reason, which is very simple; it is that he is confused himself.
At the same time I will take advantage of the opportunity to reply to a few of the questions raised yesterday in speeches by the associate minister and the parliamentary secretary. I had thought of replying to some of these statements and allegations last evening, but unfortunately the associate minister was not here. I understand he was enjoying himself elsewhere on official duties.
First of all in respect of the suggestion of the minister this afternoon that the information I used was not official, let me again repeat that the information I used was from the highest source available. It was taken directly from a statement given personally to congress by the commander in chief of the United States armed forces. Surely there can

Supply-National Defence be no better authority on what is United States policy and on what are United States priorities than the commander in chief himself. I think the minister would agree with that.


An hon. Member:: It was a supplementary statement.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Of course, the message to congress was a supplementary statement. It was to put into effect a supplementary program of high priorities required to bring United States strength up to the required levels. Emphasis was put on those particular projects which would best accomplish that purpose.
The minister is quite right when he says that of the total moneys allocated as a result of this message, the largest amount was for strategic weapons, for the carriers of atomic weapons. As the minister well knows, the United States carries the burden of strategic deterrence. At least 90 per cent of the total strategic capacity of the western alliance is the responsibility of the United States.
As I stated rather clearly, I thought, in my statement, they felt it was necessary to do something to augment that deterrent force and so the president recommended certain things to congress. The most expensive were associated with deterrents. But the president made it very clear that he was aware of the necessity, at the same time, to have a change in emphasis, to implement an increase in the conventional capacity of the United States and of the western alliance.
In respect of the four items of equipment to which I referred, they are all secondhand; not one of them was of sufficient priority to demand any more expenditure at this time. As a matter of fact, most of them are out of production. I will deal with each one briefly later on.
The minister said yesterday we should have the best equipment available. But the equipment we are getting is not, in all cases, the best available. Some of it is much less than that. I did not say that all second-hand hardware is useless.


Mr. Sevigny:: What do you suggest?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not say that. I would hay, however, that second hand hardware is, in most cases, inferior to first class hardware. I think that should be obvious to my hon. friend across the chamber, if he would listen very carefully. The parliamentary secretary stated yesterday that the objectives of Canadian defence are two in number, to preserve the peace and to protect Canadian citizens. He further stated that the method of

achieving these objectives is NATO. The parliamentary secretary is confusing the objectives with policy. There is no disagreement with respect to objectives; the disagreement is in respect of the means of achieving them.


Egan Chambers: Mr. Chairman, there is going to be disagreement if the hon. member misquotes the objectives I mentioned.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I apologize to the parliamentary secretary. I think he is perhaps quite right. I believe those are the two objectives stated by the minister. I realized that in passing. If I misquoted the parliamentary secretary, I am sorry; but the same comment would apply.


Egan Chambers: The objectives were the prevention of war and the preservation of freedom.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is right. The comment still applies. There is no disagreement in respect of these objectives but the method of achieving them is open to considerable debate.
The associate minister made a number of complaints about my remarks in his speech. I should like to attempt to elaborate upon several of them for his benefit. First in respect to the increase in the armed forces, the associate minister questioned my figure of $10,000 per man. I was very careful to use the words contained in the blue book, "military personnel costs, operations and maintenance". Surely the associate minister would not say that additional forces would not mean an additional requirement for expenditures under the heading of operations and maintenance. They require heat and light. If they operate vehicles, they will wear out tires and consume gasoline. If they travel, they will have travelling expenses. Of course they will have most, if not all, of the same expenditures as the present members of the armed forces. I think his figure of the possible cost per man is much too low.
The minister then objected to my statement that the brigade did not have the fire power and mobility it should have. He said that it is mobile and equipped with the most up to date equipment that can be procured. Whom does he think he is kidding? He should take another look at the equipment and then look at some of the equipment which is now available in the world.
In the same vein the parliamentary secretary to the minister said that the brigade was moved bright and early one morning during manoeuvres before he arose for breakfast. However, he was careful not to tell us what it moved on. Did the brigade use rubber tired vehicles to move it on surfaced

highways? Did it use world war II personnel carriers? The parliamentary secretary did not say.


