1962-03-20

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that at the beginning of January the government was favoured with a visit from Right Hon. Edward Heath, Lord Privy Seal in the British government. That meeting afforded an opportunity for exchanges of views and gave the government the opportunity to receive from Mr. Heath an up to date account of the course of negotiations for the entry of Britain into the European common market. At that time it was agreed that further such meetings might be held from time to time. I am glad now to be able to inform the house that we look forward to a similar visit from Mr. Heath on Monday and Tuesday of next week.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege relating to the right of a member of parliament to receive answers to questions. My question of privilege relates to an answer given yesterday by the Minister of Finance, as found at page 1919 of Hansard, to the following question:
Has Mr. James Coyne, a former governor of the Bank of Canada, received any moneys-
And so on. This was the minister's answer:
This answer I give on information from the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada pension fund is a separate and distinct fund made up of past contributions by the staff and the bank, plus accrued earnings thereon.
This is the key sentence.
It is not the practice to disclose information regarding the details of payments made to individual retired employees out of the fund.
I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Hansard of June 28, 1961, where it will be found that part 4 of question No. 423 reads as follows:
4. What was the lowest, highest, and average rate payable under the Bank of Canada pension plan:	(a) previous to March 1, 1960;	(b) since
March 1, 1960?
To that question the Minister of Finance supplied the following answer:
4. (a) As at February, 1960, the lowest, $7.87 per month; the highest, $1,145.83 per month. That happens to be the pension of the former governor.
I will not go further with the answer to make my point that last year in answer to a question in this house the minister did provide information as to the pension that was actually being received by a former governor of the Bank of Canada. From his very phrasing he specified who it was and we know with no trouble at all that it was Mr. Graham Towers.
As the minister did that, I feel it is taking an unfair advantage of the house procedure to come into the house as the minister did yesterday and say that it is not the practice to disclose such information. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this particular matter, because if an answer on a particular subject is given at one time in a particular way, we should at least have this privilege on a subsequent occasion, and surely we deserve to have information in answer to a similar question given in the same way. Surely there should be a precedent established.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member has overlooked some very essential ingredients and facts in the situation to which he refers. The answer that I gave yesterday to question No. 288 is a correct answer. The question sought information concerning a former governor of the bank, Mr. James Coyne. The answer I gave, on information from the bank, was that it is not the practice to disclose information regarding the details of payments made to individual retired employees out of the fund; that, I am told, is the position.
The hon. member refers to what was said in the course of a debate last June, Mr. Speaker, when certain information was brought before the house concerning the ranges, the high and the low, of payments made to those on pension. This was an illustration of the range within which those payments run, a comparison of the payments available to the governor under rule 17 of a particular by-law as compared with the pension available to him prior to the adoption of that particular by-law by the board of governors, and a comparison of that to the lowest pension paid to a former employee of the bank who qualified for a pension. Those were the observations Mr. Speaker, and that

Question of Privilege
was their relevancy on that occasion. This is not a precedent at all for either the seeking of the information the hon. member sought yesterday by question No. 288 or the observations which he has made this afternoon.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to draw your attention to the fact that it was not in debate that the answer was given. It was an answer to a formal question on the order paper, question No. 423, and the words contained in the answer given by the minister point out that the highest pension per month is the pension given to the former governor. The answer was quite explicit as to who got it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises as a point of privilege, I take it, the right of the house to consistency in the reasons which are given by the ministry in declining to answer. It is recognized by the house that certain answers may very properly be withheld from public disclosure in the house because it would be contrary to the public interest or contrary to a practice which has been established. The ministry from time to time declines to answer on these or similar grounds. Whether there is any obligation on the part of the ministry which amounts to a privilege or right of the house, I would much doubt. But it is a rather novel point, and I will consider it.
May I at this time refer the house to Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 153, citation 181:
A minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal-
From that I take it that if the minister had declined to answer, there would have been no objection.
-and insistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal. A member can put a question, but has no right to insist upon an answer.
I think from this citation it is fairly clear that rights do not arise. If a member is dissatisfied with the answer to his question, it is proper for him to comment upon that at the appropriate time in debate, but it does not go so far as to permit him to raise his objection as a question of privilege. However, as I say it is a novel point, and I shall give the matter some consideration in case it should arise again.



MR. CHEVRIER    ALLEGED INCOMPLETENESS OF RETURN TO ORDER FOR PAPERS

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to raise a similar point concerning the production of papers. I moved on February

28 for the production of papers and correspondence between the Minister of Transport and the president of Quebecair and certain other persons concerning the granting of exclusive rights to Quebecair to operate between Seven Islands and Quebec.
On March 14 the Secretary of State tabled the correspondence that took place, following that motion. I have the correspondence before me and it ends on November 10, 1961, although the motion was passed and the papers deposited on March 14, 1962. Therefore I think that by the order of the house I am entitled to the correspondence between November 10, 1961 and the date on which the order was passed and the papers were tabled. The last letter clearly indicates that there has been further correspondence, and I would just like to read one sentence from it. It is a letter dated November 10, 1961, and reads as follows:
(Translation):
Dear Mr. Crevier:
I am pleased to inform you that after a discussion with the chairman of the air transport board, I am in a position to tell you that the board will complete its economic survey of T.C.A. and Quebecair routes on the north shore of the St. Lawrence on Monday next, November 20-
(Text):
And this, sir:
(Translation):
and will then be able to submit to you written proposals.
(Text):
It follows from this that written proposals must have been made between November 10 and the time the motion was passed here. Not only were they made but these written proposals appeared in the press, and I think I am entitled to get the correspondence which transpired between November 10 and the time the motion was passed.
The authority on which I base my submission is citation 213 of Beauchesne, at page 178, which reads as follows:
If parties neglect to make returns in reasonable time, they are ordered to make them forthwith;
And this is the pertinent point:
or so much of returns as has not been made.
My point is that so much of this return has not been made, namely the correspondence between November 10, 1961, and the time the motion was passed in this house, that it can be ordered to be made by this house, if Your Honour so rules. In view of that fact I submit with deference that I should be given the remainder of the correspondence on this file.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minisier of Transport):: If I may be allowed to speak on this matter,

it is a fact that the hon. member did move a motion to have the correspondence between myself and the president of Quebecair-


Lionel Chevrier: And others.


Léon Balcer: -and others tabled. Everything I have in my office that is not of a personal and confidential nature has been produced. I myself have investigated everything I have in my office, and if anything else is still in my possession it is because it is private and confidential. So far as the other agencies are concerned, including the air transport board, I shall be very pleased to investigate further, but I know my office and the officials of the department have made a very extensive study of the matter and have gone through all the files. I regret if I have a document which does not appear there, but I can assure the house that everything not of a personal and confidential nature has been tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member who feels the order of the house has not been sufficiently complied with would inform the minister of the specific documents which he says have not been produced. Then if he is not satisfied there is provision under our rules for a debatable motion to produce documents. This procedure gives a remedy for that matter which the hon. member for Lau-rier now raises.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour based on today's release of the unemployment figures, which show that 583,000 Canadians are out of work- an alarming situation, of course. In the light of the labour force statistics given by the Department of Labour today, has the minister any explanation to offer for the fact that the Canadian labour force between February, 1962 and February, 1961 increased at less than half the rate of previous years?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to this question I want to bring to the hon. member's attention the report of the Senate committee on manpower, which recommended that in the next five years a million jobs would have to be provided. In this release we find that 196,000 new jobs have been provided throughout the year, so that by the month of February we have attained the number of new jobs required to reach that figure of 1 million jobs in five years.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister had declined to answer my question, would he explain why it is that for every 100 Canadians at work, 10 are unemployed?


Mr. Hees:: Now, now; don't choke.


Mr. Walker:: That is a lie.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Public Works has said that is a lie.


David James Walker: And it is a lie.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: The Minister of Public Works has asserted that what I said is a lie. I say it is a true statement based on an examination of the minister's figures, and I ask the minister


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If, as the hon. member asserts, such a statement was made I am sure the Minister of Labour would be the first one to correct it.


Murdo William Martin: No, it was the
Minister of Public Works.


Michael Starr: The percentage of those unemployed in the labour force is 9.1, so it is not one out of every ten.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the Minister of Public Works would wish to rise and deal with the accusation which has been made. Personally I did not hear what was said, but an hon. member in the house has accused the hon. member for Essex East of making an untrue statement, which would be contrary to good parliamentary practice.


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to do that.


Mr. Pickersgill:: To do what?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are not impressed by this evasion by the Minister of Public Works. He accused me of having told a lie in this house. Under our rules the hon. gentleman has the obligation of withdrawing this remark. You have asked him to do so. I would ask that he obey your ruling.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Minister of Labour's explanation obviously the hon. member for Essex East has made a statement which is untrue. If the appellation by which I described his statement offends the house, I will be very happy to withdraw it.


Murdo William Martin: That's better.



REPORTED WEST GERMAN RECRUITING PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right

Inquiries of the Ministry hon. Prime Minister or, in his absence, possibly to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of a report in today's Globe and Mail that in spite of an increased recruiting program West Germany still has a request for 45,400 foreign workers, will the government increase their efforts to solve Canada's unemployment problem before Germany starts recruiting in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is undoubtedly concerned with the problem which he is endeavouring to put forward, but it does not seem to me that it is a genuine search for information that prompted his question.


Murdo William Martin: On the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker, the report states that the regular sources of foreign labour have dried up in Italy due to the boom in that country, they have now turned to Spain, Greece and Turkey. As Canada is generally recognized to be underpopulated, I think it is not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will have an opportunity to say what his views are on that subject at the appropriate time.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES RESPECTING NATIONAL GRID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if either of the parliamentary secretaries to the Prime Minister is able to answer the question I put to the Prime Minister as to whether there was any correspondence which had not been tabled regarding the conference on the power grid which was held yesterday. The parliamentary secretaries no doubt know that the Prime Minister said if there was any such correspondence it would be tabled today. Could they comply with that undertaking?
Mr. John Pallet! (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister): I do not agree that the Prime Minister made the statement attributed to him by the hon. member, but the question will be taken as notice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the parliamentary
secretary endeavour to find out if there is any such correspondence, and provide it to the house as the Prime Minister promised?
Mr. Pallet!: Again, I cannot agree to the correctness of what the hon. member has just stated, but I will take it as notice.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask
the Minister of Transport a question arising from the information on the Trans-Canada Air Lines deficit which was tabled yesterday. In view of the fact that a committee of this house will be examining the annual report of T.C.A., can the minister indicate before that occasion what consideration the government is giving to the rumour or the report of an amalgamation or co-operative arrangement between T.C.A. and Canadian Pacific Airlines?


Léon Balcer: I have nothing to add to what has been said in the past in this house.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Canadian Army-
644. Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $35 million.


Mr. Forgie:: I should like to refer to a short speech I made last September regarding the situation which prevails at Petawawa military camp. I told the minister at that time that I hoped he would investigate the matter to see whether some remedial action could be taken up there to lessen the suffering which is going on there because of the insufficiency of hospital facilities.
A question was asked on this subject the other day by the hon. member for Trinity, on the order paper, and the answer given was most evasive. There is plenty of evidence in Hansard and also in the minutes of the proceedings of the committee which dealt with the estimates of the Department of National Defence to warrant some assistance being given at Petawawa. I shall read some of this evidence to the committee. As reported in Hansard of 1959, volume V, page 5509, the committee of the whole was considering the following estimate:
230. Grants to the town of Oromocto, subject to the approval of treasury board, for municipal services including the maintenance and operation of schools and to promote the development of the town, $1,656,000.
At that time the former minister of national defence had this to say:
Oromocto is the dependants' town at Gagetown. It is where all the dependants of personnel and the married service personnel live. It is set up under a special agreement that was reached a few years

ago. They have a town council. They are encouraged to organize their own services and grants are made by the government in order to maintain this small town for the purpose of looking after the dependants of our service people.
Then again, as I said last year, I have this letter from the then minister of national defence which I should like again to incorporate in Hansard. The letter dated August 17, 1960, is addressed to me at post office box 35, Pembroke, Ontario, and reads as follows:
You will remember on a number of occasions you have spoken to me concerning the Pembroke Cottage hospital and the possibility of this department arranging financial assistance for the hospital.
I have carried out a very thorough survey to see whether any assistance in this regard can be given this year but unfortunately, due to financial stringencies, we are unable to be of assistance at present. However, I am taking up the matter with treasury board in order to ascertain, if possible, whether some arrangement might not be made at a future time, perhaps next year.
In the estimates for 1961-62 you will see a reference to a hospital at Middleton, in Nova Scotia, for which $135,000 was subscribed by the Department of National Defence for the purpose of assisting, as I interpret it-the minister can correct me if I am wrong-in the construction of accommodation for dependants of the army. When I tell you that the population of Petawawa military camp at the present time is approximately 10,000 people made up of 6,300 dependants, surely it should appear obvious to everybody in this committee that something will have to be done with regard to hospitalization at Petawawa. The two hospitals in Pembroke are accepting from 20 per cent to 28 per cent of the patients from the Petawawa military camp.
Surely this is a business matter. It is just a matter of common sense and business. The business is to see what can be done most economically. To construct a hospital in that section of the country would cost $2J million. To put them in the General hospital and the Cottage hospital in Pembroke would cost not more than $250,000.
My suggestion to the minister therefore is this. The officials of both hospitals are prepared to sit down with the senior officers with the Department of National Defence and the minister in order to ascertain whether something cannot be evolved which will satisfy the people of Petawawa military camp who at this time-and I mean this-consider themselves to be second class citizens. Something must be done up there for these 10,000 people. There is no economic assistance for a hospital there for 6,300 people. The situation is absolutely ridiculous. I suggest that a little bit of common sense be displayed. Let us get together with the government on the matter and And out whether some answer
Supply-National Defence cannot be arrived at. Nobody from the Department of National Defence to my knowledge has been near the place for the last three years.


Mr. Harkness:: There are, of course, a large number of requests by various municipalities for assistance as far as hospital construction is concerned directed to the Department of National Defence. We have looked into these matters with a great deal of care and have come to the conclusion that such assistance is justified only if the number of dependants coming into a community increases the total population of that community by more than 10 per cent over a period of five years.
It was under those circumstances that assistance was given as far as Middleton, Nova Scotia was concerned. Several other towns in Nova Scotia have also asked for this assistance, but we have not been able to give it because we did not think the increase justified it. As a matter of fact, all these places like to have a military camp established in order to get business out of it. Then they do not seem to think that the dependants of the people at the military camp should have the same service as other people in the community without paying extra for it.
I do not think this is an equitable way of looking at the matter. In the Pembroke area the situation is that the increase in military dependants population has not been 10 per cent during any five year period and thus, under the rule that we have been obliged to establish, the area does not qualify for a hospital assistance grant.


James Moffat Forgie: May I ask the minister whether he has any figures given to him by the Department of National Defence with regard to the situation at Petawawa? Here are some figures that will prove to be interesting. The total estimated cost of the operation at Pembroke was $743,737 for 38 additional beds. That is the total estimated cost of the operation there, of which $100,693 will be paid from federal health grants, the province contributing $117,000. Thus it can be seen that the two senior levels of government are paying a smaller percentage of the total estimated cost in this case than they were in the case at Middleton.
The other question I should like to ask the minister is this. The government has set up Petawawa military camp. It is part of the army. The army is recruiting married couples. What is to happen to the children and the dependants? Where do they come in? Who is to look after them? What about their hospitalization? Is nothing to be done about the matter? Expenditures on hospital beds have increased 10 per cent in the last year from the estimate. Surely these are matters that

Supply-National Defence can be mulled over and discussed in a sensible businesslike way in order to arrive at a solution that will mean something to the people of Petawawa.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the minister a question with relation to special training. I have to set it against the context of the area I represent. In the southwest corner of the constituency of Port Arthur, which represents about one third of the land area of Ontario, we have a city in which there has been a rather successful response with regard to this special training program. However, across the constituency to the north we have the main arterial routes of the country in the trans-Canada highway, the Canadian National Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway-the main transcontinental factors-plus the emergency and real air bases which form, as you might say, part of the spine of trans-Canada air transportation. I think we must assume that in any emergency measures program some consideration must be given to keeping this transportation system open.
I would ask the minister what provisions have gone into the planning of these courses in order to ensure that in the small transportation points across this, as you might say, spine of Canada, there are people who have training and background in emergency measures response. I would point out to him, for example, that we have six railway divisional points in the constituency, or eight if you wish to count subdivisional points. What arrangements have been made or what steps have been taken to encourage the employees of the two major railways who live in these places to have this training and in that way to make sure that in an emergency these centres will be able to respond?
I may tell him frankly that I raise the question because in going to these divisional points I find a certain interest in the course but a realization that from the financial point of view, very few of these employees are in a position to give up their work on their own and move say to Port Arthur, in most cases a distance of at least 150 miles, in order to take the training.
If the organization is to be effective, it seems to me that at those points which are important from the point of view of emergency transportation we should have people with training. It may be to the advantage of the lakehead cities that the 250 people who are being turned out from the course will assist the militia there in this development and will also be available in any emergency, but in terms of a real national emergency it
[Mr. Forgie.l

seems to me that transportation is quite important, and I have seen nothing to indicate that the department has any plans in this regard.
I will repeat the question. Can the minister indicate to us just what steps have been taken to ensure that in those areas without armouries or militia training centres there will be people who have had this training?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to make it clear that I am not the minister responsible for emergency measures generally. That falls under the Prime Minister's office. I am responsible for the survival and rescue operations and communications, by which I mean wireless communication and so forth, and the warning system. The training of people in places such as those to which the hon. member has referred would come under the emergency measures organization.
As far as the special militia training program is concerned, we are only in a position, of course, to carry it on where armouries and people who can act as instructors and administrative personnel actually are available.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am not going to argue that the course has no validity and is not worth while, but if it has validity should it not be particularly worth while to the people who live in these places? I want to know what steps have been taken-the minister must surely be aware of them-to encourage people from these important but distant transportation centres to take the training.
I will be quite candid as to why I am asking. I tried to find out from the department through the minister's office and really found out nothing. The whole thing seems to be up in the air. When I say it is up in the air I mean the provision of these plans across the country. The whole emphasis seems to be merely upon getting bodies into these courses. Surely it dovetails into some kind of plan, and that is what I am curious about. Can I put the question this way. Am I to understand from the minister's response that there is no plan to provide some modicum of trained people in transportation centres across the country if these centres do not happen to have armoury or militia training facilities?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can only repeat that as far as the special militia training program carried on by the army is concerned there is no plan. As I indicated, the training has been carried on and can be carried on only where armouries exist and where personnel are available to carry on the courses. What the emergency measures people as such may have done in order to train people in such places, I do not know. I do know they have made an

effort to get as many people trained in emergency measures activities as they possibly could in centres all across Canada.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Do I take it, then, that these courses are really not so much courses in emergency measures training but are courses to provide recruits for the militia? The minister may think I am hairsplitting, but I have gone in and watched people taking the courses and it seemed to me that the courses, given their limitations in terms of length and intensity, are excellent. But it certainly did not strike me that the courses were intented to turn out well trained militia men. It seemed to me the purpose was to provide people with some knowledge of how to meet an emergency situation. Once you acknowledge that, surely the minister has some responsibility to see that this kind of trained personnel is in important places.
It would seem to me that this could be done by some form of encouragement or incentive to the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Department of Transport, for example, which operate important facilities in these transportation centres. I am not going to comment on the disappointment I feel at the minister's reply, but if this is a major effort, as the sum we are voting certainly indicates, I should like to know how it is going to pay off in relation to the emergency measures organization.
I will not sit down and wait for a reply, Mr. Chairman. From the tenor of the replies so far it does not seem to me that there will be much forthcoming, but I should like to go on to another point about which I should like to ask the minister a question. It relates to the provision to the present militia, of transport equipment to meet emergency situations. One of the things that is somewhat disturbing when you talk to people who are in the militia is the very real dearth of emergency equipment, especially transportation equipment. I am thinking not only of trucks but of such equipment as derricks, the kind of thing that can be made use of very quickly in an emergency. Are there any plans under way at the present time, particularly in relation to the money we are now being asked to vote, to provide a larger stockpile of this kind of transportation equipment at key points, or are there plans to take over the equipment of Ontario Hydro, Bell Telephone and other agencies? If there are plans to take over Hydro and Bell equipment, who will have the military authority to act under the present set-up?