Egan Chambers: I was not up.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the parliamentary secretary would take the trouble to inquire, I think it would be of interest to the committee to know whether these are the vehicles used by the brigade or whether they have some new equipment about which we have not been advised. The hon. gentleman should know that in the event of war the enemy might be so thoughtless as to blow up some of the roads and there might be the requirement for a carrier to go across a lake or stream. How does he think they would cross, by submarine?
The associate minister then went on to say that the enemy is impressed by the strength of our forces and the determination which is being shown by NATO to defend our way of life. I do not know what communications the associate minister has with the enemy, but even if the enemy are impressed as the associate minister said, they do not seem to be intimidated; at least, they were not deterred from recommencing nuclear testing nor from threatening to cut the access corridors to Berlin.
I must admit that listening as I did yesterday to the minister, the associate minister and the parliamentary secretary, I was reminded of Wynken, Blynken and Nod, three men asleep in the land of unreality. They are going to have to come out of their trance and face the hard world of reality.
I have here a clipping from Life magazine, issue of August 25, 1961. It is entitled "The Long Road Back for the Army". I should like to read it for the benefit of the committee:
The conventional-war threat implicit in the Berlin situation poses some obvious questions about the U.S. army. The answers are disturbing.
Across the sand hills and pine woods of South Carolina the spendidly trained 101st and 82nd airborne divisions fought a rugged week-long battle that was billed as "the most important land warfare exercise in 20 years". It was a convincing show of strength, but the sad fact is these two divisions constitute two thirds of the combat-ready U.S.-based army. Most of their equipment is of world war II or Korean vintage, and much of it is wearing out. Not only the airborne divisions but the five first-line U.S. divisions in Europe are still using old tanks, and the quality of tanks has been the weak link in the U.S. arsenal. Only one battalion in the entire army is equipped with the new M-60 tank to match Russian T-54's which have been in operation since 1952. The Russian army, after two post-war equipment changes, has handed out to satellites and even neutralist Arabs newer equipment than the best-armed G.I. now carries.
This sorry situation came about largely because of the army's orphaned status during the eight-year era of the massive retaliation doctrine. After Korea
Supply-National Defence the army was cut back to less than 25 per cent of the total defence budget and barely managed to avoid obliteration by getting into the missile and rocket business. The army's Redstone has become a mainstay in the space race, but this kind of development tended to obscure the army's conventional role. "After a while there wasn't any more fat to be chopped so they cut logistical bone and muscle and called it fat," says one colonel. "Now the army is 60 per cent of what it looks like on paper." The ground forces have another legitimate complaint: the air force has always placed too low a priority on the job of supplying planes and pilots that would turn the army into a swift and mobile world wide striking force.
Demoralized and unsure of its mission, slapped down repeatedly by congress and the defence department, the army's top leadership has grown fusty and defensive. By the time Kennedy stepped in and authorized 133,000 new men to beef up limited-warfare capability, the army's overlapping technical services and weakened logistical systems were so messed up that army brass wanted to assign most of the new manpower to noncombat functions. The administration, disillusioned with the brass, is still trying to find the handle for a more effective troop build-up as well as for basic reforms. Defence department civilians and the younger officer corps share the administration's sense of frustration. "What we need," one of them says, "is a guy who is smart, mad at the way things are, and a real S.O.B."
One might say that the message contained in that article would apply with equal force to the Canadian armed forces. The associate minister went on to discuss the Russian bomber force. He stated that not only is the enemy still flying bombers but they are still producing them. How does he know? Is that the latest dispatch from Washington? Or is the hon. gentleman relying on published reports of the Soviet May day air show? Does he realize that a similar air show a few years ago contributed to the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars for air defence against manned bombers while the Soviet union concentrated on the development of ballistic missiles? Does the minister think that this might be another Soviet trick? If so, can he be fooled so easily? If not, and the bombers are supersonic as reported, then the minister had better obtain a faster plane than the Voodoo.
I was surprised at the Minister of National Defence today implying that anyone who said that the bomber threat was diminishing, was not still the main force and would not continue to be so for a number of years, was in effect off his rocker. Is the minister telling the committee that the government lied to the house and the people of Canada in 1959 when it cancelled the Avro Arrow? Is that what he intended in his statement?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could interrupt to clear one point. I did not at any time say that the bomber threat was not diminishing. Naturally, as intercontinental ballistic missiles are produced in greater quantities they will become progressively
8324	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-National Defence more important and the bomber less important, but that period has not yet been reached. That is the main point I made. That should be clear and apparent. The point has not yet been reached where the intercontinental ballistic missile is the main threat. The main threat is still the manned bomber.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thank the minister for this interesting interjection. The minister said he made it quite clear that he did not say the bomber threat is not diminishing. If the bomber threat is diminishing why does the government now do something which it said two years ago was unnecessary? This is the question which comes to mind. The bomber threat is diminishing-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The government did not say it was unnecessary. That is why the Bomarcs were ordered, for one thing. If we thought there was no bomber threat we certainly would not have ordered the Bomarcs.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The confusion about which I spoke earlier, Mr. Chairman, was never more apparent.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In your mind.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I take a moment or two in which to speak about the Bomarc. This is one of the pieces of hardware which I described as being second-hand; it is worse than that, it is junk. The Bomarc missile is a ten year old concept. As the minister well knows it was designed to shoot down enemy aircraft, manned bombers. The minister himself made very clear again yesterday that it is not effective against missiles and no one ever said that it was. With that we agree. But what the minister has failed to realize, however, is that times have changed since this concept was initiated ten years ago. At that time bombers were the only threat to the North American continent, not just the main threat if the minister is correct in the information he gave us today.
There is one other development on which the minister has not commented with respect to the Bomarc. The United States has developed stand-off bombs which are carried by manned bombers. Published reports and evidence indicate that the U.S.S.R. is doing the same thing. If the U.S.S.R. has approximately the same success with stand-off bombs as the United States it, too, will carry a ballistic missile which can be launched from the wings of its bombers which will have a range of approximately a thousand miles and which will carry a nuclear warhead.
The picture at the present time and for the future is this. To send a Bomarc, even if it will fly, with its four hundred mile range, against a ballistic missile that has a nuclear