Douglas Scott Harkness: With respect to the first question, I think it is quite obvious that with a goal of 100,000 trained men under the present special militia training program it is
Supply-National Defence not possible to train a considerable number of men in every town across Canada. As I indicated before, of necessity we had to carry on this training with the facilities where they existed, and the essential purpose of the training, of course, is to get as many people as possible trained in basic survival techniques and skills. It is quite evident we are not trying to train the whole population or a certain number of people in every town or city across the country, and we just could not set up courses in those places where armouries do not exist. We had no means of doing so. That is the situation as far as the first question is concerned.
With regard to equipment, by and large the militia units have as much equipment as they have men to make use of, look after and maintain. With the increase which is taking place in the militia units, some of them will get more equipment than they have had. It is no use giving a whole mass of equipment to a unit which has no means of making use of it or looking after it.
In the event of an emergency, of course, the plan is that the survival columns formed by militia companies or battalions or other units here or there would take civilian bulldozers, cranes and so on for use in their survival and rescue operations. Only by making use of civilian resources in equipment of this kind which exist all over the country could you possibly from a practical point of view secure sufficient equipment or have sufficient equipment scattered widely across the country to be made use of in the event of an emergency.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In relation to the first question, as the minister knows there is a suspicion in the minds of many people, not only politicians in the opposition, that this emergency training program, whatever it may achieve in terms of supporting the militia, is to quite an extent a measure to meet the unemployment situation. If its real value is to provide a significant base of people throughout the country who know how to behave in an emergency and have some training for such an event, surely the minister must recognize that the limitation that you can only train at certain places where there are armouries is foolish in terms of a broad base. I am saying to him, why can you not bring people in from divisional centres such as Hornepayne, Sioux Lookout or the radar base at Armstrong, and have them take the training? What is the impediment to fitting them into this particular scheme? Suppose we have 800 people in Port Arthur and Fort William who are trained in survival

Supply

National Defence work but there are none in these centres which are key centres of the dominion-wide transportation system?
The minister may recall that when Japan entered the last war there was a tremendous amount of sabotage, and immediately the transcontinental systems were guarded over their whole length for a limited time until the worry about sabotage was over. My point is that these national transportation systems are of key importance. One well placed bomb at Nipigon would tie up our road and rail facilities right across the country. The same thing applies to a number of places in the Canadian shield. This is an aspect of the emergency organization, and we need people at these points of responsibility. It seems to me it is obvious, it is key, it is short range, it is immediate, that you need these people. Pleased as we may be to have a nucleus in Port Arthur and Fort William, the real need in an emergency sense to knit the country together is out in these places.
We have had no indication from the minister that this goal is in the minds of the people who are planning this course. I may tell him that I know it is not, as a result of talking to the officers who were conducting the course. I repeat that I feel it was an excellent course. They have no indication that they are getting a wide response from the district. They certainly could not confirm for me that the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian National or Trans-Canada Air Lines were seizing the opportunity to get their personnel trained in these courses. I am not expecting an answer from the minister. I just wanted to sort of underline the weakness which seemed apparent to me in the scheme.
The last point upon which I should like to touch, Mr. Chairman, relates to our military forces in Europe. I should like to ask the minister what armoured carrier these forces have at the present time, or what armoured carrier is in the process of preparation for them. I am wondering particularly whether or not any of the British Saracen vehicles are being provided or are in use by our troops in Europe.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In so far as the hon. member's point of view is concerned, I would agree with what seems to be the basis of the hon. member's contention. If everyone in Canada were trained in survival measures and emergency measures techniques generally, that would be the ideal situation. However, you cannot accomplish that purpose overnight. We made a start on it by attempting to train 100,000 people. Before starting to pick out some people from every town in the


country and train them, I think the practical thing was to go ahead and train some people where the facilities for training existed.
In the second place, the hon. member talked about possible tie-ups of transportation and so forth. I feel the hon. member is confusing two completely different matters. There exists under the general emergency measures organization a transportation emergency set-up in which employees of the two railways as well as the trucking people have a part to play. Plans have been drawn up in order to ensure that transportation can be maintained in the country, and that where breaks occur they will be repaired quickly. In other words, that is a phase which does not come under my department at all. It is part of the general emergency measures organization activities.
Then the hon. member asked about the type of armoured carriers being used in Europe. At the present time we have some armoured cars for use of the brigade in Europe. The intention is, of course, to provide the brigade in Europe with the Bobcat, the new armoured personnel carrier, as soon as we get delivery of this vehicle.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a question on the order paper for the Minister of Defence Production in relation to this vehicle. But having said this much, I wonder if the minister could indicate whether consideration was given to the Saracen which is, I understand, a British vehicle that parallels the Bobcat and which, I gather from British sources, is immensely successful. If not, was any attempt made to see whether or not the Bobcat could be provided for more forces in NATO than merely the Canadian?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not familiar with the Saracen, but this I do know. There is nothing in the British army at the present time comparable to the Bobcat. The British are not as far along in the development of an armoured personnel carrier which will be somewhat comparable to the Bobcat as we are. They have had such a vehicle under development longer than we have. This is an amphibious tracked vehicle capable of going over terrain of every kind. There are, in several of the armies of Europe, armoured personnel carriers which are wheeled vehicles, but they possess the disadvantages of all wheeled vehicles in that they are road bound and of course they have no water barrier capabilities.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On previous occasions, Mr. Chairman, the minister has indicated that these vehicles would be coming into use in the Canadian army. May I ask him, in relation to the general estimates of expenditure for the coming year, will any of the moneys

be going for the actual provision in service of the Bobcat, or is it not likely to come into service until 1963?


Douglas Scott Harkness: So far as this year which we are discussing is concerned, 1961-62, of course none will come into service. During the next year, 1962-63, the first 20 vehicles will have been completed and a start made on the run of 480 which we have on order.


Mr. Hellyer:: Last evening we received an interesting confirmation. The minister confirmed to us that there was no continuing relationship between graduates of the civil survival training course and the armed forces of Canada. This raises the question as to why these public funds should be expended on their training, and whether in fact the. training course was intended to be a survival training course or whether it was intended to be a combination recruiting campaign and unemployment relief measure. From the figures the minister gave us as to the success of the recruiting aspect of the course it would seem to have been a very expensive recruiting campaign, probably the most expensive that this country has ever undertaken. From the relationship that exists between the graduates and the armed forces of Canada, the minister has demonstrated that the course has been somewhat futile as well as the most expensive civil survival training that has ever been undertaken by Canada.
I think the minister's revelation points up also the lack of co-ordination between the armed forces of Canada and the emergency measures organization. This is not a new problem, but it is obviously a problem which has not been solved. The army is training people and returning them to civilian life. Once they are returned they have no responsibility to or direct connection with the emergency measures organization which is charged with certain aspects of national survival.
There is a great deal that the minister should explain in regard to this program. What he has told us so far seems to confirm the rumour which has been circulating that the first notice the Canadian army received of this program was when they read about it in the daily newspapers. Perhaps it is true that it was conceived in the Prime Minister's office as a measure to reduce the unemployment figures, which are published periodically in Canada, to a lower level during the year immediately preceding a general election. Is this the purpose? If so, the minister should advise the committee so that we can study it on its merits as primarily an unemployment relief measure. On the other hand, should the minister tell us it is part of our
Supply-National Defence recruiting campaign then he should also inform us what the cost is per recruit, and whether this is the most effective method of recruiting new men for the armed forces.
If the minister really expects us to take him seriously when he suggests that these people are being trained for survival operations in the event of attack on this country, then he should explain how the government, if not his department, intend to co-ordinate their activities with this conglomeration of survival organizations which has been set up, in such a manner that there will be some continuing benefit to the Canadian taxpayers who have footed the bill.
I hope that before we go any further the minister will explain in much greater detail the purpose, the results and the benefits of this whole survival training course.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The remarks of the hon. gentleman merely serve to demonstrate his complete divorcement from the realities and actualities of the situation so far as this training program and these matters generally are concerned. The program was not conceived in the Prime Minister's office. It was conceived in the department of defence, and all these statements that the hon. member made about the army not hearing of it until they read about it in the newspapers are on a par with other ridiculous statements which he is constantly making-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was not my statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was a statement with no basis of fact whatsoever. The accusation that it was designed as an employment scheme is also quite incorrect. The scheme was designed as a means of securing the largest possible number of people trained in survival techniques in the shortest possible time which we could see was practical to achieve. After looking at the matter very carefully the army considered that they could train up to 25,000 people on one course, and that they could not train any more than that. We gave consideration to training 30,000 to 35,000 men on a course, but after looking into what the capabilities were so far as army accommodation and training staffs were concerned it was finally decided that 25,000 was the maximum number who could receive practical training at one time. That is why that particular number was decided.
So far as this idea of the army continuing some control over these men after they leave the courses is concerned, unless you have some type of conscription that is just not possible. When the members of the regular army complete their term of engagement the army has no further control over them. They go their way and enter civilian employment. The army has no continuing strings
1974	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence on those men, and the same applies to people who serve in regular militia units. Any time a man serving in a regular militia unit decides he does not want to serve any longer he turns in his uniform and the army generally has no further strings on him or control over him.
These people enlisted in the militia for a specific six weeks period and, just the same as any other regular militiamen who finish their period of service, when they finish that period of service the army has no means of asserting any control over them. This idea that there should be continuing control over them is just a fanciful myth of some sort which, under our system at the present time, cannot be implemented.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In the United Kingdom there are various classes of reserves, and the reserves there are subject to call-out under certain conditions. We had something similar in this country toward the end of the second world war, and following it. Surely it would not be unreasonable for men who are trained in civil survival to be listed as members of some class of reserve, or subject to call-up in case of national emergency. Perhaps the minister would explain why he is training men in civil survival, men who are going back to civilian life and who will not be members of any reserve or subject to any call.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member has referred to the situation in the United Kingdom. I would point out that in the United Kingdom they have had conscription. They still have it, as a matter of fact, although they are not conscripting any more people, but a considerable number of the people they have already conscripted are being retained in the armed forces for a further six months period beyond the term when they should be released; and as a concomitant of their conscription program they have a system of people having to serve in the reserves after being trained a certain length of time, and being subject to call-up. We have not got a system like that in this country. Therefore the situation in the United Kingdom is not comparable from that point of view and we have no means of keeping any strings on these people or on any militiaman once he decides to leave the militia.


Mr. Peters:: I think the minister will agree that the plan has been successful to some extent, particularly among classes of people like veterinarians, doctors and professional people like that who took these courses as part of their own organizations and who went back to their own areas full of enthusiasm for the program. I have talked to
[Hr. Harkness.]

some of them, and they lamented the fact that on a voluntary basis they cannot maintain liaison with the E.M.O. organization so that the training they got can be kept up to date. They undertook these six weeks courses at a sacrifice and very much at their own expense, because the amount of money they lost was certainly not compensated by the payments they got from the government.
I believe some organization should be provided for them. It does not have to be as military minded as the militia, but it could give them some leadership. As the minister is probably aware, there is no emergency measures organization in my area and many other areas of Canada. The heads of local organizations cannot be retained because, as the minister explained, the whole operation does not come under one department and surprisingly even gets into the hands of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
In my opinion it is not necessary to have any type of conscription, but there will be large numbers of trained people, particularly from municipal councils and the professional classes, who would wish to continue their contacts and would like to increase their understanding of the problem through correspondence, in order to keep up to date on the latest moves. The government could do something in this field in order to have close liaison with these people, and I believe it should make available some organization which would facilitate this type of further training. A six weeks course is very valuable as a beginning; it is very much of a beginner's course in the field of survival, but unless something further is done to follow up this training, and unless this organization is kept together and these people are made some use of, much of this training will have been wasted.
I agree with the minister that many of them would not want to go into the militia, where they would be under instruction to do this, but most of them have been impressed with the training they have received. The staff that was giving this training, particularly at Arnprior, were imbued with the desire to do something for somebody else in the field of survival. I think these people would volunteer quite readily to give up at least one or two nights a month to continue the organization, if we are going to build one.
I think frankly, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, that this training has not led to our establishing an organization for national survival. This is not what this program has done. We are not taking advantage of it. I think it is only fair to the people who volunteered to take this course that the government should give some consideration to making available an organization which

would allow them to continue the work which they felt they were beginning when they volunteered to take this type of training. I think the government should provide the vehicle whereby they can continue to serve their community in the capacities upon which they decided in line with the training they were given by the government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, there are all kinds of organizations in existence at the moment which these men could join and carry on and make good use of the training they have received. There are the municipal emergency measures organizations in a large number of municipalities; there is the St. John's ambulance organization; there are the emergency firefighters organizations, and so on.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Boy Scouts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are a very considerable number of organizations which these people could join and make use of the training they have received. The idea of the dominion government starting to set up another special organization is just completely impractical.


William Arnold Peters: The people who took these courses came in most cases from the organizations the minister named, and they are now looking for an over-all organization which will bring them all in together and give them some purpose in continuing whatever beginning they made in survival training. In northern Ontario, for instance, we are now establishing emergency medical depots, the stockpiling of medicines in various centres. This is also, I presume, going on throughout other parts of the country. We are building an organization, the emergency measures organization, but in my particular area we have not even been able to keep anybody as the head of this organization. You cannot co-ordinate; the organizations are not getting together. I think the training which the government has given these people is greater than the regional heads of the emergency measures organization have received.
I am sure these people want to continue. They were impressed with what they were taught. A number of them have come to me and said it is unfortunate that this whole training scheme is without a follow-up program so that some advantage could be gained from it. If a person is unemployed and only goes down and takes the training for six weeks of employment, that is one thing; but if people take time off from a job-and professional people lose a considerable amount of money by doing this-and have done it in a public service spirit, then I think the government has the obligation to do this.
26207-1-125
Supply-National Defence
I might ask the minister, what co-ordination is there in most areas in the stockpiling of supplies, and what is the relationship to the emergency transportation organizations that he mentioned, and those others? Who co-ordinates them; where is the head of it established; how is it broken down regionally; and does he not think that this could be organized so that it is all brought together and one organization is responsible for it?
It is well and good to talk about the emergency firefighters, the St. John's ambulance organization and the militia, because the militia is in no different position than the others, as far as I have been able to ascertain, when it comes to nuclear attack and the emergency that will arise as a result of that attack and the organization that will be demanded. They have not been given much more leadership in this field than have the other organizations.
I think the minister will agree that now is the time for us to co-ordinate all these things and go ahead in some direction. It may be that more is being done under the Department of Health and Welfare, but I will be very surprised if it is not eventually going to be a decision of the government that this will have to be co-ordinated under the Department of National Defence. This will be the only value that the Department of National Defence will have if there is a nuclear war. Their only value will be in the field of national survival. I would think that the only place where this could be co-ordinated would be under the minister's department, and I think the Canadian people are now looking to the government to decide what we are going to do with the training we have provided for 100,000 people, which the Prime Minister said was going to be extended to a great many more people than under just this one initial program.
I think the time has now come for the government to indicate that they are going to set up a co-ordination organization that will be able to handle all these various facets of survival and give leadership to the many, many people who have volunteered for these courses, at sacrifice to themselves, who are now looking for leadership and who, if they do not receive this leadership, will obviously be of the opinion that they have wasted their time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think I should observe that the hon. member is more than two years out of date in making this proposition of some co-ordinated survival measures organization. We did that some two years ago; it is set up in the Prime Minister's office. We have a very active emergency

Supply-National Defence measures organization which has been coordinating the activities of all departments and the provinces for the past two years. I think everybody who is really actively concerned in this program and knows anything about it, particularly all the people concerned in the provinces, would be very ready to tell the hon. member that a very great deal of progress has been achieved during this past two year period, and the whole emergency measures set-up and organization is in such a far better state of health now than it was that there is just no comparison.


William Arnold Peters: Does the minister not read the local newspapers? Does he not remember that it was only very recently that we had this difficulty in the city of Ottawa with the emergency measures co-ordinator? This also happened in the city of Toronto. It has happened in my area at least three times. It has happened in the Timmins area, and it has happened in every area with which I am familiar. While I am aware that on paper we may have this organization, it does not appear to me from reading the newspapers that we are really accomplishing this end. If when this course is given there is an indication that these people will be fitted into a niche in the emergency measures organization, I am quite sure they would avail themselves of that opportunity. It is because I do not think it is working, in a practical sense, in many areas that I think this training should be geared to that particular program.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Chairman, the minister's reaction to the criticism that has been advanced about this operation and the suggestions that have been made confirm the suspicion in the minds of some of us that one aspect of survival which was in the minds of the government when they put this program into effect was the survival of the government itself.
In respect of the co-ordination of civil defence and survival measures, the minister says everything is fine, things are being co-ordinated beautifully; that we do not really know what is happening when we make these criticisms this afternoon. The minister would have a very difficult time substantiating that position from the evidence and the information we have received in the house about the way these survival courses have been carried on and the continuing value to survival work of those who have been trained in these courses. We have learned that only a minority of those who graduate from these courses sign up for either the regular forces or the militia, and therefore only with respect to
[Mr. Harkness.1

that minority is there any assurance that the training which has been received will be of value to the population. I have not got the exact figures; I believe the minority is a substantial one, and I am not criticizing the quality of the training these people receive. Perhaps it has been most effective. But the minister says nothing can be done about those who have graduated and who do not join the forces. He says we can exercise no control over them. That may, of course, be right, but it does not answer the question. The minister says we have a wonderfully co-ordinated emergency measures organization. If that is the case, surely those in the government who are planning these survival courses should at least have taken steps to ensure that those who graduate from these courses, and who have acquired the experience and the skills which will be of such great value in the event of the awful tragedy of war, should somehow or other be made available for the purpose for which they were trained; at least to the extent that information about them would be sent to the local authorities and organizations which have been mentioned today. Surely it would not have been too difficult for those in charge of these courses to have got that information and made it available to those concerned-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said yesterday that this information is available.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and to have kept in touch with the people who have graduated from the courses to see that their services were of continuing benefit to the community. The government has apparently done nothing at all in this field.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member should have been here yesterday to hear my speech.


Mr. Churchill:: He has been away for ten days.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I read the minister's speech in Hansard, and that is one reason I am speaking this afternoon. The minister has not given in his speeches an answer to the points I am making. He has given us no assurance that those who graduate from these courses will be made available in an emergency to those who might need their services. No effort is being made to keep in touch with them once they graduate. Does the minister deny that? If he does, perhaps he will tell us what is being done to keep in touch with these people.
As is so often the case with this government, they prefer a one shot operation to something that is planned, or to something which has a continued value and benefit.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They like putting on a show.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, as my hon. friend from Essex East says, they are more concerned with putting on a show than with permanent results.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is that what you have been doing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let the minister tell us what assurance we have that the majority of the graduates of these courses, who have been given this excellent training, will be available to give the population the benefit of that instruction should an emergency arise. Is there any way by which the emergency measures organization or any other government authority can get in touch with these people should they be required in an emergency? Does the government know anything about them once they have graduated from these courses, unless they join the military forces of Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member started out by saying he had suspicions in his mind about the purpose of the courses. I often think that is all he has in his mind, suspicions. As far as this point to which he and some other hon. members have been directing a lot of attention, namely that the government should keep these men under its thumb, that the government should conscript these men in some way-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the whole argument the hon. member is making. He does not use the word "conscription" but that is the implication of everything he has been saying. Other hon. members have spoken on the same lines. As I have already pointed out, in this country we have no means of doing that. The names of these people, their addresses, their occupations and so forth are kept, and these are made available to the officials of the local emergency measures organization. Of course those who have taken courses are encouraged to join either the regular militia or the emergency measures organization or the St. John's ambulance corps or any other organization of that kind which is organized to give assistance in various ways in the event of an emergency. I submit there is really nothing further we can do under our present system to make use of these people. The argument advanced by the hon. member would lead to the conclusion that you should not train anybody unless you can keep him completely under your thumb and make sure you can get him the moment you want him.
26207-1-125J
Supply-National Defence


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not the system of government under which we work.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have no system. That is the trouble with your government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Now the hon. member for Trinity is starting to talk. Everyone realises that this scheme is a very successful scheme.


Lionel Chevrier: Read the press.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think nobody in this committee can go to the people who have been employed in carrying out this scheme and get any other story from them except that it has been extremely successful and that the men who have been turned out are of good calibre; that they have entered with interest and zest into the training, with the result that remarkable success has been achieved.
Of course the hon. member for Trinity decried this program when it was announced. He poured scorn on it and said it did not amount to anything, as is his practice with regard to anything this government does. He said it was going to be Harkness' broomstick army. Those words will come back to haunt him. They have already done so, as a matter of fact. The attempt on his part to discredit this scheme, as well as his hope that it would not be successful, have proved completely inaccurate, as have most of his utterances and statements. As I have said, the scheme has been extremely successful. The Leader of the Opposition made the point that only a small proportion of those who have been trained have gone into militia units. That again is inaccurate. Of the 39,000, I believe, who successfully completed the first two courses, 14,000 have gone into the regular militia-a very high proportion-and another 2,600, I think it was, volunteered for the regular forces. Some 1,400 of these have been accepted into the regular forces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Splendid.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Thus it can be seen that a very high proportion of the people who have taken these courses are making definite use of them in the militia or in the regular army. In addition, a considerable number of people were given time off from employment to take these courses on the understanding that they would go back and set up emergency measures organizations in their own factories, offices and so forth. Those people are now engaged in that type of activity.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister is now following his usual tactics; when he is unable to deal with the points which have been raised he misrepresents the position of those who

Supply-National Defence have been making them. No one on this side of the committee suggested exercising control or conscription or anything of that nature over the graduates from these courses. That is a ridiculous interpretation of what we have said, and the minister knows it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There can be no other interpretation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Moreover, no one on this side has said anything reflecting in any way on the calibre of the men who are taking these courses or on the calibre of the instruction.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are in full retreat now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said a few moments ago that only a minority of these graduates joined the forces, and the minister has confirmed that statement.
The minister has said that the names and addresses of the men are taken and that they are available to the municipalities and to the E.M.O. as well as to other organizations. They are available, but has the government taken any steps with regard to those graduates who do not join the forces, either regular or militia, to make sure that their names are brought to the attention of those organizations which might be able to use the expert services of these men in an emergency? Has the government made any effort whatever to keep in touch with these people after they have graduated? Has the government, for example, told them "If you change your address keep in touch, because we might be able to use your services in the future"? It is one thing to say that the names are available. I suppose the names and addresses of most people in this country are available if you want to hunt them up. Has the government taken any initiative in making arrangements so that the experience gained by the graduates of these courses who do not join the forces will be available to those who may need that experience, or do they just wash their hands of the whole affair once they leave the courses?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister tell us how many of these graduates have gone into the civil defence organization and how many have joined the St. John ambulance association? Has the minister those statistics?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That shows how serious the government is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says "That shows how serious the situation is" or something along those lines.

When he was in charge of civil defence in this country he did practically nothing for a long period of several years. When the hon. member was the minister in charge of civil defence he did practically nothing. Now he makes implications along these lines.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not propose to get into an argument with the hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman, as he always comes out second best. I would simply say this. Assuming the validity of his argument, may I say this; and I am just assuming it. Of course we all know that when I was in charge of civil defence I could not possibly warrant the accusation which the minister has made against me. However, I am not on trial now. It is the minister who is on trial. What we wish to know is not what I did but what the Minister of National Defence is now doing. He has said that this organization has served not only its designated purpose but that its personnel is available to civil defence establishments in local areas, that it is open to voluntary organizations like the St. John ambulance association, which do much civil defence work. That is a statement by the minister. What we are asking is how many have gone into those organizations. Let us see whether there is anything in the statement the minister has made. If he cannot tell us, the only conclusion to which we can come is that the government has not had a follow-up system, that it does not know how many of these individuals who have received this training have gone into these various auxiliary organizations. If that is the situation, obviously the government is not doing its job.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is quite evident, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is either talking about something about which he has no idea or that he is trying to make a case without having anything to substantiate it. Quite obviously I have not the roll of the St. John's ambulance association or of all these voluntary organizations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We had when we were in office.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I therefore have no means of determining how many graduates of these special militia courses have gone into these organizations. I have no means whatever of knowing. If I tried to set up a means of doing that it would cost a very large amount of money, and the hon. member would be complaining that I was wasting the taxpayers' money on personnel who were not in fighting units.


The Deputy Chairman:: I recognize the hon. member for Peterborough.


Mr. Piiman:: To deal with another subject which-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder whether we might carry on this discussion for another three or four minutes and complete it before we turn to another matter.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. member for Peterborough has the floor unless he yields to the hon. member.


Walter George Pitman: I will yield.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should just like to say this.
I listened in sorrow to the minister's pitiful remarks of a few moments ago. He has advised this committee that the graduates of this course will be of continuing service in respect of survival operations. Yet surely one of the prerequisites of survival operations is survival equipment. If there is no connection between the graduates and the army or the emergency measures organization, they have no access to equipment. If they have no equipment, how can they fulfil the function for which they were trained? This is fundamental to the argument. It does not matter how much training they have; if they have no equipment with which to work and if there is no chain of command, they are completely ineffective to fulfil a survival role, which is the role for which they have been trained.
What is required in this instance is some leadership. The minister and the government are not providing the leadership required. He has demonstrated again this afternoon that there is a mental block between the army and the emergency measures organization, that there is a cleavage of authority between them whereas they should be completely coordinated. He said the co-ordination is in the Prime Minister's office. He said that is where the co-ordination is taking place. The coordination that has taken place so far could then be characterized as a paper salad. It has been tossed and turned and no one really knows who is in charge in case of emergency. That is something the minister should tell us. He should also tell us whether the records of these graduates are stored in bomb proof shelters so that in the event of an attack the emergency measures organization will be able to find them and send them letters asking them to report, or communicate with them by whatever other means they would be called upon in case of emergency. These are pertinent questions on a very serious subject.
He says, of course, "If you go and talk to any of the people concerned with the course they will all tell you it has been a success". Perhaps most of them will do so, but perhaps some of them might be afraid to express what
Supply-National Defence they really feel as, on a related subject, I hear that the minister was in Gimli recently and that he went around the base there asking civil servants and members of the armed forces how they were going to vote. I should ask the minister what right he has as a minister of the crown to do this. Second, perhaps this is the reason he expects that members of the armed forces and civil service would be disinclined-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Trinity has made a completely unfounded assertion for which he has absolutely no authority whatever. I have never on any station I have visited asked anybody how he was going to vote. As a matter of fact in an election campaign I have never asked anybody how he was going to vote. That is not the way in which I carry on electioneering. That is perhaps why I have been here a great deal longer than the hon. member for Trinity, and why I shall still be here a great deal longer than he will be. The hon. member is so naive that apparently he thinks the way to electioneer in his own constituency or any place else is to go and ask John Jones how he is going to vote. I can tell him right now that is a great mistake. I can assure him and the committee that this assertion he has just made is completely false.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am obliged to accept the minister's word. All I can say is that the person who passed the information to me was asked by the minister how he was going to vote.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member has any information along that line I wish he would send it to me.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then you would fire him.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister certainly would do so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will get a sworn statement, as a matter of fact, that there is no truth whatever in that assertion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And if I obtained a sworn statement from him, the minister would fire him.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Peterborough.


Mr. Cathers:: I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member for Trinity should withdraw the statement he has made.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think the hon. member who has just interrupted knows the rules of the House of Commons. The rule is that if
1980	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence an hon. member makes a statement, what the other hon. member has to do is to accept it. The hon. member for Trinity has accepted the statement, and that is the end of it. The hon. member had better read the rules.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He did not accept it. He repeated it. He repeated the falsehood.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister is obliged to accept the statement I made.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not need to accept hearsay evidence such as that put forward by the hon. member for Trinity. I know of my own knowledge that this statement is an absolute falsehood. The hon. member should apologize for having made that statement in this chamber.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister gave us a good deal of hearsay evidence in this House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I recognize the hon. member for Peterborough.


Walter George Pitman: Under the responsibilities
given the Canadian army comes the system of warning. Although I raised this matter previously, I feel that I cannot leave it on the present basis. I feel that there is something wrong with the system of warning that we are at present using. There are a great many sirens spread across this nation, and they have become something of a joke in many communities which I have visited. I do not know when the decision was taken to use this type of siren. I should like to have that information. I should like to know who produces these sirens, whether this type of siren is used in the United Kingdom or the United States, and the total cost of the siren system so far. I do know that these sirens do not have the confidence of a great many of the people who are working in the emergency measures organization.
At page 293 of Hansard for January 29, 1962 hon. members will find a question I asked with regard to siren failures during exercise Tocsin B last fall. Across this nation 53 of these sirens failed to sound at all and there were 70 partial failures. The centres involved were Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Belleville, Toronto, Fort William, Oshawa, Sault Ste. Marie, Windsor and Essex among others. All these areas were affected by siren failures.
I do not think those of which have sounded have ever been very successful, and the only procedure that has been adopted has been simply to throw in more sirens at a cost which I think is becoming almost unreasonable. The sirens have a high pitched tone
[Mr. Chevrier.l

which I think is extremely unfortunate. During the debate last year, on September 14, 1961 I asked the minister a question with regard to the testing of these sirens. His reply was that the only way in which you can get a test which will be valid in various parts of Peterborough or anywhere else is on outside audibility. Later he said that the only way in which you can get any sort of test which is standard or uniform is on outside audibility. I have here in my hand a form which was circulated in my city with regard to siren audibility.


Mr. Chambers:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to restrict the hon. member too much but there are no funds provided in this vote for the purchase of equipment and, specifically, no funds for the purchase of sirens.


Walter George Pitman: I am sure the parliamentary secretary will agree that this money for the Canadian army will be spent in part on the salaries of those who are maintaining these sirens. Perhaps we can go on. With regard to siren audibility, there was on that form a place for comment respecting both outside and inside audibility. I think this should be made very clear. It certainly was not made clear in the minister's remarks last year, when he indicated that the tests were made on the basis of outside audibility and that so far as inside audibility was concerned the sirens simply were not heard.
I have some indication that something is being done in this area with regard to some possible form of non-siren warning system. I express the sincere hope that something very important is taking place in this field, because to my way of thinking the sirens which have been bought are not very worth while. I can cite the opinions of several of my constituents who were overseas during the last war and who are familiar with sirens which certainly were loud enough almost to wake a person from the dead. They tell stories of hearing 10 or 15 different sirens turned on. This is certainly not true of the sirens we are using now.
I should like some information on why this type of siren was used. Are there any other countries using it? I should also like more information on what the alternatives are to this siren, and when we may expect an alternative warning device to be in use across the country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, at the time of the last exercise we had over 500 sirens in operation. At the present time we have upward of 1,000 and by the end of July we will have something over 1,600 in operation. There

is no question but that the number of sirens in operation at the time of the last exercise was not sufficient. As far as the size and power of the siren are concerned, the sirens are considerably bigger and more powerful than those which were in existence under the program formerly in the Department of National Health and Welfare and which we have been replacing with bigger and better sirens.
As to the matter of testing the intensity of the sound of a siren, by any scientific means at all this can only be done at various distances outside buildings, because inside buildings the amount of sound that will be heard depends altogether on the construction of the building, the part of the building in which people are and so on. There is no doubt that if these sirens are sounded in summertime when doors and windows are open they will be heard in practically all households when the program is completed in those areas where sirens are installed. In the wintertime, however, when windows and doors are closed and when a radio or television set is perhaps operating, there will be houses in which the sirens will not be heard.
This is just one of the facts of life. If you are going to have a complete warning system it is realized, as has been said many times, that you need some other type of device. Several such devices have been under investigation, particularly one known as NEAR.
I have forgotten what the letters stand for, but it is a small black box which you plug into any power outlet. This system has been installed in the state of Michigan and in some other places in the United States. Stations have to be established in the power system so that when the warning is sounded it actuates the box which gives off quite a loud warning note. There is no question but that something along this line is the only complete answer to ensuring that people in all buildings and all rooms in various buildings will be warned.