warhead and a thousand mile range is like trying to fight a sword with a toothpick. Long before the bomber force gets within range of the Bomarc station it will launch one of its ballistic missiles from under its wings, knock out the Bomarc station in toto and fly merrily on its way. Surely, the minister is at least that much up to date that he can see the futility of putting money in fixed bases, whether they be Bomarcs or SAGE or gap-fillers, if they are going to be destroyed at the outset by any one of three or four kinds of missiles, including missiles launched from bombers, which is the only potential threat against which they were designed.
The Bomarc will never reach the carriers. What good is it then? How can the minister justify spending Canadian money on a useless piece of second-hand junk.
With respect to the United States appropriations that we were discussing a few minutes ago, the minister did not say in respect of the funding for the Bomarc that it had been cut several times; that the limited program which is now being carried forward was probably a compromise designed largely to accommodate the Boeing Aircraft Company, the Canadian government, and what would have been the cancellation charges if the whole thing had not been proceeded with. Surely, he does not expect us to believe that it has a continuing military function. That would be stretching credibility too far.
The associate minister informed the committee that the federal government did not invite General Kuter to make his Toronto speech. Be that as it may; the minister did not contend that the government was not consulted. I would certainly believe that, in view of what has happened in the last year or two, that the government would have known of the proposed visit. The associate minister went on to say-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would not want to leave any misapprehension at all. When General Kuter, or anybody else in that position comes to Canada to make a speech he submits the speech to me to see whether or not I approve it. Anything I do not approve I strike out and this was done in this case. I read the speech. I thought it was an excellent speech and I approved it. But we had nothing to do with General Kuter coming to Canada to give the speech.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I appreciate the minister's explanation very much. This is exactly as I would have expected it to be.
The associate minister went on to refer to the Bobcat all-purpose personnel carrier and he said that it had been put into production. We would like some further explanation

in reference to this. Is he referring to the limited production of a few prototype models which was announced in this house a year ago, or is he referring to something new, namely the production of a sufficient quantity to be of some military use. This is a question that has to be answered. We have to know how many are on order, and when they will be delivered to our forces overseas, because they are not much good until they get there.
The minister implied that I was saying there was confusion and indecision in the minds of those entrusted with the national defence of Canada, the serving officers. The minister does not have to lecture me in respect of the competence and dedication of the officers and men of the Canadian armed forces. They do not always agree, but they are always sincere in their opinions. The indecision and confusion lie with the ministers and the cabinet and I place the responsibility where it belongs, namely on the government leaders.
Both the associate minister and the parliamentary secretary proposed a strange hypothesis. It was as follows. To say that Canada has no defence policy is tantamount to saying that NATO has no defence policy. Well, this is a strange doctrine indeed. Is the minister saying, as he once said on a television program, that the Canadian defence budget and defence policy are determined by NATO? Do we take our instructions from NATO? I doubt it very much. Collaboration, yes, but surely NATO does not dictate Canada's defence policy or Canada's defence budget. This is a new doctrine that should be announced by the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was repudiated in this house by the Prime Minister a year ago.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps there has been a change since. If so, we should have been told about it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I rise on a point of order. I never said that NATO fixed the Canadian budget and I made that abundantly clear when members of the opposition raised the point approximately two years ago. But I have said this and I repeat it, that agreements which are reached at the NATO conference table only after careful consideration are at the basis of the defence policy not only of this country but of all the member countries of NATO.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I must admit the surprise that I felt yesterday to have this new doctrine expressed by the minister. I hope that Canada's contribution is still determined in collaboration with our allies but on the best consideration of the Canadian government which is
Supply-National Defence responsible to the Canadian people. Confusion reigns supreme on the government benches. And now with respect to the other pieces of equipment that were referred to earlier. I have dealt with the Bomarc and I do not intend to elaborate further now as there may be something to be said later in the debate.
With respect to the Voodoo aircraft, I have never said it was not a good aircraft. Perhaps the minister is technically correct, in his very carefully chosen phraseology of yesterday he said that it is the best interceptor now available for North American air defence service. That may be true. It is still not as good as the Arrow was and it is now out of production. I should have said this yesterday. Unquestionably if the Avro Arrow had gone into production it would have been welcomed now by the United States forces and the minister would have been able to find customers for it because it would have been the best in its field.
With respect to the F-104, the United States has not funded any money for it for a considerable period of time. The F-104 was in service with the North American air command. As the minister knows, it was withdrawn from the North American air command because it was not satisfactory and it was turned over to a subsidiary role with the United States national guard. That is what the United States air force thought of it. They may still have one wing in tactical air command on the continental United States. But they do not think enough of it to put any more money into it or to obtain it for the strike reconnaissance role for the United States air force. Those in use with the national guard in the United States are still experiencing the unfortunate accident rate which was evident previously with the earlier models of this aircraft.
With respect to the Honest John, it too is now second best, second-hand hardware. The United States forces are now putting their reliance on the Little John, a much smaller, lighter and portable weapon which can be carried by air transport and has a capacity probably not too different from that of the Honest John. When we have been so late in obtaining these things, why are we not getting the best instead of the second best? These questions have been raised and surely the minister cannot say in the light of what I have indicated that I was unfair in calling these weapons second-hand hardware. They are second-hand hardware.
I hope that the minister will reconsider some of the things he said this afternoon. I hope that he will reconsider the effectiveness of some of the roles that his forces are called upon to play. I also hope that he will stop stalling with respect to getting the necessary

Supply-National Defence equipment for our fighting forces overseas because the time has long since passed when he should have got out of that frame of mind and have taken some real action to make sure they do have the equipment they need.
(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should like to give some specific explanations, in French, about the remarks made before this committee, yesterday, by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis).
The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville referred to the situation in St. Jean, as well as in neighbouring areas, with respect to salaries which are paid by the Department of National Defence to employees on a part-time or hourly basis.
Among other things, the hon. member stated that, before 1957, the department's employees used to get annual increases.
That policy of paying hourly paid government employees salaries in keeping with the prevailing rates of the area for a similar work, has remained unchanged for years. The Department of National Defence makes sure that salaries paid to all hourly paid employees are reviewed at least once a year, and that increases are approved whenever they are warranted.
The hon. member added that since 1957 in some cases, and since 1958 in others, no salary increase had been granted. I am sorry to contradict him, but all the hourly-paid employees in the St. Jean area, except three, had a salary increase in 1958. In addition, other increases were approved in 1959 for almost all classes while other increases were approved in 1960 for certain classes of employees. Results of the preliminary study made by the department for the year 1961 on the rates paid in those areas are not yet available, unfortunately.
The hon. member mentioned that waitresses, assistant cooks, kitchen hands, truck drivers and others receive inadequate salaries that are too low to enable them to provide a decent living or even bare necessities for their families. The Department of Labour is responsible for the policies to be followed in the fixing of salary rates; in order to set these rates, we study the existing conditions in private enterprise.
The hon. member also mentioned that in the past, that is before 1957, employees who were not under the civil service could work overtime and earn higher salaries. There was no change made in that policy of paying