Walter George Pitman: Can the minister indicate when there will be some hope of installing these new devices? I am sure he will admit that if there were 500 sirens in exercise Tocsin B and 53 failed and there was partial failure of 70 others, according to the return which I received, that means that over one fifth of them were not working properly. This seems to me a terribly high rate of failure.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This whole matter is under very active study, of course, and we are starting to conduct an experimental survey as to the practicalities of the NEAR system from the point of view of possibly making use of it. That will be under way fairly soon. With respect to the number of sirens that
Supply-National Defence failed, a large number of those failures were due to the fact that the telephone and other circuits by which the sirens were actuated were not properly connected. The thing had really just got under way and, as I think the hon. member realizes, any program of this sort will run into quite a few snags, but those snags are rapidly being ironed out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister say whether he knows if there is any foundation for the allegation that has been made in British Columbia that social assistance recipients, are, notwithstanding provincial policy, being forced to join the army's civil defence corps or lose their social allowances? This was raised by a member of the provincial legislature of British Columbia on February 27 last. Can the minister say whether he knows of any such cases, and if there are any what steps has the government taken to avoid this kind of thing?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who was the member? Was he a Liberal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. One might well have expected it to be a Liberal, because a Liberal would always be on the job. In this case it was Mr. Randolph Harding, C.C.F. member for Kaslo-Slocan.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the hon. member knows,
I have no means of having any knowledge of what is done by local welfare officials. All I know about anything along this line is the case at St. Boniface. I only know about that from what I read in the newspapers, which the hon. member also read. As far as we are concerned we have no responsibility for any action along that line, as the hon. member knows.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister said not long ago that the Prime Minister was responsible for the co-ordination of emergency measures and of the emergency measures organization, no doubt, with the survival course results and all other aspects of this problem. The minister was quite satisfied with the co-ordination that had been worked out. He thought that everything would be all right.
I take it that in the event of the awful emergency against which we are preparing and against which some of these preparations are not likely to be very effective in view of the kind of threat we face-the co-ordination of survival operations and sill that kind of thing would be centred in the government emergency headquarters which are now being constructed. They are of a nature which would give security, I suppose, against fall-out and against blast from some explosions-of course nothing could give security against a direct
1982	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence hit from the latest kind of bomb or missile. If this is the centre for the co-ordination of these activities, how could that co-ordination be carried out by the Prime Minister, if the Prime Minister had responsibility at that time, if he is not going to be at the government emergency headquarters but, as he has stated, remains in his shelter at Sussex street?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is quite apparent that this has nothing to do with the estimates which are under consideration. This is a question which the hon. member should ask of the Prime Minister when the emergency measures organization is being discussed. The Department of National Defence is responsible for the rescue operations, for the warning systems, for the maintenance of emergency wireless and other communications of that kind and aid to the civil power. These things constitute our responsibility.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of what the minister has just said to the Leader of the Opposition, and in view of the great interest in these matters in the country, may I ask the minister if we are going to have an opportunity of discussing this matter within the course of the next month or so. I mean, it is all very well for the minister who is in charge of one phase of civil defence operations to say "1 have nothing to do with shelters; I have nothing to do with whether or not the Prime Minister stays at No. 24 Sussex street in the event of an emergency or moves out". It is all very well for a minister to say that or for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has a responsibility in this field, to escape any responsibility for current discussions. However, this diffusion of authority makes it very difficult for us in this committee, and for the people in the country, to ascertain precisely what government policy is, what progress is being made.
For instance, there are some very important questions one would like to ask about the irritation experienced by the premier of Manitoba as a result of the lack of any clear policy on the part of the federal government. The premier of that province built a shelter for himself, but he has become frustrated. He has said that he is no longer going to spend even his idle moments in the shelter, so equivocal has the government become in its civil defence policy. Can the minister give us any indication of the opportunity we will have, before the dissolution of parliament, for instance, to discuss this matter? This is an important question in which the people of Canada are very interested at the moment. Can the minister give us some enlightenment as to how and when we might have the 

opportunity of eliciting some answers to some questions which the minister says are not his direct responsibility?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, all this is quite evidently completely out of order. Every department of the government, as the hon. member should know, has some responsibility now so far as civil defence measures are concerned, particularly so far as the operation of that particular department in an emergency is concerned. As I have said before, that is all co-ordinated by and comes under the control of the emergency measures organization which reports to the Prime Minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That only confirms what I have said.


Mr. Maiheson:: May I make a brief contribution to this discussion that has taken place. Frankly, at the beginning of this program I had grave doubts that it was possible to take men, many of them unemployed and many of them with no military training of any kind, and make soldiers of them in a short time. I know that in our community the Brockville Rifles undertook this task, and they did it superbly. I took occasion to inspect these groups. I knew something about the E.M.O. operation and the St. John's training, and I thought the co-operation was extremely successful.
The Leader of the Opposition has raised an important point; that is, how do we manage to preserve some sort of control over and communication with these people who have learned something of and who are now interested in this matter of survival? I put to the minister a suggestion that one of the most useful bodies in Canada is the St. John ambulance corps. I know the minister agrees with me in this because his department has done a great deal of work through St. John ambulance, as has the Department of National Health and Welfare. It seems to me that in Canada, as in perhaps no western country, we have skilled people with advanced training in staff work, in military operations and so on, who have devoted themselves to the cause of St. John ambulance particularly, and in recent months to E.M.O. operations. Probably some of these people in Toronto, in Winnipeg and across the country could give the minister's department a great deal of help in respect of this critical matter of co-ordinating these activities.
I suggest that right now the St. John's ambulance corps in Canada knows a great deal more about who should be called out and where they can be obtained than anyone else in the country, including any government department. I think there is nothing

better we can do than to rely on this skill and experience that is available. When we are considering a problem of this kind, one question with which we are always faced is the question of security. There is never a problem of security with the people participating in St. John's ambulance work. It seems to me the minister would be dealing with many of his old confreres in the army, and he could benefit a lot from their judgment and experience in the co-ordination of these activities.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We work very closely with the St. John's ambulance corps. As a matter of fact they have the names of all the graduates of the special militia training courses who have passed the first aid examinations. These names have been supplied to them. They have them, and I have no doubt they are making good use of them in respect of St. John's ambulance work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Air Force-
645. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment-further amount required, $31,000,000.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister explain exactly what this money is being spent for, for the benefit of the committee?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this particular vote is to make good an estimated net deficiency of $31 million in the cash required for capital expenditure purposes, particularly for aircraft and engines for the Royal Canadian Air Force. The principal item contributing to the deficiency is the CF-104 aircraft. In the main estimates $125 million was provided to meet the cash requirement in support of that program. It is now deemed likely that the actual expenditure will be upwards of $174 million. This estimate includes expenditure of $1J million for eight dual CF-104 trainers, procurement of which was authorized during the year and for which no expenditure during this year was anticipated. In other words, we are getting delivery more quickly than we anticipated would be the case.
Other items that contribute to the net deficiency are expenditures of $2 million on support equipment for the CF-101B aircraft, for which no provision had been made in the 1961-62 estimates, and also expenditures for the Yukon, the C-106, of $1.5 million. There were cash surpluses in other items so that the over-all deficiency by the end of March will be $31 million.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What was the figure the minister gave for the 101B?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The forecast at the present time is for $174 million cash, whereas the estimates provided $125 million.
26207-1-126
Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Pardon me, the 101?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The 101 was $2 million.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could advise the committee when the first CF-104's are going to the air division in Europe and if, when they arrive there, they will be armed with atomic missiles?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have no absolutely firm date on it but we anticipate it will probably be around March, 1963.


Mr. Winch:: As the majority of this money is to make up a deficiency in the moneys requested for the purchase of the CF-104, will the minister tell us the fire control system of the CF-104 and what type of weapon equipment it carries?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is equipped to carry air to surface missiles. As the hon. gentleman knows, the aircraft is known as a strike-reconnaissance aircraft and is equipped to carry air to ground missiles which can, of course, be equipped with nuclear warheads.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it possible to equip those weapons with conventional warheads? Can the minister tell us that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, anything along that line is possible, as the hon. member knows.


Harold Edward Winch: That is interesting, Mr. Chairman. That is most interesting. All one has to do is read newspapers and magazines, or talk to the chief of the air staff of the Americans under NATO, as I have done in recent months, and he will explain the fire control of the 104. The fact of the matter is that this aircraft is not designed for conventional weapons, that no conventional weapons are available for it, and no conventional weapons are on the draft board for it.
In view of that information in scientific and technical magazines, in view of those remarks from the highest authorities both in production and in the United States air force, will the minister explain the remark he has just made?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the actual fact is that the Americans have already used this aircraft with conventional warheads.


An hon. Member:: That is a knockout shot.


Harold Edward Winch: It is not the same aircraft.


Lester Bowles Pearson: During the discussion on the army estimate the minister said that there is no use giving massive equipment to a unit which has no means of using it. We are now discussing aircraft and I am thinking particularly of the C-104 which will be the plane to be used-the minister will correct me if I

Supply-National Defence am wrong-by eight of the 12 squadrons of the air division attached to the NATO forces in Europe. I do not know what the other four squadrons will use. Perhaps they will continue to use their present aircraft, but presumably eight of the 12 squadrons will have these new American C-104's.
The air division for some time past has been allocated a new role with the NATO forces in Europe. We have discussed that role more than once in this house, and we on this side took strong exception to the change of role from that which existed previously, to the new role of strike attack. However the government decided this was the correct role for the air division to perform with the NATO forces, and that is the role which Canada has undertaken. It is a most important one, of course, and it will need the best equipment for its performance.
I assume that when the government accepted this role for our air division in NATO they knew what it entailed, both in equipment and performance. I suppose in a sense it was a compliment to the R.C.A.F. that they were asked to discharge what would be a vital role in defence if an emergency arose. Perhaps they were picked because they were so well trained and were so efficient in their job. I am sure that was the case, but in any event in undertaking this role Canada has undertaken a very great responsibility indeed as part of the collective NATO forces.
Presumably when this role was accepted and undertaken the equipment that was required for that role was that which we have been talking about during the last few minutes, the C-104. Surely it was understood, in asking the Canadian government to undertake this role, and by the Canadian government in accepting it, this equipment was not effective for the role in question unless it had nuclear missiles, baby bombs, small bombs, as the commander of NATO called them. Surely that was decided to be necessary for the effective performance of this role. Yet the minister now tells us that no decision has been made as to whether the planes will be given this armament or not, and that they can use conventional weapons if necessary.
That is certainly not the impression which the NATO authorities have, and I doubt very much if that was the impression which the Canadian government had when they undertook this role and bought this aircraft for that role, knowing that its equipment is not really effective for the purpose it has unless it has this particular armament.
Where does that leave us? We have accepted a vital responsibility in the NATO defences in our NATO air division without having decided whether we are going to undertake that responsibility effectively or

not. This afternoon the minister said that perhaps this aircraft will have conventional armaments, missiles with conventional warheads. I ask the minister if the Canadian air division in NATO can do this vital job in NATO if it is equipped with conventional warheads for this role of strike attack?


Gordon Minto Churchill: What do you recommend yourself?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You will learn that in just a few months.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You will learn that in about four or five months.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition has been asking for information on what is a self-evident fact. It is quite clear to anybody I think, and does not need any argument, that any weapon system equipped with a nuclear warhead is going to be more effective than if it were equipped with a conventional warhead. This is a self-evident fact and does not need any discussion.
So far as the situation in NATO is concerned, as the Leader of the Opposition knows the provision of nuclear weapons to the NATO forces in Europe is a matter that has been under very active discussion in the NATO council and among the NATO countries for some considerable time past, and no decision has been arrived at as to what the future course is going to be in that regard.
So far as these particular planes are concerned, as I have indicated they will not be going over, or will not start to go over to the air division in Europe for a year, and therefore there is no need at the moment to be saying they are going to have a, b, c, or something else. I submit that it is the course of wisdom for us to wait in this regard until some definite decision has been arrived at in NATO as to the control of nuclear weapons by the NATO forces stationed in Europe.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, this argument that has just been put up by the minister is positively ridiculous. Surely he knows a lot better than he has just said, because anyone with any knowledge at all of this type of aircraft knows it is a matter, not of days or weeks but of months, and millions and millions of dollars in changing the fire control system of a strike reconnaissance aeroplane of the type of the CF-104. There is a major difference in the fire control system as between the use of a conventional warhead or a nuclear warhead.
We are not just hauling these things out of the air. I have not only seen the CF-104, but I have sat in it. I have seen them armed

as the Americans now have them. It is armed with the Sidewinder; it carries six Sidewinders of two different types. I have spoken to the men right on the job, and they said that if there is any change in the fire control system it will take months to carry out any switchover. We are already buying them, and therefore the minister knows right now what kind of fire control system he is having installed on the CF-104. If he does not, we have no business in purchasing them and having them delivered.
I do not know just what the minister takes hon. members for. We are talking about a serious matter in a serious manner, and I wish the minister would consider the questions and the discussion in that light.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, all I can say in regard to that is that the CF-104 will be equipped to take eight different types of weapons.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the point is simple. The Canadian government accepted the strike attack role. At the time the Canadian government accepted the strike attack role the Canadian government knew it was an atomic role. Now the question is, does it intend to fulfil its commitment to NATO, or does it not? We have a right to know now, because if the Canadian government has no intention of fulfilling its commitment to NATO then it should discontinue the expenditure on the CF-104 and appurtenances at once and we should not have a duplication of the cancellation of the Avro Arrow which happened after $400 million had been spent.
If, however, the government continues with the production of this aeroplane and appurtenances, the Canadian people have the right to assume that it is going to live up to its commitment to NATO and arm the aeroplanes with nuclear missiles. We want to know, because we are the representatives of the people who have to vote the moneys to buy the carriers which are to be used for carrying nuclear missiles, whether in fact the Canadian government intends to fulfil its commitment or whether since it originally made the commitment it has changed its mind for one reason or another and does not intend to fulfil its commitment.
If it has changed its mind since the original commitment was made, it is the duty of the minister, in his capacity as representative of the government on this occasion, to advise the committee the reasons why the Canadian government has changed its mind. Surely we are entitled to this basic, fundamental information before we continue increasing what was first a $125 million and is now to be a $174 million expenditure in one fiscal year.
26207-1-126i
Supply-National Defence


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one more question. I understand from reading the newspapers this morning that the Voodoo aircraft is now operational in Canada and has been transferred from some United States squadrons. As they have been transferred from United States squadrons and are now operational in Canada, could I ask the minister with what type of weapon the Voodoos in Canada have been equipped.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They are equipped with the G.A.R. Falcon, with a conventional type of warhead. It is an air-to-air rocket and missile.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, is the minister not going to answer the questions which I raised and which were raised by the Leader of the Opposition?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not believe that the hon. member for Trinity has raised any questions which require any further answer than has been given on numerous occasions in this house and outside of it. I think the position of the government in connection with nuclear weapons has been made abundantly clear and I see no use in continuing to repeat what has been said so frequently before.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister may see no use in continuing this discussion which is concerned, among other things, with the ultimate expenditure of something over $408 million, I think, on an air division in Europe, but we see some use in trying to get answers from the minister to questions which are very vitally important.
I think I am right in saying that the minister said a few moments ago that the first of these CF-104 aeroplanes would not be delivered to the air division in Europe until about a year from now. The decision to equip the air division with these aeroplanes was made some time ago and it is certainly, to say the least, unfortunate that it will be 1963 before the first aircraft is delivered. The minister also said that in respect of nuclear weapons the government is waiting for NATO to decide the control of nuclear weapons in the hands of NATO forces in Europe. But no decision is required in respect of the use of nuclear weapons by United States and United Kingdom forces in NATO, because they already have custody of those weapons.
I am perfectly certain in my own mind that if the United States high command had known that in 1962 the Canadian government would not have made up its mind as to whether it would permit the air division to perform effectively the role it has undertaken, the
1986	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence United States government would have said, "We will take on that role ourselves with one of our own air divisions".
The minister admitted again this afternoon that the weapons system in this aeroplane would be, to say the least, more effective with nuclear warheads than without them. If you are going to undertake a role of such vital importance, surely you are not going to undertake it with warheads which have not their maximum effectiveness. That is what we are doing. We have not made up our minds at all as to what warheads will be used; no decision has been made; no decision will be made until, presumably, the aircraft reaches Europe some time in the future. Meanwhile we tell NATO, "We will continue to discharge this role. We accept this honourable and dangerous responsibility, but we will tell you in due course whether or not we will be in a position to discharge it effectively". That is the position the government has taken in respect of this matter. Then if the decision is left until the squadrons are equipped in Europe, and if the decision should be against using nuclear weapons, the government will have to withdraw from that role. That would be a fine contribution to make to the defence of peace in western Europe. If the decision is taken that we must carry out this role in the most effective way possible, even if it requires the use of nuclear warheads in the weapons system of this aeroplane, then the airmen running these aeroplanes would have to begin to learn how to handle this new equipment, because no decision would have been made before. It is almost impossible to describe the ludicrousness of that position especially in relation to the seriousness of the matters with which we are dealing.
The Prime Minister is reported by the Canadian Press as having said in Edmonton on February 25:
Should war come, are we going to arm Canadians with bows and arrows?
The only logical deduction one can make from the position the government is putting forward this afternoon is: if war comes we do not know what we shall arm Canadians with, because we have not made up our minds. Then the Prime Minister is reported to have gone on to say:
Canada has interceptor aircraft which will be more effective with nuclear weapons.
Presumably he would make the observation-the minister made it this afternoon- that our air division will have aircraft which would be more effective when armed with nuclear weapons. Then he went on to say:
The same applies to the two Bomarc bases built in this country.


Next, he is quoted as saying:
Should war come we must have every necessary instrument. But we shall not decide until the emergency whether those instruments can be used or not.
That is the position the government is taking. Then, apparently in order to inject some reassurance into that kind of statement, the Prime Minister is reported to have added that he had read the recent report that nuclear warheads could be made available in half an hour to an hour and indicated there was some credence to be attached to that report. In other words, we are going ahead now to plan for missiles and aircraft on the basis that we shall decide later how we shall arm them; and if we decide to change the arms from ineffective arms to arms which are more effective, we can get the new ones in half an hour or an hour. That is the position the government is taking in respect of this vitally important question of equipment for the defence of peace. The best weapons must be available, but the best weapons, apparently, are not going to be available in this case. Second best will not be good enough, but we shall decide when the emergency develops what we are to do about it; we shall decide then whether the F-104 will be effective in carrying out the role allotted to it. We have got a year; the plane will not be over there for a year. Meanwhile, we allow the NATO command and the NATO forces to maintain the impression, which I am sure they have, that when the Canadian government undertakes a definite role it undertakes it sincerely and will do its best to carry it out in the most effective way. This means to the NATO high command the use of the F-104 with the kind of warhead which was meant for this role when it was undertaken a couple of years ago. I take it the minister will agree that it is a correct description of the situation to say that when this role was undertaken, and when it was decided to use the F-104 to discharge this role, it was assumed by this government and by the NATO authority that that role would be carried out effectively with the most effective weapons which would be available, carried by the most effective planes; and that this is the view the government is now taking with respect to this equipment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition has again demonstrated the facility he had displayed during the last four years of seeming to be on all sides of this nuclear question. In 1958 he was urging the government to conclude an agreement and secure nuclear weapons immediately-


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have the quotations here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then give us the proof.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have only a few minutes before five o'clock.
Two years later he was saying he had made a mistake and that we should not have nuclear weapons in any circumstances. Then, not long ago, he said we should not have them but that we should let the United States come in and have them in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not say that. Quote that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The president of the national Liberal association out in Calgary said we should have nuclear weapons. Others in the Liberal party say that in no circumstances should we have them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is your position?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, they have now twisted themselves right round in a circle. Now they say that we have no position-


An hon. Member:: But you are the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You take a position which is not that taken by the minister for external affairs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have a position, and. I am prepared to state it again very briefly. We have said, and we continue to say, that the attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition, both in 1958, and now, when he wants us to answer yes or no to the question "Are you going to have nuclear weapons?" is completely unrealistic and is not the way to approach this problem. We have said that the only wise course, the only course of prudence, is to secure those weapon systems that are capable of carrying warheads and to train men in their use. We have secured those systems. We have secured the CF-104. We have secured the Honest John battery. These are weapon systems which are capable of taking nuclear warheads. We have trained people in their use and are still in the process of training people in their use as far as some of them are concerned. Thus, we are in a position, or will be in a position that, should an emergency develop, we would have weapons in the hands of our forces equal to those in the hands of the enemy they would be required to fight. The position the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts are now taking, this demand that we should say at this moment what we are going to do, is not related to the facts as they exist at the present time. The opposition itself has
Private Bills
no position with regard to this matter, yet they are trying to confuse Canadians with regard to the definite and reasonable position which we have adopted.