higher wages for overtime, but it has never been a practice, in the Department of National Defence, to provide on purpose overtime work as a means to increase the employees' salaries. On the contrary, they are asked to work overtime only when there are serious reasons for it. We do this in order to avoid additional expenses.
These last few years, the department and the R.C.A.F. have been particularly conscious of the fact that it is necessary to cut expenses whenever it is possible, while maintaining a high degree of efficiency.
The hon. member stated that, prior to 1957, the employees working on Saturdays or Sundays received higher pay, since they were paid at time and a half rates and sometimes at double time rates while today they are paid at straight time.
Mr. Chairman, I will answer by saying that hourly paid employees are entitled to a certain extra rate for the number of hours worked in addition to their normal week. Moreover, they are paid for the work done on days of rest, above and beyond their regular number of working hours.
However, it must be understood that because of the nature of the duties they have to perform, some employees work only on Saturday, Sunday or at night. Those are therefore considered as regular hours of work, not overtime.
I would be very happy to send the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), a copy of the explanation given to me by the department and which should convince him that the Department of National Defence commits no injustice deliberately or otherwise towards its employees in the St. Jean district or elsewhere.
(Text):
I should like to comment briefly now, Mr. Chairman-
(Translation):


Mr. Dupuis:: Would the minister permit a question now or does he want me to wait for him to conclude his remarks?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: If the hon. member does not mind, I should like to conclude my remarks. I shall gladly answer his questions then.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment briefly on certain remarks which were made to the committee this afternoon by the hon. member for Kootenay West. He referred to the fact it was rather inadvisable to permit German generals who have, at some time or other, served against our country, to occupy