The Chairman:: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair so that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business as set out in standing order 15.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. G. R. Muir (Lisgar) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-5, to incorporate Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to obtain a charter for the Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference which has been in existence for a period of four years as an unincorporated association. The objects of the corporation, as the bill states, are to promote, maintain, superintend and carry on, in accordance with the Christian faith, doctrines, constitution, acts and rulings of the corporation, any or all of the work of that body.
The bill allows the central administrative body of the association to administer the affairs of the conference and further coordinate the efforts of the 18 participating churches located in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
The powers which the corporation is seeking are set out in clause 9(1) of the bill and are similar to those granted to other religious bodies from time to time. At present the total membership of this church is 1400. Four of the churches are located in and around Saskatoon. Eleven are in the area between Altona and Morden in Manitoba which is one of the two areas originally set aside in Manitoba by the administrative council for settlement by the Mennonite people in the early 1870's. Nearly all the members of this group can trace their ancestry back to the first settlers.
This corporate body will also facilitate the missionary work of the congregations comprising its membership and, by pooling resources, make the general work of the congregations concerned more effective.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-9, to incorporate Brock Acceptance Company.

Private Bills
He said: Mr. Speaker, it will no doubt be observed by the house that Bill No. S-9, is a very short bill asking for the incorporation under the Small Loans Act of a company to be known as the Brock Acceptance Company. The petitioners for incorporation are three business people all of whom reside in the city of Winnipeg. They will become the first shareholders of the company, together with such other persons as may wish to join with them.
The capital stock of the company is to be $250,000, of which $100,000 is to be subscribed before the provisional directors may call a general meeting of the shareholders. There is also a further provision that the company shall not commence business until $250,000 of the capital stock has been subscribed and $100,000 has been paid in on it.
The head office of the company is to be in the city of Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba. It is because incorporation is asked for pursuant to Part II of the Small Loans Act that this bill is in such short form. It follows the form set out in one of the schedules to the act. The powers and disabilities of the company are not set forth in the bill as they are fully set out in the Small Loans Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

William Murray Smith: the second reading of Bill No. S-10, to incorporate Gerand Acceptance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members no doubt have noticed that Bill No. S-10 is practically identical in terms with the previous bill, namely Bill No. S-9 which just received second reading. The applicants for incorporation are also Winnipeg people and they will become the provisional directors of this company which is to have capital stock of $250,000, with a requirement that $100,000 must be subscribed before a general meeting of the shareholders is called. There is also a requirement that the company shall not commence business until $250,000 of the capital stock has been subscribed and $100,000 has been paid thereon. The head office of this company is also to be in the city of Winnipeg. The company is also incorporated under part II of the Small Loans Act, and the powers and disabilities are fully set out in the said act. Everything about this incorporation is idential with the incorporation under Bill No. S-9 except that the name of the company is different and that the petition for incorporation is by different people.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
January 22-Second reading of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising)-Mr. Argue.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
January 22-Second reading of Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trading stamps) - Mr. Howard.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Dropped.


An hon. Member:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-25, respecting the sovereignty of Canada.
He said:
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, on March 17 of last year, I had the opportunity of introducing a similar bill in this house. As you no doubt recall, it suffered the fate reserved to favourable measures which, in the end, are talked out by hon. members.
I described at that time the development and the reality of our national sovereignty, asking that it be expressed by external signs such as a distinctive national flag, a distinctive national anthem and a Canadian national sovereignty day.
I indicated that these three external signs would promote understanding between Canadians from coast to coast, show that Canadian patriotism is really alive and stir up a national dynamism likely to increase the efforts required for the development of our great country.
I insisted also upon the interpretation the term "distinctive Canadian", by pointing out that it was a question of giving our country a flag and anthem entirely different from any other foreign design or anthem, thereby eliminating the union jack and the fleur de lis.

According to surveys made by junior chambers of commerce in Canada and polls taken by several other organizations or individuals, more than 80 per cent of all Canadians now want such a distinctive national flag and such a distinctive national anthem.
A very small number of Canadians would like to see retained on the flag either the union jack or the fleur de lis.
But I sincerely believe that we must look toward the future. We must stop looking back at the past and we must go forward in the same direction, united under the same entirely Canadian banner.
We must put aside the fleur de lis that reminds us of France but means absolutely nothing to one third of the Canadian population which is made up of new Canadians from many countries of Europe and Asia.
The union jack should have the same fate, it should be discarded, since it is the flag of another country. If we do not have enough imagination or maturity to find our own symbols, then let us sink into mediocrity and revert to the inferior status of a colony.
The union jack, Mr. Speaker, while a magnificent flag, remains the national emblem of Great Britain, by virtue of a royal proclamation of January 1, 1801, and the red ensign, authorized in Great Britain by Queen Ann in 1707 and Queen Victoria in 1864, represents, according to section 72 of the merchant navy act, the national flag for any ship or vessel belonging to any British citizen.
Now, it is impossible even for the red ensign to remain a Canadian emblem, since we have ceased to be British subjects on January 1, 1947, when we became Canadian subjects under the Canadian Citizenship Act. That is why, on September 5, 1945, Mr. King and his colleagues passed an order in council establishing as temporary Canadian emblem the red ensign, until such time as parliament would decide otherwise. Now, the event of capital importance which should have led to a change in that situation, Mr. Speaker, was indeed the political emancipation which was made abundantly clear to every country in the world, when Canada created, in January 1947, the status of Canadian citizen.
Our progressive and actual sovereignty calls for a sovereign and united Canadian attitude. In 1919, Sir Robert Borden signed, on behalf of Canada, the Versailles peace treaty.
In 1923, Hon. Ernest Lapointe signed without the use of an intermediary in Washington our first trade agreement with a foreign country. On December 11, 1931, the Statute of Westminster granted us our sovereignty and independence.
Canadian Sovereignty
This statute marked an important and decisive step in our constitutional evolution. Its effects were felt both in the domestic and external fields.
On the domestic plane, this statute had six main effects, as follows:
Our governor is now appointed by the king on the advice of the prime minister of Canada. He only represents the king and his relations with the Canadian government are the same as those between the king and the imperial government.
The crown must now, by virtue of this agreement, sanction the acts of Canada only on the advice of the Canadian government.
Any act passed by the imperial parliament and in force in Canada can be abrogated to the extent that it applies to this country, except the Statute of Westminster and the various acts based on the British North America Act and the amendments thereto.
No imperial act passed after December 11, 1931 applies to Canada as part of her own legislation.
Canada's power to legislate on merchant navy matters is now legally unlimited.
Canada is free to abolish any appeal to the privy council, which has been done already.
As regards external affairs, here are the five main effects of that statute:
The parliament of Canada can now pass extra-territorial acts and has given that scope to the whole Canadian legislation.
Canada can be and is represented as she wishes in foreign courts. She can and does accredit her own ambassadors.
Canada can and does sign official treaties with foreign governments.
It is up to Canada, through some constitutional agreement, to decide whether she will be bound by a treaty in the negotiation of which she had had no part.
Finally, since the war, the constitutional evolution of Canada has been notable and efficient. A country does not grant nor confer to itself a sovereignty: it has to be recognized by other countries. Now, Canada has played the role of a nation, has exercised the rights and privileges attached to sovereignty, and the other nations have not questioned its right to play such a role. They have recognized that Canada has, in fact, that degree of independence which is necessary to sovereignty. They have sanctioned the fact that, in their eyes, Canada has been acting by and for itself.

Canadian Sovereignty
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that our country enjoys full sovereignty and that it acts, in the international field, as a distinct and personal entity.
That is why distinctive, personal and typically Canadian external signs are imperative. That is the essence of this bill.
I am not suggesting here any specific design nor any anthem in particular. I merely wish that hon. members make a decision on the principle of a distinctive Canadian flag and a distinctive Canadian anthem.
In a few years, we shall celebrate the centenary of confederation. At that time, we shall have to possess external signs of national sovereignty and political maturity; otherwise our hesitation and irresponsibility will prevent us from being abreast of our emancipation.
I therefore urge hon. members to limit their speeches and express themselves today through an unequivocal vote.


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arihabaska):: Mr. Speaker, after reading and studying the bill proposed by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), some doubts come to our minds as to the mover's intentions. In fact, the bill makes three requests: a flag, a national anthem and a national independence day.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke, who is generally not too profuse, did not restrain himself this time and set his teeth to a three-decker which may very well choke him.
When considering the language of the bill, one wonders whether the hon. member does not want to reduce or camouflage his government's responsibility.
Section 3 of the bill reads as follows:
It shall be the duty of the Canada Council to prepare or have prepared, after competition or otherwise, a design for a suitable distinctive national flag free of the emblem or emblems of any other country and to submit the same to the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada within one year of the coming into force of this act.
Mr. Speaker, this has already been done by a special committee. There are thousands of designs in the government's records. The most suitable of those designs should be selected and submitted directly to the government which is responsible for selecting a flag.
We have been talking about a distinctive national flag for a great many years. Mr. St. Laurent expressed his views quite clearly in the house on this matter. Even though this government has been in power for five years,

we still do not have the opinion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the distinctive national flag Canada should have.


An hon. Member:: What did you do during the 22 years you were in power?


Samuel Boulanger: The Liberals were in power 22 years and there was some talk about a distinctive national flag; the prime minister of the day, right hon. Mr. Louis St. Laurent, did not hesitate to state his opinion on that point.
If the present Prime Minister is against a distinctive national flag, let him say so; if he does not want one, let him speak out.


Mr. Asselin:: Are you also in favour of two flags?


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question?


Samuel Boulanger: You may ask your question when I am through. Mr. Speaker, section 6 of the bill reads as follows:
The anthem mentioned in the previous section-
That is section 5 which reads:
It shall be the duty of the Canada Council to select after competition a distinctive national anthem for Canada and to submit the same to the Senate and House of Commons of Canada within one year from the coming into force of this act.
In this section of the bill, the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) is proposing that the Canada Council write another national anthem. But we already have a national anthem which is recognized by every Canadian from coast to coast. I wonder why the hon. member for Sherbrooke insists on complicating matters.
I do not think that we can find one single member in this house who is opposed to "O Canada" as our national anthem. It has been sung for years all across Canada.
As for the section concerning a Canadian independence day, it seems to have been put there to ensure that the bill will not be passed.
Mr. Speaker, if this government does not have the authority to give us a distinctive flag and a distinctive national anthem, I wonder why it should be left to the Canada Council to make a choice.
The present government has repeatedly indicated that there are differences of opinion among its members. This has been demonstrated many times, especially as far as national defence is concerned. If a minister says one thing, another will say just the opposite.

As concerns the national anthem, as tor the distinctive national flag, there is no agreement, since similar bills have been introduced for five years in a row, and nothing tangible has been achieved as yet.
The Liberal party has decided, as a matter of policy, that we shall have a distinctive national flag. We shall have a distinctive flag-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: Two.


Samuel Boulanger: -a distinctive national flag.


Mr. Pigeon:: Six.


Samuel Boulanger: Hon. members opposite do not want to understand. Yet, our leader has explained the situation clearly and unequivocally. I wonder if they are not blinded by the Union Nationale screen.
Mr. Speaker, I should not like to delay passage of this bill. I know that other members wish to express their views on the subject. So I say that it is our hope that the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Sherbrooke will be accepted as a second best choice.
Besides, at the next session, with the Liberal government in power, we shall adopt a bill which will come into force the year after, as promised by our leader (Mr. Pearson).


An hon. Member:: Two flags, two bills?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker-


Maurice Allard: I want to direct a question to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He pointed out several times that the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent had not been afraid to express his views on the matter of a Canadian flag. Would he kindly tell us what was the opinion of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent on the matter of a Canadian flag? What was it supposed to include?


Samuel Boulanger: I have already said it in this house. Perhaps I am not able to repeat word for word what Mr. St. Laurent said at the time but he did say that as long as the national flag is not a rallying sign, there would be no distinctive national flag.
And since we are talking about a distinctive national flag, I should like to add this: if Mr. St. Laurent, at the time, did not want to give Canada a distinctive national flag, why is it that the Conservatives who, during the 1957-58 campaign, kept promising, all over the province of Quebec, the adoption of a flag, did not fulfil their promise after having been in office for five years?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I shall commend the hon. member for Sherbrooke
Canadian Sovereignty
(Mr. Allard) for having submitted this bill, on which I want to make a few remarks.
In 1967, Canada will celebrate its centenary as a colony, and not as a sovereign state, unless the British North America Act is properly amended.
As a matter of fact, clause 56 of the British North America Act, stipulates that the parliament in London can disallow any act passed by the Canadian parliament. Therefore, there is some urgent need for Ottawa to approach the British parliament with a view to having that clause removed from our constitution.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is the first step towards an independent Canada, that is to say a country with a sovereign status.
Moreover, every Canadian is, at the same time, a British subject, a Canadian citizen and a citizen of the commonwealth.
Any Britisher is automatically a Canadian citizen.
Our country should pass some legislation conferring on every immigrant, from the British Isles or elsewhere, the rights ordinarily granted to immigrants. They should not have the right to exercise any public function before becoming Canadian citizens.
Before adopting a distinctive national flag, it is important for Canada to clearly establish its sovereign status.
We can talk of national independence when we are part of the commonwealth of the United Nations organization and of the North Atlantic alliance.
The word "dominion" should also be removed wherever found. As to the national anthem of this country, "O Canada" is now to my mind, officially recognized.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), has advocated having two flags: one for Sundays and one for week days. He also favours two national anthems, whereas the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), wants six flags.
Mr. Speaker, this indicates the confusion within the opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition advocates two flags and two national anthems, whereas Mr. Pickersgill wants six flags and probably six national anthems.
Mr. Speaker, the promise made by the Leader of the Opposition to give Canada two flags and two official anthems, characterizes very well the policy of his party which wants to divide the country in two and offer a flag and a national anthem to the English-speaking group, and another flag and another national anthem to the Frenchspeaking group.
By this very fact, the opposition wants to destroy confederation and proclaim Quebec

Canadian Sovereignty
a state separate from the other provinces, another separate country.
Mr. Speaker, give me another example which can contribute more to national disunion, in other words, to the disintegration o 1 confederation.
In closing my remarks, may I refer to an excellent article published in the newspaper Le Droit, on February 6, 1962, under the heading:
The Impertinence of an M.P.
This is how it reads:
The great pre-electoral tide is evident. The tidal wave cannot yet be perceived. Nevertheless, the heavy foam which appears on the waters betrays the strong rising tide and the desperate efforts of boatmen to reach safe anchorage.
And the article continues as follows:
But everything points to the fact that impertinence will be carried to an extreme. Yes, our country, without a flag after centuries, would suddenly get two. This is truly exaggerating. We are being spoiled. Canadians have surely not lost anything for waiting-This is even better than advertisements about cats for the Congo and contributions for the widow of the unknown soldier.
No, Mr. Pickersgill, a country does not grow richer with flags-
Please note the use of the plural.