positions of prominence in the NATO forces. The hon. member referred particularly, and in rather strong language, to the fact that General Heusinger today occupies a place of prominence in the NATO forces. I fully agree with the hon. member concerning the employment of well-known Nazis in positions of high importance. I am convinced that no friends of the Nazi party or well-known Nazis, and certainly no well-known war criminals, are employed in any capacity in NATO.
In so far as General Heusinger is concerned, I feel that it is necessary to mention that this distinguished officer was never at any time a member of the Nazi party or of the Nazi forces. A distinction must be made between the forces of the regular German army and the members of the Nazi party. General Heusinger was, in fact, a career officer in the Germany army. After the uprising of July 20, 1944, at which time there was an attempt on Hitler's life by a group of officers who believed the time had come to put an end to this madman's antics, General Heusinger was arrested and escaped from gaol just before he was sentenced to death by the Nazi party.
General Heusinger is a man who served his country with distinction. I believe we must realize that, in spite of the excesses of the Nazi party in Germany during the last war, there were nevertheless some patriotic Germans who felt that by serving in the army of their country they were serving their country just like so many Canadians, Americans and British soldiers felt they were serving their country by being in uniform. General Heusinger was never a Nazi. He was a man who was under sentence of death because he tried at one time to stop the evil effects of the Nazi doctrine upon the world. I felt that these remarks were necessary at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister permit a question? Has he read the memorandum presented by the American Jewish congress in which there are extracts of orders issued by General Heusinger to the German army and statements made by him in the memorandum that the extermination of the civil population would provide an opportunity to exterminate the Jews and Slavs in the countries concerned. This is in the Congressional Record and I can give the page.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must say in reply that I have not yet read this memorandum. However, I felt it was necessary for me to mention what I knew about General Heusinger, who enjoys the confidence of those around him in NATO and who is today performing a valuable service in the NATO association.
Supply-National Defence
I should like now to refer briefly to certain of the comments which were made by the hon. member for Trinity. Once again the hon. member for Trinity surprised this committee and certainly surprised me when he claimed that nothing in the army was good. He said particularly that the army brigade is not mobile. He claims that the weapons with which we are equipped are second-hand hardware, in fact he called them junk. He claims that nothing is good. Nothing that has been done seems to meet his wishes. After listening to him, we have to come to the conclusion that he considers all that is being done here and in the United States is useless.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not say that.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The army is poorly equipped, he says, and poorly manned. Nothing seems to be worth while. He read a lengthy article which was supposed to be from Life magazine, written by I don't know who, in which it was stated that there was nothing in the United States forces that was modern or adequate to meet the threat that faces us today. The hon. member, as I said, stated that the army brigade was not mobile and he seemed to be concerned about this lack of mobility. He said that nothing moved, and that all was wrong. He also seems to think that the weapons we have put at the disposal of our forces are useless. He finds absolutely nothing good in what has been done or what is being done.
There was one thing that struck me, though. After claiming that nothing worked properly, that nothing moved and nothing seemed to fire right, he did not come out with one suggestion about the type of aircraft or the type of weapon or the type of ship which could be used and should be used by our forces in order to protect us. He once again let off a great big blast concerning the Bomarc program. He told us that the Bomarcs were useless against intercontinental ballistic missiles. We agree with this. However, there is one thing the hon. member should learn at some time, and that is that the Bomarc is not a missile meant to destroy intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is a weapon which is meant to be used against the enemy bombers which may attack our shores. It may well be that they will do so, since the manned bomber is still a very distinct possibility.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the hon. member for Trinity that the Bomarc is not meant, has never been meant and will never be meant, as a weapon against the intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is a weapon which is meant for defence against the possibility of attack by manned bombers. It is

Supply-National Defence considered by the highest authorities in the United States, in Canada and elsewhere throughout NATO countries as an efficient weapon against bombers.
Then, the hon. member claimed that the figures we mentioned in relation to the cost of additional forces are too low. These figures have been supplied to us by the officials of the Department of National Defence who arrived at them only after the longest, closest and most careful scrutiny. In order to make sure that they would not be wrong their figures were further revised and studied with great care by the officials of treasury board. It was only after this careful study had been made by these two bodies of men that these figures were submitted to us. I may say frankly that we are still under the impression that the opinions of the experienced staff of the defence department and the experienced members of treasury board are good enough for us. That is why we say the figures we have quoted are correct.
Once again the hon. member tells us that we should have amphibious carriers for our brigade and that we should have these weapons at the earliest possible moment. We agree with him. This is exactly what we are trying to do in procuring these Bobcat vehicles which are being produced and which we hope will be produced at a faster rate from now on. We are pushing the Bobcat program. In fact, we have announced that we would eventually buy 500 of these vehicles. We hope that these vehicles will be ready in the near future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister permit a question? Will he indicate when that announcement was made?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: This was indicated last year. We said that as soon as the experimental tests were finished and once the vehicles were considered operational and satisfactory, we hoped to buy some 500 of these vehicles.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was stated to be a requirement, but was any order ever given or was any money put in the estimates for it?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: If the hon. member would keep his seat and listen carefully-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All I get is words.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -he would realize that I have said that last year or some time ago-I forget the exact date-we said that as soon as the experimental tests were finished and had been found satisfactory, we hoped to be able to place an initial order for 500 of these vehicles.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You will probably be a senator by then.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: As I have just said, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has continued with the well known Liberal policy of scrapping all that we have, in order to replace this policy with a policy of their own which has never been defined. It seems to me that it is slightly ridiculous to suggest that we get rid of all the proven weapons, which have been satisfactory in the past, which are still satisfactory and which I am sure give this country the defence it needs.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) a question. The minister told us earlier today that, since 1957 wage increases have been regularly awarded to the employees of the Royal Military College and of the R.C.A.F. station at St. Jean. But, first of all, the minister pointed out that I had said that employees there were earning inadequate wages; I did say so, of course, and I repeat it.
The minister received information from the Department of National Defence, but I made some considerable inquiries among the employees, because I had heard of several justified complaints. So let the minister take notes or refute my figures. It would be rather difficult for him to do so because I have here the stubs of the cheques paid to those people in the various sections. When I pointed out that fact yesterday, I had no intention of playing politics. I simply wanted to draw the government's attention to the discriminatory wages paid to members of the R.C.A.F. at the Royal Military College at St. Jean.
The minister referred to zoning, and he said that the department had considered zoning in the area. Well, is it not rather strange that at the St. Jean military college a waitress employed by the Department of National Defence should earn 87 cents, in St. Jean, while half a mile from there, at the R.C.A.F. base, a waitress earns 89 cents, that is two cents more? Yet, the zone is the same and the employer is the same department in both cases.
The minister seems to find this normal and did not say whether my complaints were justified. Personally, I think it is absolutely abnormal that in 1961 rates as low as 87 cents and 89 cents an hour should be paid to employees of the Department of National Defence.
I have stubs here. If the minister wants proofs, he would see, for instance, that a person called a kitchen helper was paid $74.19 for 96 hours of work, or $37 a week. Therefore, the worker who earns $37 a week in