by the pair, like an individual buys shoes, snow-shoes or skis-A spare tire can be very useful, but such a precaution is out of place when choosing a national emblem. And, by an irony of fate, the member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate-
And this also applies to the Leader of the Opposition.
-belongs to a party which, although in power for a great number of years, has not been very prodigal with flags. Yesterday, what stinginess. Today, what generosity. And why not three, six, or a whole dozen of flags, for the different circumstances, just as there are handkerchiefs for colds and handkerchiefs for hired weepers?
And the article continues:
The problem which now exists is not very complicated. Canada needs a flag, not England, nor France nor Palestine. Our country is no longer a colony. There is no question of being disrespectful to the monarchy. Canada has its own queen. If It is ridiculous to give two flags to our country, it is all the more ridiculous to try to give a second flag to proud Albion which has had one for a long while now. How is it that French Canadians who have not forgotten their origin favour a distinctive flag? It is because their devotion to the motherland is not greater than their love for their country.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to quote an excerpt from that excellent article.
In closing my remarks, I wish to congratulate again the hon. member for Sherbrooke for his worthy proposal which gives an opportunity not only for free discussion in this house but also for the promotion of the cause of a distinctive national flag.
Besides, I should like to bring to the attention of this house the political confusion
r.Mr. Pigeon.]
which is evident among the members of the opposition who sometimes support the adoption of two flags and two national anthems, while the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate wants six flags and also six official anthems.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) and the hon. member for Joli-ette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), I say without the slightest hesitation that the hon. member for Sherbrooke has contributed to this debate in a much more serious fashion than the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm at the outset condemned what the hon. member for Sherbrooke had said.
He said that if things go on as they are, Canada will be marking its centenary as a colony in 1967; the mere mention of that fact is ridiculous. Moreover, he spent his time talking first about two flags, then about six flags, stating that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) had favoured two flags.
It is evident to anyone who takes a serious look at the situation that the Leader of the Opposition spoke of one national flag; but he added that the union jack could be kept for those who wish to use it occasionally. Besides, we have seen and we still see every day in the province of Quebec, on our national day or in Corpus Christi processions, people who, after having been detached from France for more than 200 years, still display the blue, white and red flag of France, which is very decorative. That does not mean however that they are more French than Canadian. This simply means they still keep in their hearts a certain feeling for their old mother country.
I must say I have admired the speech of the hon. member for Sherbrooke. But I must disagree with my colleague from Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), because I do not share all his views. I rather regret that purely political motives should have been included in this matter, as was done most particularly by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
I suggest that this matter should be dealt with objectively, as was done by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, whom I congratulate.
We can hold different views. We can claim that it should be up to the government to rule on the matter, especially since it has been under discussion for many years. But, on the other hand, I do not object to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke that we should ask a committee formed of persons having some particular knowledge of the arts, to choose among the thousands of designs

which have been submitted to us, and which are still being continuously submitted to us, the one which best represents the aspirations of the whole of Canada.
As all hon. members probably did, I presume, I recently received some suggestions. These suggestions dealt with four acceptable flag designs. First, there was a distinctive national flag; a red flag with a gilded maple leaf and ten gilded bars representing the ten provinces; this would be the Canadian flag. There would also be a flag for the navy, a red maple leaf on a white field, with ten red bars representing the ten provinces of Canada. There would also be a flag for the Department of Transport, a gilded maple leaf on a blue field with ten gilded bars representing the ten provinces of Canada. Finally, there would be a flag for the merchant navy: a green maple leaf on a white field, with ten green bars representing the various provinces of Canada. Nobody can raise objections to those four proposals because they have a special meaning since they represent for Canada: the merchant marine, the Department of Transport and Canada's navy.
Those are suggestions that might be submitted to a committee having made studies and with special knowledge in the field of aesthetics.
This measure contains the interesting provision that the members of that committee must within a period of one year, report to parliament on their research and findings.
It must be kept in mind that the final decision rests with parliament or the government. I think that the suggestion should come from the government. The government should be the one to decide and submit a bill to parliament which, in turn, would finally adopt it.
Besides, I do not believe it is essential that the government submit such a bill. It can take a decision, as was done before in the case of the Canadian flag floating over our embassies, the red flag with a union jack in a corner and the arms of Canada. That was decided by order in council just the same as the Quebec provincial government adopted its own flag by order in council. It submitted a flag and said: This is the flag of the province of Quebec. That is what the government of that province has decided. That government took the responsibility. Whether you like it or not, it is the recognized flag of the province of Quebec.
In my opinion, this idea of referring the question to a committee such as the Canada Council for examination, is a good one and I am all for it.
Canadian Sovereignty
I was interested in the historical account given by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. The signing of the treaty of Westminster in 1931 was the crowing achievement of a series of steps taken since 1760 towards the full independence of Canada. There was the Quebec Act, the constitutional regime, the Act of Union, confederation and finally, the Statute of Westminster.
We have seen that our heads of state had started to establish Canada's position long before that. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier was invited to Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee, in 1897, he made moves, over there, backed by General Smuts of South Africa, in favour of greater independence for the dominions within the commonwealth.
Then, in 1919, Sir Robert Borden, as Prime Minister, insisted, as the member for Sherbrooke said, that Canada be called upon to sign the Versailles peace treaty in its own name, because our troops had fought as a Canadian unit, not as part of the British forces.
In 1926, the Canadian people stood up against a governor general who intervened in the political affairs of our country and who was immediately recalled. From that moment, there was much talk about the treaty of Westminster. The Hon. Ernest Lapointe signed the fisheries agreement with the United States, but refused to do so in the presence of Great Britain's representative, thus indicating that Canada intended to become completely autonomous. Thereafter, from 1927 to 1930, the various dominions set up the basis for the Westminster treaty, which was signed on the 11th of December, 1931.
Therefore, I see no objection to the three projects being grouped in one, since they all tend to a full and complete autonomy for Canada.
That is why I commend the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I commend him for the moderation of his remarks. I think we should discuss those national matters in a non-partisan way. We should discuss them with the broadness of mind of Canadians who want to be Canadians.
We have no right to condemn the Englishspeaking Canadians who have not yet attained the same degree of national maturity as the French-speaking Canadians, because many of them still have relatives overseas-brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, grandfathers, grandmothers-and they still have in their heart some feeling for England.
But it should not be overlooked that the union jack is made up of three crosses: Saint George's cross, standing for England, Saint Andrew's cross, standing for Scotland, and Saint Patrick's cross, standing for Ireland. These three countries together form what we

Canadian Sovereignty
consider today not England but the United Kingdom. No, the union jack has no connection whatsoever with Canada.
We must respect the union jack because it is the emblem under which we enjoyed a great measure of protection. We must respect it in the same way as we, French-Canadians, respect the French flag, which represents something for us. However, to respect it does not mean to brandish it at every occasion as the sole guide to our conduct.
We must have a distinctive Canadian flag bearing neither the union jack nor the fleur-de-lis because the union jack represents England and the countries around it, while the fleur-de-lis is an old relic from France which can certainly be cast off. There has been talk about the national anthem. Last Sunday, following the victory of the Canadian team over the American team, the band started playing "O Canada". While listening to it, I was proud of the fact that, in other countries, "O Canada" was recognized as our national anthem. I admit that some people do not like "O Canada"; they may be right, because it is often badly sung and badly played. In fact, in some circles, it is often sung like a funeral dirge, when it should be possible to underline its real beauty. Among the bands that play it very well, the R.C.A.F. band and the governor general's band give it a vigorous and martial flavour that really represents this young country of ours. Played in such a way, "O Canada" is truly beautiful. In our schools, we should teach our children to sing ''O Canada" with ardour, so that it may be a true demonstration of the Canadian spirit.
Mr. Speaker, I approve the bill because it sets a one-year deadline to the study of the question. If it were to prolong its study indefinitely, I would not support it. I find it acceptable and I am one of those who support it.
(Text):


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would clear up one point. The translation was not quite clear to me. I thought I heard him say that the union jack was made up of the flags of St. Andrew, St. George and St. Patrick, but I presume he would also wish to refer to St. David. We must not forget the Welsh.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not know whether the Welsh cross is on there. I know there are three crosses, St. Andrew, St. George and St. Patrick. Perhaps the Welsh cross is under one of these, but I have not seen it.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I know that a number of hon. members wish to speak on Bill No. C-25, so what I have to say I will say in a very few short sentences. This bill calls for a distinctive Canadian flag. We in this group are 100 per cent in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag, and this is written right into our federal program. This bill calls for a Canadian national anthem. We are in favour of a Canadian national anthem and we think we have this in our present anthem "O, Canada". This bill calls for a national holiday. We are in favour of holidays, particularly a national holiday, but I think we can find a better, more appropriate and more favourable date for a holiday than December 11.
On those three principles, Mr. Speaker, I have told the house where we stand. I would like to add that I cannot see the necessity or the reason for the question of the anthem or the flag being referred by legislation to the Canada Council for a report to be made within one year after passage of this bill, if it does pass. Surely the question of the flag, the holiday and the anthem is the responsibility of government. It is their responsibility to take whatever steps are required and then, on the basis of their studies and the knowledge they acquire, make recommendations to the parliament of the day.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fitting that we do not leave this hour completely to our Frenchspeaking colleagues because I believe that discussion on the flag and the anthem should be bilingual also. I was very much impressed by an article written by Mr. J. B. McGeachy in the Financial Post of March 10 last. He happened to be discussing the question of the flag and had this to say:
Mackenzie King had a dream about it on the night of March 19-20, 1944. This significant fact is revealed in J. W. Pickersgill's book, "The Mackenzie King Record". In his diary for March 20 WLMK noted the contents of this dream. In it he saw the union jack as Britain's flag and the red ensign, with the union jack in the top comer and the Canadian shield in the fly, as Canada's flag.
That flag has been legalized by order in council, a legality which the union jack itself does not enjoy. The hon. member for Hull spoke about the flag of la belle province and said it had status because it was a legal flag, having been legalized by order in council. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a flag. The only trouble about it is that some people do not like it; but no matter what we did, some people would not like it.
We have heard a lot about the red ensign being a flag which should be flown only on ships. If we want to go back to the genesis of the union jack the word "jack" implies a

maritime flag. All this is inconsequential, shall we say. The question is whether the people of Canada want what this bill says they should have. This bill is autocratic, arbitrary and dictatorial because it says in clause 3:
It shall be the duty of the Canada Council to prepare or have prepared, after competition or otherwise, a design for a suitable distinctive national flag free of the emblem or emblems of any other country-
I say that is arbitrary and dictatorial. I myself stand for the red ensign as it is now, and I believe there are thousands who think as I do. It would be better in my opinion, if the hon. members who are promoting such bills as this would leave out the words they have introduced, and let us have a free choice. If the majority of the people of this country want the red ensign as it is now, they should have it. If the majority want a distinctive flag without any trace of the union jack on it, they should have it. But this bill says they cannot have a free choice. I have high regard for the background of both races-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) is raising a point of order.


Mr. Regnier:: Is the hon. member in favour of a referendum on the flag question?


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that is not a point of order. It is a question, and if I have any time left after I have finished hon. members can ask me all the questions they wish. But I say there is a much better way of approaching this question than the one suggested in this bill. We used to have Dominion day. It was inferred that was a sign of subjugation, so we changed it to Canada day, and now we have the suggestion that it be changed from the date of confederation to some other date pulled out of a hat. How stupid can this house be? I say it is time some of the other side was put on the record, and I am going to do it.


An hon. Member:: For how long?


Ernest James Broome: Until six o'clock.
I notice that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) states we are Canadian subjects-no longer British subjects but Canadian subjects. Well, the hon. member had better read his passport again. Certainly we are Canadian subjects through the citizenship act; but a Canadian subject is nevertheless a British subject. A British subject is not
Canadian Sovereignty
necessarily a Canadian subject, but a Canadian subject is a British subject, at the present time, anyway.
Personally I take a certain pride in the fact that people from many lands came over here and built this country. People from all the countries of Europe, besides some from Asia and Africa, are here today. But the people of the two great races which started this country, the French and the British, built the foundation upon which the rest have enjoyed the fruits of that work and progress. Now we are to throw all that out the window. We shall have a brain washing which will eliminate this background, eliminate these historic traditions and the memory of the wars in which Canadians have fought. We are to throw this down the sink. Well, not as far as I am concerned.
There was a committee of this house set up to consider the question of a distinctive Canadian flag. It was set up in March, 1944. About 2,500 designs were submitted-this, again, is according to Mr. McGeachy. In his article in the Financial Post he says:
About 2,500 designs were submitted ("dreamed up" would be the right phrase) and all the nice patterns of maple leaves, buffaloes, beavers, Red Indians, fleur-de-lis and whatnot were carefully examined by the committee. Nothing came of its labours, but an order in council of 1945 authorized use of the red ensign as described above, on land as well as sea. Mackenzie King was a man who made his dreams come true.
The position is, then, that officially Canada already has a national flag; and controversy arises because some people don't like it.
I submit to this house that that is enough of a problem. However, when that committee met, its choice of a flag was unanimous. That flag was the red ensign with a gold maple leaf in the fly. The choice was unanimous except for one member, Mr. Wilfred Lacroix, the former member for Montmorency. There was unanimity at the time except for the views of this one member, and so the matter was shelved.
Now this question comes up again. If the disagreement of one member could lead to the subject being shelved in 1944, the same situation could happen again. This is something that touches at the hearts, the roots and the traditions of the people of this country. Perhaps our new citizens from Germany have an equal right with those who would like to see something that reminds them of their homeland on our national flag. Perhaps our new citizens from Italy have a similar right.
1996	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
I think it time we stopped talking like little Canadians. Look at the phrase in this bill which says: "This act may be cited as the National Sovereignty Act". Well, what tool says we have not been a sovereign nation for scores of years? But then, we used to have Dominion day, but we had to change that to Canada day. And even that is not good enough now; we shall have to call it independence day to show we have had to fight our way free from a presumed arbitrary dictatorship that held us-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour for private members' business has now expired and the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Royal Canadian Air Force-
645. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment-further amount required, $31,000,000.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, when I inadvertently make a mistake, I believe it is only right to correct it as soon as possible. In speaking this afternoon, I made mention of the Sidewinder weapon. I had the right weapon but I had the wrong plane. They are not on the CF-104.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This afternoon a number of questions were asked of the minister with respect to the commitment which has been undertaken by the government with regard to the air division overseas and its new strike attack role. Those questions as yet have been unanswered by the minister. I think we should give him an opportunity to answer them now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I answered all the questions that were asked, Mr. Chairman, and made all the comments which were necessary with regard to the remarks made in this regard.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister say at what stations the F-104's will be stationed when they arrive in Europe.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They will be stationed at the same air station as those at which the Sabres and 100's are at present stationed, namely Grostenquin and Marville in France, and Zweibrucken and Baden Soelinger in Germany.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As to Grostenquin and Marville, is there any agreement at the moment between the government of Canada and the government of France with respect to the storage on French soil of nuclear missiles in use in the F-104?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is reverting to the same matter with which I dealt previously this afternoon. As far as NATO is concerned no determination has been made with regard to the control of nuclear weapons. I therefore do not think there is any great purpose in discussing the matter.


Mr. Herridge:: I have been most patient, Mr. Chairman. I have not taken part in any policy debate. However, I have a few things I wish to bring to the minister's attention which I think are completely in order and I wish to ask a few questions. I refer to a few matters that concern some of the defence personnel, particularly in the R.C.A.F. I mention one or two cases in order to illustrate several other cases of similar types that have been brought to my attention in these few matters that I wish to place before the minister now.
I had brought to my attention on several occasions the fact that people are of the opinion that there should be certain extra travelling allowances that would permit men to be reunited with their families under particular circumstances. To that end I just wish to quote briefly from a letter I received from one lady in this respect:
Another thing which I would urge at this time is that men in the armed forces, whether they are commissioned or non-commissioned be given, at least once a year, a very substantial travelling allowance, for themselves and their families, to go home to their families anywhere in Canada. It is done in most countries and is all the more necessary in this huge country, where families are unable to see each other for several years, when, as in the navy, men are moved from one seaboard to the other every few years. It is completely beyond the means of most of those men to go "home" during that period. It is bad for everyone concerned.
Of course, the minister would understand that situation. I made inquiries at the time and the then minister was the present lieutenant governor of British Columbia. He went to some pains to inform me of the regulations. But since that time I have met

two or three cases with regard to which it seemed to me the present regulations did not cover all the particular circumstances. In the services there are cases which I think would warrant some review of the travelling expense regulations at the present time. I urge the minister to give that matter consideration.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but as I read the item under consideration it is as follows: Item 645, "Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment". I am having difficulty in relating the hon. member's remarks to that particular item.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not blame you a bit, Mr. Chairman. I thought we were on the first item.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman. It is quite apparent that when the government accepted the strike role for the air division there was no requirement for it to do so in the sense that it was not obliged to do this. It could have declined. In that event it could have left the performance of this duty to others such as, for example, the United States air force. However, the government did not decline the role. It accepted the role. It said that the Canadian air division will undertake the strike role on behalf of the NATO alliance. The reasons for that were fairly obvious. Our NATO allies felt that the air division was the best air division in Europe. It is indeed the best air division in Europe. It is the best trained. It has the best airmen. One of the reasons is, of course, that they are professional. They know what they are doing, and they know it well. Hence an experiment was to be performed whereby on the ground in Europe an air division was to be phased out of the air defence role and into the strike attack role.
This course naturally appealed to the air force. It appealed to the NATO commanders in Europe. The Canadian government was approached with respect to the proposition that Canada would undertake this very difficult and dangerous assignment. The Canadian government accepted the role. The Canadian government must have known at the time when it accepted the role that it involved the use of nuclear weapons, as this matter was implicit in the decision. If the Canadian government accepted this responsibility, knowing in advance that it involved a nuclear commitment, why is there now this indecision with respect to it? The minister, of course, is evading the issue when he says there is no decision with respect to NATO control. There was no decision with respect to NATO control at that time but there was the possibility of
Supply-National Defence a joint arrangement with the United States. Indeed, it was this possibility of joint control with the United States that was referred to by the Prime Minister in this House of Commons when referring to the new role which was to be adopted by the R.C.A.F. and it was subsequently referred to by the former minister of national defence. Having this in mind, Mr. Chairman, surely we must now be assured by the government either that it intends to carry out tests and fulfil its commitment to NATO or that in the meantime it has changed its mind for one reason or another. Otherwise we cannot vote these funds intelligently.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are not expecting too much from you.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We cannot vote funds for weapons carriers which are only useful when armed with atomic missiles if the government has no intention to so equip them. Can we hear from the minister in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether he can assure the committee that the NATO command is satisfied that this particular strike attack role with these CF-104 planes can be carried out with conventional weapons?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have never discussed that with SACEUR, but I wonder why the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Trinity are trying to press this matter. They seem to be trying to give the impression that they would like to see the 104's in Europe equipped with nuclear weapons as fast as possible.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We would like the government to tell us what it proposes to do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They are trying to force a decision on that now, although the planes will not be over there for a year yet and in spite of the fact that on August 5, 1960, as found on pages 7610 and 7611 of Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition made a long speech in which he said with regard to the use of tactical weapons by NATO:
I say in any event that Canada should categorically reject the proposition that her NATO forces should be equipped with nuclear weapons of any kind.
Now we have the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Trinity apparently arguing that unless we make an announcement now that we are going to equip the 104's with nuclear weapons, although they are not to be in Europe for a year yet, we are derelict in our duty. I find it very difficult to reconcile these positions.

Supply-National Defence


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister, of course, as he did this afternoon, has thrown up a smokescreen to conceal his own unwillingness or inability to reply to the question I have asked him. The question is a very simple one. I suggested to the minister that the Canadian government accepted a certain responsibility in the NATO forces to be discharged by a Canadian air division on the understanding that that responsibility would be discharged through the use of a particular kind of equipment and that the government is now welshing on that responsibility. It is not our duty on this side to tell the government what it should or should not do in this case. We will do that when we have a debate on policy. But we believe, and the minister can set our minds at ease if he wishes to do so, that it was the understanding of SACEUR that this particular strike attack responsibility when it was turned over to the R.C.A.F. air division would be discharged by the use of weapons which would be effective for that purpose and, as the minister himself said, the only weapons that would be effective for that purpose are CF-104's armed with nuclear warheads. If that is the case then the responsibility taken on by the Canadian air division was assumed so far as NATO is concerned under a misunderstanding, to say the least. Will the minister clear up that misunderstanding and say that there is no such understanding in the NATO high command over any particular kind of equipment that will be used and that they are quite satisfied to let the decision wait until an emergency develops with respect to whether the CF-104 will use nuclear weapons in its strike attack role? Are they perfectly happy about the delay in this decision?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no misunderstanding whatever. This is now the fourth time that the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Trinity have made the same statement in almost the same terms. I have replied twice already and have stated what the position of the government is. I do not think I should take the time of the committee to make the same reply once more.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister objects to discussing the question of the air division because in his opinion the matter is not urgent until the sum total of $400 million or $500 million in hardware is sitting on the tarmacs in Europe. Under those circumstances let us consider for a moment the question of North American air defence. Some time ago the minister said that he agreed with the speech made in Toronto last summer by General Kuter in which he said in effect that it was essential that the F-101 to be acquired by the Royal Canadian Air Force

be armed with a nuclear missile. Does the minister still agree with the expression of opinion by General Kuter at that time?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not agree with the interpretation that the member for Trinity makes of that speech or of practically any other matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then would the minister be good enough to give his own interpretation for the benefit of the committee?


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. member for Leeds.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, a question has been asked of the Minister of National Defence and he has not answered.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The floor has been given to the hon. member for Leeds.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I cannot take responsibility for the lack of an answer on the part of the minister. I saw the hon. member for Leeds and gave him the floor after an appropriate pause, and so he has the floor.


Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Chairman, a news story of February 13, 1962, tells us that the air force remains the biggest armed services spender and that construction of the CF-104 fighters at Canadair in Montreal remains the biggest single defence program. The story points out that it is estimated that the total cost of the CF-104's will be $450 million, of which $302 million will have been spent by March 31. Perhaps I am approaching the same question but in another way. I should like to read to the minister part of a report in the Globe and Mail of January 17, 1962 in which there is the following statement:
It is known that the United States tried, but failed, to write into the Canada-U.S. agreement covering Canadian acquisition of the 66 U.S. Voodoos a clause stating that the planes would be armed as they were in the U.S.-with nuclear missiles.
The minister may answer later, but my first question to him is: Is this story true? Is it a fact that the United States tried but failed to write into the agreement a clause that Canada would acquire the nuclear missiles that render these planes useful weapons? Again, I quote from the Vancouver Sun of February 9, 1962. The headline is, "Canada, U.S. Not Speaking on Matters of Defence", and the article reads in part as follows:
Canada and the United States apparently aren't on speaking terms over mutual defence matters ... there had been no meeting of the Canada-U.S. joint defence committee since July, 1960-some 18 months before.

My question to the minister is: Is it a fact that for 18 months there has been no meeting of the Canada-United States joint defence committee?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I can relate his first quotation very readily to the item under consideration but I am having difficulty with his last quotation and I am concerned that the committee might wander into defence policy generally as opposed to staying very close to the item under consideration. I hope the hon. member will co-operate.


John Ross Matheson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Financial Post of November 4, 1961, had this to say:
The other really vexing problem for NORAD- and particularly Canadian defence planners-lies in the question of nuclear warheads for Canadian forces . . . something that was always intended for both the CF-101B and the Bomarc.
The minister knows whether or not this statement in the Financial Post is correct. If it is not correct, we would appreciate being told. We read a good deal of other material along the same line. The Detroit News speaks of Canada's defence timidity and the Citizen has said that there cannot be respect for a government that cannot decide. The real problem is, have we made commitments of any character? Are there any secret treaties into which we have entered with our allies? We know of our recent friendliness with Castro. We know of our traditional friendliness with the United States. I should like some assurance from the minister that these allegations we find in the Vancouver Sun, the Globe and Mail, the Calgary Herald and the Financial Post are completely without substance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, it has never
been the custom for a minister to comment upon speculative stories or even more speculative editorials in various newspapers. I do not propose to start doing so now, particularly in view of the fact these matters have no relationship whatever to the item we are now considering.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the minister would be prepared to comment on this press report. It deals with this question of the possibility of equipping the CF-104 for this role which it has been allotted in NATO, and the details of which we find difficulty in securing from the minister in so far as its equipment to perform that role is concerned. The minister says that we will make a decision later and we will have the necessary equipment to perform the role a year from now, or sooner
Supply-National Defence if an emergency develops. He says this statement should be good enough for this committee. It is not good enough for NATO, though he will not admit that.
I put these words of the Prime Minister's on the record this afternoon, but they have a relationship to this particular aspect of the problem. The Prime Minister said in Edmonton on February 25 that there was a report to which some credence should be attached. The Prime Minister stated the nuclear warheads, if they were required, could be made available in half an hour or an hour. Will the minister explain how that could be done in respect of a decision to change the equipment of the CF-104?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, that has no relevance to the matter under discussion, either. It is again a matter upon which I do not think it would be proper for me to comment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What could be more relevant to this issue? The minister says that the government has not made up its mind as to how these planes are to be equipped to do the job, but the government will make up its mind in due course if an emergency should develop or at any time in the next year or so before the planes are delivered. A decision will have to be made, then, whether or not to use nuclear warheads on this particular plane. The Prime Minister gave a report that these warheads could be made available in an hour or a half an hour. Is that the case, and if so how could that be done? The minister says that this is not relevant to the problem at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All I would say with regard to that is that the Prime Minister did not say this was the case. The newspaper report the Leader of the Opposition read stated the Prime Minister said there had been a report to that effect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then the Prime Minister gave credence to that report in the statement he made about it. When the Prime Minister of this country gives credence to such an important statement as that, that nuclear weapons can be made available in an hour or a half an hour, we have a right to ask the minister some questions on that point. Perhaps the minister will tell us how this can be done.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the vote carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Surely, before we are asked to vote the expenditures required in these circumstances, we should at least be extended the courtesy of being told in this committee what the Prime Minister has told the Progressive Conservatives of Alberta.

Supply-National Defence
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the minister would tell the committee whether or not, in his opinion, Canada is well defended by the Bomarc base at North Bay in its present state of readiness?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Once more, Mr. Chairman, that has nothing to do with the vote under consideration. The hon. gentleman is merely trying to make a little trouble by asking questions of this kind.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister state his opinion in respect of the CF-101 and say if it would be a more effective defensive weapon for NORAD if it were armed with atomic missiles? This is a straightforward, honest question. Can we not get an honest answer?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would cite the rule of repetition, Mr. Chairman. I have already given an answer to that question at least five or six times this session.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in Edmonton, in giving information to a Conservative meeting, a political meeting, the Prime Minister made certain very important and specific statements. Now, we are trying to find out in this committee of the House of Commons what is meant by those statements and the minister refuses to give such information to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has said that this change could be made in one hour or half an hour. We ask the minister to elaborate on how that can be done, if it can be done or to deny the report and say it cannot be done.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Prime Minister never said any such thing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will put on the record what he said. This article has appeared in four or five newspapers and it has not been denied. The statement was made some weeks ago at a press conference. The article from which I am quoting is a Canadian Press dispatch appearing in the Toronto Globe and Mail. A reporter had asked whether or not Canada could get nuclear warheads fast enough from the United States in the event of war if Canada did not already have them, and the article states:
Mr. Diefenbaker stated he could not reply to that 1 or security reasons. He added he had read a recent report that nuclear warheads could be made available in half an hour or an hour and indicated there was some credence in this report.
I ask the minister, in respect of this CF-104 or the Voodoo, how could that be done? I particularly ask the minister whether that could be done in the absence of a political agreement with the United States providing for joint control of these nuclear weapons,

and I ask if that agreement could be made in an hour or half an hour?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a very serious matter indeed. The newspapers, who took the Prime Minister at his word, produced these articles stating that it was, in fact, physically possible to transport nuclear warheads from wherever they may be in the United States to wherever they may be required in Canada, to install them and use them within something like a period of half an hour or an hour. The minister, for the sake of clarity in this situation, should advise the committee tonight that this is, in fact, nonsense, and that it cannot be done. We would ask that the minister now clarify the situation for us.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to read this
vote again. It says:
Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment-
This vote is for the Royal Canadian Air Force. Surely, the minister would admit that these objects about which we are talking, and for which we would be getting warheads, are major items of equipment. They have been purchased at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer and we are being asked to vote another $31 million; yet the minister refuses to tell us what he is going to do with this major equipment, or even what could be done with it. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, information has been given on this matter by the Prime Minister to the privileged circles of a Progressive Conservative association meeting in Edmonton. Surely this is an odd way for the Prime Minister to be restoring the rights of parliament about which he talked so much only five years ago.
I submit to you, sir, as a point of order, that the minister should not be allowed to shelter behind this kind of silence when he is here begging us to vote $31 million of the taxpayers' money, and yet he will not tell us how it is going to be used.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, no, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Nielsen:: I rise not to participate in the discussion that is going on but simply to make an observation. I find it very strange indeed that while our Secretary of State for External Affairs is in Geneva attending disarmament talks-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order; I cannot find that the comments of the hon. member for Yukon are related to the item under discussion.


Erik Nielsen: I find it odd that the Leader of the Opposition and this group should be advocating arming Canadian aircraft with nuclear warheads under the existing circumstances taking place at Geneva.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; that is a complete 100 per cent misrepresentation of my position, and the hon. member knows it of course. You sir, have stated that it would be out of order in this particular discussion to have a general discussion of general defence policy. I hope that opportunity will come soon and then our policy will be made known. Meanwhile on this particular item for the purchase of these planes we have the right on this side of the house to find out from the government how these planes are going to be armed and equipped. We are attempting to do that, but without any success whatsoever.
Two years ago when this role was undertaken by the government-this we know perfectly well and so does the minister although he will not tell the committee-it was understood that this role required the use of nuclear weapons. That was understood in NATO. The minister talked that way when he himself was in Paris and we have lots of clippings to put on the record to that effect. We were also told two years ago when this role was undertaken that they were holding discussions with the United States, that these discussions would be required to bring about an agreement for the use of nuclear weapons by Canada. In fact we were told that these discussions had almost come to a conclusion. Now two years later we are told there were no such discussions, and we are also told by the minister that no decision has been reached and no decision is contemplated as to whether the Royal Canadian Air Force will be equipped to do the job it is set to do in NATO.
We objected to this role when it was first brought before the house. My hon. friend from Trinity said this was the wrong kind of job for the R.C.A.F. because it would require nuclear warheads. The government, against our advice, decided to purchase C-104's for that purpose and we objected to that. Now they will not tell us which kind of equipment is being given to the R.C.A.F. to discharge this very dangerous and responsible role, ai when we try to find out from the govi ment hon. gentlemen opposite get up and1 say we are advocating nuclear weapons for the Canadian forces. In actual fact we are trying
Supply-National Defence to find out whether the government are in a position to give the R.C.A.F. any weapons at all to discharge its job.
The Prime Minister says, "Oh, yes, when the war comes we will have the ammunition, we will have the armaments, we can get them in an hour." That was one of the most preposterous statements made by any member of a government in this house. The minister knows it; everybody knows it; and the Prime Minister knows it, but he does not mind making it just the same. Yet when we give the minister a chance to make a statement and thus let him try to get the Prime Minister off the hook, he sits in silence. He was not so silent a year ago when he was talking about the desirability of nuclear weapons-


Mr. Slogan:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, before the Leader of the Opposition goes into orbit I wonder if you could rule on the rule of relevancy in supplementary estimates, that it is necessary to limit the debate namely to the increase and it is not proper to discuss the original item. I have not been able to relate his remarks to the original item, much less the increase.


Mr. Habel:: That is because you do not know what the original item was.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You do not know what we are talking about.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Before I recognize the hon. member for Cochrane or the hon. member for Trinity, whoever rises first, I have not found that the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition was out of order as far as he had gone up to this moment, and should he go out of order I would be very grateful to hon. members of the committee if they will raise that on a point of order, or indeed I shall raise it myself if I feel the same way.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: While the hon. member for Yukon was speaking I inquired why we were asked to vote this money and I was told by the hon. member for Cariboo that it was none of our business. That is the way the government is really going-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think it might help the committee if we refreshed our memories a bit with respect to the background of statements made by the government on this very important matter. On February 20, 1959, at page 1223 of Hansard the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
The government is, therefore, examining with the United States government questions connected with the acquisition of nuclear warheads for Bomarc and other defensive weapons for use by

Supply-National Defence the Canadian forces in Canada, and the storage of warheads in Canada . ..
We are confident that we shall be able to reach formal agreement with the United States on appropriate means to serve the common objective.
s'The TjCestion, Mr. Chairman, is whether these are still the common objectives or not? If they are, why is there such a delay in achieving them?
Then on March 10, 1959, as reported at page 1775 of Hansard, Mr. Diefenbaker answered a question about a New York Times story which stated that Canada and the United States had reached agreement in principle on the formula for joint control of nuclear weapons. On that occasion he said:
-The article appearing in the New York Times is inaccurate in a number of details... I would draw the attention of the house to the statement I made in this regard on February 20. I indicated then that it would be some time before nuclear weapons would and indeed could be available for use by Canadian forces.
Then on April 30, 1959, as reported at page 3180 of Hansard Mr. Diefenbaker again replied to a question as to whether agreement had been reached. The question had been asked by the Leader of the Opposition and in his reply the Prime Minister said:
I assure him that the whole subject will be dealt with very shortly-
I emphasize the Prime Minister's words "very shortly". That was in 1959. On July 2,


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am again apologetic for interrupting the hon. member for Trinity, but I am trying to hold the committee very closely to the item under discussion this evening. I think we got off to a very good start and I do not want to be considered unfair to other hon. members who might want to get into more general policy and into international agreements and things of that nature. For that reason I feel I should rise and ask the co-operation of the hon. member.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that as you have done in the past when you were occupying the chair very fairly and forthrightly, you would agree when we are voting money for the acquisition of supersonic interceptors to be used for the defence of North America and the defence of this country, it is relevant to discuss whether or not they should be armed with nuclear devices, particularly when we have been told by members of the government that it was necessary for this to be done in order that they would reach their maximum potential, and when we have been told by the commander in chief of the North American air defence command that it was necessary. Indeed the minister in days gone by said

he agreed with the commander in chief of the North American air defence command.
On July 22, 1959, the former minister of defence said with reference to the Prime Minister's statement of February 20, about-
-entering into a series of negotiations with the U.S. in order to arrange the details of the storing of and equipping our forces-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to rise again as I feel I made it clear without being too arbitrary in making a ruling-I do not want to necessarily have to do that- but I feel that matters of international agreement and so on come within the very broad scope of defence policy generally and indeed move into the area of external affairs. For that reason I feel out of fairness to other hon. members of the committee that unless I hold the hon. gentleman from Trinity closely to the item under consideration, the whole debate might reach into very broad areas of discussion and my job would be made all the more difficult if I allowed that to happen.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With the greatest deference, Mr. Chairman, surely it is not inappropriate nor can it be considered a matter of foreign affairs to discuss how aircraft to be stationed on Canadian soil, flown by Canadian airmen, are to be equipped. If this is not relevant, nothing is relevant.


An hon. Member:: Not even you.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister advise the committee if the common objectives referred to by the Prime Minister in February, 1959 remain the common objectives of the two countries.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the common objectives of the two countries and of all the countries of the NATO alliance are to preserve peace and prevent aggression on the part of the communist world. Those remain the common objectives of all of us in the west.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister explain to the committee, then, why the United States would entertain an agreement under which it would supply Bomarc missiles to Canada, at what the government has described as a negligible cost, if they were merely to be stationed at North Bay on their launching pads without any warheads of any kind.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, it is quite evident that the hon. member for Trinity and the Leader of the Opposition have been trying to get me to make a statement yes or no-and these are the words they put the question in-on whether or not we are

going to acquire nuclear warheads for certain weapons system which we have acquired. That question has been dealt with, and dealt with exhaustively, several times in the past. Hon. gentlemen opposite, and everybody in Canada who has paid any attention to this matter, know what that answer is. I have already given it twice or three times here today.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What is the answer?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have given it on numerous occasions in the past and I do not think I should be expected to give it time after time after time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister advise the committee if it is his intention to obtain conventional warheads for the Bomarc missiles?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a serious question, Mr. Chairman, and the minister's refusal to answer this question is contempt of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He is coming here and asking for millions of dollars to be expended and he refuses to give this committee the information to which it is entitled. We demand of him now to give us some answers, or else he will be called upon to reckon before the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the only contempt of parliament which is being exhibited here is on the part of the hon. member for Trinity and others on that side of the chamber who completely ignore the rule regarding repetition and go on making the same speeches and asking the same questions to which they have already had answers time after time after time.


Mr. McCleave:: The same stupid questions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister gets very angry-


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are getting angry.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -when we try to find out from him on what we are spending $31 million. We are asking him what kind of major equipment we are buying with this $31 million. We are asking him whether this major equipment can be made effective, whether it can be used. The minister said he has given the answer several times. The answer has been given, in so far as there is one, by the Prime Minister and ministers outside this house, and the only answers they give
Supply-National Defence outside the house are, "When the emergency develops, if we get into war, then we will decide; we will do it then".
It takes 17 minutes for an intercontinental ballistic missile from Asia to reach North America. During those 17 minutes the minister will decide whether or not the Bomarc missile is to have a nuclear warhead. During those 17 minutes he has also to decide whether it is possible to get an agreement with the United States government to make possible the acquisition of nuclear warheads. He has got 17 minutes to do all that. We ask him how he is going to do it and he says, "We have given you the answers several times". The answer is one that makes the government, of course, ridiculous in this situation. They would be ridiculous if it were not such a serious situation.
We have millions of dollars being spent on the F-104; we have millions of dollars being spent on the 101; we have millions of dollars being spent on the Bomarc, and we are not being told how these weapons are to be used. All we are told is that a decision will be made in the future, perhaps when the emergency develops. That is the most absurd statement on defence policy ever made by any government in this house or outside this house. I cannot think of any stronger words to describe the absurdity of the policy than those the minister has used in years gone by, and not so very many years gone by-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: However-


Henry Frank Jones: Watch your voice.