St. Jean gets a dollar a week more in his national defence job than an unemployed person who draws benefits. In my opinion, this is an anomaly and I clearly said so to the minister.
The minister said the procedure has remained unchanged since 1957, and he added that those workers have been granted increases regularly. Well, I note, as the minister will after inquiry, that those who received increases were precisely those who needed them less. The classifications which were in greater need of increases, such as waitresses, kitchen helpers and bus drivers, got no increase since 1957-58.
I have here other pay cheque stubs and I note that in 1957, a driver earned $300.50 in 15 days; today, he cannot earn more than $120.
Then, I say that the minister should not only take the floor to reply to the member for St. Jean and tell him that his claims are unfounded but that he should go to the heart of the matter and check the facts instead of being content with one side of the story.
I understand that departmental officials have given him a detailed list of the salaries paid at the station. I submit that that list in no way contradicts what I said here yesterday and what I am now repeating today. In 1961, a bus driver earns $1,000 to $1,500 less than in 1957. If the minister investigates, he will come to the same conclusions as I did.
He states that work done on Saturdays and Sundays is paid more now than before. According to my information, such work does not entitle the employee to higher pay; perhaps some local officer is mistaken in his interpretation of the law. I am told that work done on Saturday and Sunday is not paid at time and a half rates nor double time rates as was the case in 1957.
Mr. Chairman, I do insist on that point. I should like the Associate Minister of National Defence, for whom I have every respect, to take into favourable consideration the facts I brought to his attention. I see no reason, for example, why there should be a difference between the salary paid to a truck driver working at the St. Jean base and the one paid a truck driver working for the C.N.R., which is an organization owned by the federal government. The difference varies between 30 cents and 40 cents per hour.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the Associate Minister of National Defence for giving us his figures but I would like him to consider mine and to make a personal inquiry in order to ascertain the situation now prevailing at the Royal Military College at St. Jean and at the R.C.A.F. station in St. Jean.
Supply-National Defence
People working very hard, 45 hours a week, get 83, 85, 87, 89 and 92 cents an hour. In fact, unemployed people get $36 a week while people who work hard get $37. I think that is an abnormal situation and I hope that the Associate Minister of National Defence will give me an immediate answer, if he has anything to say, and will look into what I have just stated.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be very brief.
A moment ago, I mentioned some facts which I had obtained, as was said by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville (Mr. Dupuis), from national defence officials, to explain government policy as regards salaries paid to part-time prevailing rate employees.
I wish to assure the hon. member that the Department of National Defence has no intention, any more than I have, to deal unfairly with part-time employees in the St. Jean area or elsewhere.
Mr. Chairman, I shall be most happy to ask the officials of the Department of National Defence to look into the information the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville will send me, and I hope that together we will succeed in seeing to it that everyone is justly treated in that area, just as in other areas.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the Associate Minister of National Defence for his statement. I hope that together we will be able to look into that situation and arrive at a conclusion which will be satisfactory to the employees of the Department of National Defence.
(Text):


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on what I hope is a question of privilege, and it is this. We have been given a great many figures in this house today and on a good many occasions they have been strongly controverted. We who are not experts have to rely upon figures given to us, and that includes not only members of parliament but the public at large.
It seems to me, therefore, that it would be fair if we asked hon. members who have given figures today and who for any reason in their own minds, or because of what has been said in the committee, have changed those figures, to have the correction noted in Hansard so that when the record appears tomorrow it will be the best record we can have. This is important when we are dealing

Supply-National Defence with very large and significant figures, because I do feel that the record will then be of great value to all concerned.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Perhaps on that-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are you calling it six o'clock?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I thought we might pass the next two or three items.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think that is possible now. I wish to make several observations. I want to deal particularly with the minister's statement that the Liberal party had not put forward a policy. It is not my intention to deal with what is the Liberal party policy because that has been adequately and clearly stated by the hon. member for Trinity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is clear, however, is that the government has not succinctly stated its policy. After all, the government was elected not only to formulate policy in all spheres of national and international activities, in so far as the latter apply to Canada, but also to see that these policies were given effect.
The government has not given us a clear statement with regard to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. I wish to say something about that at greater length than I can in the time at my disposal. I wish to indicate to the minister that I do propose, as others in this party have done, to call upon him to give now, before this house adjourns, a clear statement of the government's intention in this regard.
We do not wish to be confronted, with regard to this vital matter at this critical time in human history, with the device this government has employed on so many occasions. We were told, for instance, in the dying days prior to adjournment, that the government's policy with regard to amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act would be made known in due course.
The government stated in January in the speech from the throne that it was going to bring down amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Then, the moment parliament adjourned we were confronted with a device which removes from the government any immediate, apparent responsibility. I refer to the appointment of a royal commission to go into something in connection with which the government said in January it was prepared to enunciate a policy.
Now we may be here another month. I have no doubt, from every indication now

apparent, that before we come back here in November or December the Minister of National Defence will announce a policy regarding the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and without parliament being given the opportunity of confronting the issue immediately and debating the question on its merits.
I believe that at a time when we are all seeking to appreciate the responsibilities of the government in this difficult period, it should take parliament into its confidence. The government should indicate what is in its mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of National Defence could rise in his place right now and say that Canada proposes to accept nuclear weapons without condition, or under certain conditions-in the custody of the United States, for instance, and under their control, but under arrangements that recognize the responsibility of the government of Canada in respect of matters pertaining to the welfare of this nation.
The minister can say that we propose to accept in Canada the agreement the United Kingdom has with regard to the acquisition of nuclear weapons in that country. He can tell us whether or not it is true that there is now ready an agreement formulated by the United States, with the full knowledge of the government of Canada, with respect to this matter.
I am not saying that is the case, but these are the indications we are receiving at every turn. We are entitled to know, before parliament adjourns, with respect to this very vital matter of whether or not the government has a policy; and if it has, the government should state it in a forthright and unambiguous way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In reply to that, Mr. Chairman, I would say that I do not propose to accept the directions of the hon. member for Essex East as to what I should or should not say in this debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know you will not, but the people of Canada expect you to state where you stand in this matter of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, would the house leader indicate the business for tomorrow and the balance of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will follow the agreed program to complete the estimates of the Department of National Defence. Then we will carry on with the privy council and defence production estimates.
Business of the House


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In that order?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In that order, I judge, unless there is some necessity for change.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ask the Minister of National Defence to answer questions, and we will finish quickly.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the Sydney, Nova Scotia, steel plant recently invited from the United States of America quotations for low volatile coal for blending purposes in the production of steel?
2.	If so, what are the quantities of coal involved?
3.	Does the low volatile coal required exist in the maritimes?
4.	If not, what is the difference in the costs of making steel using low volatile coal imported
from the U.S.A. and using the most suitable coal available in the maritimes?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of
Mines and Technical Surveys):
1.	This is a matter affecting the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Limited and is not one of government responsibility. However, the press has reported the movement of one cargo of low volatile coal into Sydney for this purpose.
2.	Since this is a matter of private business, the government has no official information.
3.	No coal of low volatile rank is known to exist in the maritime provinces.
4.	The government has no information on this matter.

Thursday, September 14, 1961