An hon. Member:: Don't get excited.


Lester Bowles Pearson: However, that is the minister's position, "We will get that in an hour; we will get it in half an hour; we will get it in 17 minutes. Wait till the war starts and then we will decide whether we will give our weapons ammunition". That is the government's defence policy in 1962.


An hon. Member:: What did you do in the
last war?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Canadian war effort from 1939 to 1945 is not one that hon. gentlemen, who perhaps know very little about it, can criticize. We would be in a fine position, if we ever got into an emergency now, to go down to Washington and ask permission from Washington to get the ammunition that we bought off them. That is a fine and creditable position for the Canadian government to put this country in. When we give the minister a chance to explain this he says, "I have told you several times already". Perhaps it is just

Supply-National Defence as well that he does not try to repeat it, because it does not get more impressive by repetition.
Let me ask the minister something about the continental defence squadrons. Would he tell the committee how many squadrons there are at present, whether they are all now equipped with the Voodoos, and what will be the function of these squadrons in the months ahead?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, all five of the 101-B squadrons are now formed. Three of them are in their ultimate locations and are in operational use; the other two are still undergoing training.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is that to be the extent of our continental defence-five Voodoo squadrons? That is the total strength?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Plus two Bomarc squadrons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Two Bomarc squadrons and five Voodoo squadrons. Perhaps the minister will recall that a short time ago, on January 19, the secretary of defence of the United States, when talking to a congressional committee about continental defence and referring to SAGE, had this to say:

SAGE is the whole Bomarc, interceptors, continental defence complex:
SAGE, however, will continue to perform a very useful and important function in peacetime and in the pre-air battle period, primarily surveillance of our air space. In peacetime, we must still continue to check out intrusions of our air space and this SAGE already does quite well.
Would the minister agree with that interpretation of the function of continental defence at this time, so far as aircraft are concerned?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know what interpretation the hon. member means. I do not know whether or not he knows what SAGE means. The SAGE system, as a matter of fact, is a means of controlling interceptors, either Bomarc missiles or fighters, and directing them on to their targets, and so on. That is the essential purpose for which SAGE exists. What the hon. member means by interpretation, I do not know. I would not know unless I took a look at it very carefully.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister would explain this to the committee. If an alert were sounded at this moment-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You would run.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -what would he do, minute by minute, to obtain the nuclear warheads necessary for the Bomarc missiles and putting them in their places at North Bay?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote No. 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, no. Surely, if the Prime
Minister can refer to the possibility of obtaining weapons in half an hour the minister can extend us the courtesy of explaining just how this could be done. He should explain to the committee the mechanics by which this could be done if he expects us to take this statement seriously.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that this is a matter of the greatest importance not only to this committee but to the country. One finds it difficult to believe that in the minds of some in this committee tonight there is a ready acceptance of the vital potential importance of this matter, when we note the reaction to observations made by members of the opposition on the part of those sitting on the ministerial benches and of those who sit behind the ministers.
We are discussing what is perhaps the most important question we have discussed in this chamber during the present session of parliament. Despite this, however, all we get from hon. gentlemen opposite is a resistance, by their interruptions, to observations which are made from this side of the committee. Hon. gentlemen may not agree with what we are saying but, surely, in a matter of this importance we have a right to be heard without these interruptions and disorderly interventions.
We are discussing the question of war and peace. The Prime Minister himself is the one who laid down the basis of this discussion. Let it be known to the people of Canada that if it is the wish of hon. gentlemen opposite that in the discussion of this matter we should be confronted with this kind of resistance-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Murdo William Martin: Somebody said "nonsense". Listen to what the Prime Minister said, and see if that is nonsense. It is the basis of this discussion. As the Leader of the Opposition has reminded us, the Prime Minister said in Edmonton:
Should war come, are we going to arm Canadians with bows and arrows?
He was not talking about political war. He was talking about nuclear war involving the destruction of the civilization of the world, the destruction of Canadian men and women as well as our armed forces. That is what the Prime Minister was discussing, yet someone says "nonsense". The questions put to the Minister of National Defence by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Trinity were intended to ascertain whether or not the statement of the

Prime Minister could be implemented under current defence policy and given full effect.
There is no quarrel with the basic statement made by the Prime Minister-"Should war come, are we going to arm Canadians with bows and arrows?". The advent of war is something which we are all working against. Then the Prime Minister went on to say:
Canada has 65 interceptor aircraft which would be more effective with nuclear weapons. The same applies to the two Bomarc anti-aircraft bases being built in this country.
Then, to show the solemnity of the situation he envisaged as being potential, and which he, along with every other civilized man and woman, hopes will never eventuate, he added:
Should war come we must have available the necessary instrument.
That is the eventuality which we are now discussing. The Leader of the Opposition is not engaging at this moment in a discussion of Canada's policy with regard to nuclear weapons. We are not discussing whether or not there has been any conflict between the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to nuclear policy at this time. That is not the subject under discussion. The Prime Minister was talking about the eventuality of war, and in that context he affirmed his belief that our Canadian forces must have available the necessary instruments. And in the context of modern armament developments, the necessary instruments are nuclear weapons. Now, surely, we are entitled to demand from the Minister of National Defence before this item receives the sanction of parliament an answer to the question: how are we to have these necessary instruments made available to us? We asked this question of the minister because these are his estimates and because the Prime Minister is not here tonight to elucidate the statement which he made in this regard. But we have had no reply from the Minister of National Defence. The hon. gentleman keeps saying that this question has been put to him over and over again, and that he has given a reply over and over again. In fact, he has not answered the questions put to him by two hon. members on this side of the committee. He has walked out of this chamber even as this discussion has been going on, and is now standing behind the curtain when he should be in his place addressing himself to the question before us.


An hon. Member:: Where were you last week?


Egan Chambers: On a point of order, I think it should be pointed out that never has the hon. member for Essex East spoken for so
Supply-National Defence short a time that an hon. member could not go behind the curtain for a few moments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad we are having these interjections-


Mr. Monleilh (Perth):: You are a stinker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -being made by the hard-working Minister of National Health and Welfare. Let them be placed on the record as an indication of the concern which members of this committee and of this government are displaying toward this vital question of possible nuclear war and the capacity of the Canadian armed forces to meet that kind of eventuality. Let these observations go on the record.


An hon. Member:: Where were you last week?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say that the Prime Minister assumed the proper role of prime minister in indicating to the Canadian people what might eventuate and what he thought would likely happen. But in that case it is the responsibility of the government to anticipate what must be undertaken in order to protect the Canadian people against the catastrophe of nuclear war. He said:
If war does come, we must have available the necessary instruments


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you ruled some time ago that we should not have a general debate on defence. The hon. member for Essex East has been doing nothing else but attempting to carry on such a debate. He stated we are discussing the most important question that has been before the house this session. Well, the question which is before the committee is the provision of an increase in an estimate which has already been voted, an estimate to increase the money voted for the acquisition of certain engines, aeroplanes, spare parts and so on for the Royal Canadian Air Force. The hon. member for Essex East is attempting to convert this into a general discussion on nuclear weapons and their acquisition or otherwise-


Murdo William Martin: I am not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and in consequence I think he is out of order and should be called to account by the Chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word on the point of order which the minister has raised. The minister talks about this as being an addition to a vote already approved. What we are being asked to vote here is $31 million, which is an increase of nearly 14 per cent over the original vote. That is not an insignificant addition. My hon. friend from Essex East was discussing exclusively the subject

Supply-National Defence of this vote, that is to say whether or not the aircraft which are to be built with this money are going to be armed in a certain fashion. The Prime Minister went to a Progressive Conservative association meeting since the vote-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was straying beyond the point of order raised by the Minister of National Defence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: May I have the ear of the members of the committee just for a moment. Obviously the difficulty of the Chair is in differentiating between what is proper for consideration under a narrow item such as this one by way of supplementary estimates as opposed to the broader discussion that is permissible under item No. 1 of the main estimates of any particular department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order, please. I would ask to be allowed to finish what I was saying. I am not going to make a ruling. I am only asking for the co-operation of members of the committee so that there is not an encroachment by one who is more skilful to the detriment of one of the other members of the committee. Out of respect for the hon. member for Essex East I rose only to make these few comments. I should be glad to hear the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who is also a very experienced member. However, I am only asking the committee in general and any particular member who has the floor to endeavour to make it as easy as possible for the Chair to differentiate between what is normal discussion on item No. 1 of departmental main estimates as opposed to what is discussed under the supplementary etimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope I may be permitted to complete what I was about to say as it is directly related to this matter. I say that since the main estimate was passed a very important statement has been made by the head of the government outside the house about this very item. That statement was not about any general defence policy but about this precise item and it was made outside the House of Commons. Yet in this forum of the Canadian people where both parties, the opposition and the government, are represented it is suggested by the Minister of National Defence, who is asking us to vote this money, that we must not discuss what the Prime Minister said outside the house about this particular item. He suggests that we must not discuss it in the House of Commons. A few years ago hon. gentlemen opposite including the

Minister of National Defence, talked about closure. However, no closure that has ever been suggested in this House of Commons compares with what the minister is now suggesting on this particular item. If the Prime Minister can discuss this item outside of the House of Commons and give new information which was never given by the minister in the house, surely we are entitled to have an elucidation of that information by the responsible minister, if he has any responsibility here in the House of Commons.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have listened to what you have just said, Mr. Chairman; I am sure you will find that I have no intention of veering from the area of discussion which you think is proper at the moment.
We have had it established that the Prime Minister was visualizing what could happen in the event of a third world war in which nuclear weapons would be used. He suggested -and in my judgment quite properly-that the Canadian armed forces must be equipped with the best possible weapons. We are not talking about nuclear weapons in Canada in the context of the discussion represented by the division of opinion which prevails between the Minister of National Defence and his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This is not the issue now under discussion. We are simply asking the minister what steps the Prime Minister had in mind when he said we could obtain these weapons as readily as possible. Indeed, he said we could obtain them within a very short time, namely half an hour. We are entitled to an explanation from the minister. As we all know, nuclear weapons now in the control of the United States under the law of that country cannot escape the monopolistic custody of the government of that country or its agents. The question of joint control is a matter which Mr. Rusk said the other day is open to negotiation. That statement suggests that some arrangement could be made between the United States and Canada with regard to the matter of joint control. We are entitled to have from the Minister of National Defence some comment on this phase of the matter. Is that arrangement what is in contemplation? If that arrangement is in contemplation, when does the government propose to take steps to make available within half an hour, as the Prime Minister said, these weapons which he said were essential in order to endow our military forces with the best possible weapons?
Surely this a simple question which even the Minister of National Defence cannot seek to convince us he has not understood. I am sure that he has understood it. I am equally sure that it is his responsibility to tell us

what the answer is. The minister is asking us to vote certain moneys. The minister is not a dictator. He may sometimes act as one, but he is not a dictator. He is a servant of the people. He is a servant of parliament. We have a right to elicit from him this information. He can sit in his seat and refuse to give it. He can look irritated. He can look offended. Those are the privileges of human beings sittings in this House of Commons. However, if he wishes to do his duty he has no right to refuse this information to parliament. If he persists in refusing to give answers to questions which have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Trinity, then the hon. member for Trinity was justified in saying that the minister is treating this house with contempt. The minister stands in contempt of this house, and as a result he stands in contempt of the Canadian people. The minister has no other course open to him but to answer us or to say that on the grounds of strict security no responses can be given to these questions. That is not the position taken by the Prime Minister. However, if the minister says this, we shall be obliged to consider the position in which we find ourselves. However, that is not the defence that the minister offers. He simply refuses to say anything. That is the position in which we have been placed tonight as a result of this arrogant conduct on the part of this uncommunicative Minister of National Defence.


Mr, Harkness:: The hon. member for Essex East has followed the course which is almost invariably followed by him in this House of Commons, namely that of misinterpreting and misrepresenting newspaper stories and so forth. He has said repeatedly that the Prime Minister has stated that we could secure nuclear warheads in half an hour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Prime Minister said nothing of the kind. The newspaper report read by the Leader of the Opposition made that matter abundantly clear. The newspaper report read by the Leader of the Opposition started out by saying that the Prime Minister said that for reasons of security he could not state what time would be required.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then he went on to say he gave credence to the report.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, he did not say that. He said there had been some reports along this line. The hon. member for Essex East by repeating time after time that the Prime Minister said we could get nuclear warheads in half an hour, has tried to convey the impression that he had said this and that these were statements of his in quotation marks in 26207-1-127
Supply-National Defence this newspaper report, and so on; whereas the very report read by the Leader of the Opposition disproved completely the statements which the hon. member for Essex East has been making.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman. If the minister believes, as he has told us, that the Prime Minister did not say what he is reported to have said, then in fairness to the committee he must tell us what the Prime Minister actually said.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The reason for that is quite obvious. Many newspapers from coast to coast gained the very impression which can easily be obtained by reading the newspaper report. In editorial comment in many newspapers there appears something like this. This one appeared in a paper not usually unfriendly to the present Conservative administration. I refer to the Timmins daily Press. It is entitled, "Thirty Minutes is Too Long", and reads as follows:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker has at last declared his government's policy on nuclear arms. And what a policy. In a speech in Edmonton at the week end he stated that if war broke out Canadian forces would be armed with nuclear weapons. So Canada will wait until an attack is launched before it even gets the means to fight back.
Asked whether the weapons would arrive fast enough from the United States in the event of war, if Canada didn't already have them, Mr. Diefenbaker said he could not reply for security reasons. He stated, however, that nuclear warheads for Canada's 65 Voodoo interceptors and Bomarc missiles could be made available in 30 minutes or an hour.
This is not a fiction that the opposition is creating, Mr. Chairman. This is an impression which is widespread in the country and which has been reported in other newspapers. Many newspapers have written editorials about it, including many which are friendly to the government. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has so rightly stated, the Prime Minister has introduced a new policy and he has introduced it in the most unlikely of places, outside of the House of Commons in a speech to a Progressive Conservative association meeting in Edmonton.
We have the right to know how this policy was arrived at. We have the right to know whether it is feasible. We have the right to know by what means it may be implemented, and raises many questions which are pertinent to the vote now before us. For example, technical people who are familiar with these weapons, the F-101 and the Bomarc missile, have stated to us without

Supply-National Defence any secrecy whatever that the possibility of getting nuclear warheads in 30 minutes to an hour is just absolute nonsense; and that is a direct quotation. It this is absolute nonsense, let us hear from the minister what the proposal actually is.
Also, Mr. Chairman, on the question of some agreement with the United States we were told by the previous minister in 1959-


Gordon Minto Churchill: What has this to do with the item?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -that we are fast reaching the stage where an exchange of notes will be possible with the United States. Have we reached the stage where an exchange of notes is possible? Is it part of the new agreement that weapons stored in the United States will be carried to Canada once war has been announced? The minister should give the committee the benefit of his knowledge in this matter.
One can envisage what might happen. Mr. Khrushchev might telephone the President of the United States and say, "Mr. President, our missiles are on the way over. Will you phone John and tell him?" "Who?" "John." "Who?" "The Prime Minister of Canada. Will you telephone the Prime Minister of Canada and tell him that the war has started and it is time for him to go and get nuclear warheads that he alleges he needs for the defence of Canada?"
There have been those who have said that continental defence in the missile age is a myth, but the minister by inference at least in asking us to spend millions of dollars for continental defence still believes that it is a valid defence posture. If the minister believes it is a valid defence posture, he must believe that the weapons under his control should be armed in their most effective manner. He has told us in times gone by, we were told by the previous minister and we have been told by the Prime Minister as recently as a week or two ago in Edmonton that in order to accomplish this it is necessary for nuclear devices to be employed. Are we to obtain these nuclear devices for our continental defence or are we not? This is the question to which the minister must address himself because if he does not the whole concept of his expenditure in relation to continental defence is just absurd.
If the minister feels as strongly on this subject as we are led to believe he does, if within the cabinet he is in direct conflict with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and if the minister feels it is essential that these weapons should be equipped with nuclear warheads, he should resign from the cabinet and tell the Canadian people what his views really are. That is the honourable course


for him to take. If he does not agree with this waffling policy being followed by the government, let him resign and say so and tell us the basis on which his resignation is to take effect.


An hon. Member:: Headline hunter.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister cannot expect this item to carry without giving the committee some information with respect to the intention of the government in this very serious matter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the speech just made by the member for Trinity indicates how far from this item the discussion has strayed. Members of the Liberal party have been going around in circles for the last hour and twenty minutes since we resumed this discussion at eight o'clock-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because of your intransigence.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -attempting to carry on a
general debate on defence and particularly in connection with the matter of the acquisition of nuclear weapons. I stated very plainly, clearly and simply that this was not a matter for debate at this time and that I did not propose to make any statement of government policy in connection with it. Members of the opposition know very well that this is a matter of general government policy-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is much too general.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and that in discussing this particular item there is not going to be any announcement made of any change in government policy from that which has been stated and restated time after time for the past several months.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has adopted his usual tactics of trying to evade a perfectly reasonable request for information on our part by saying that this item has nothing to do with our request for information. How many times do we have to read the item to him to make him understand that it calls for an expenditure of $31 million for major air equipment? Surely when we are spending this amount of money for major air equipment we have the right to try to find out whether or not that equipment can be used effectively. That is the issue, Mr. Chairman, but the minister says that has nothing to do with the question and that we are not going to talk about general defence policy or anything like that.
Our interest in this matter has been especially aroused by the fact that the Prime Minister has made statements outside the house which bear on the effectiveness or

otherwise of the use of this equipment. It is perfectly certain that when the Prime Minister made his speech in Edmonton he was trying to explain a change of policy on the part of the government by which nuclear warheads would not be obtained at this time for the equipment we are talking about in the committee tonight. But to reassure people like the minister, who had said earlier that this equipment was of no value without such warheads, the Prime Minister went on to make a statement that there was a report that these nuclear warheads could be obtained within half an hour to an hour. This was a report which the Prime Minister referred to in his statement on policy to a Conservative meeting, a very important statement indeed and one which bears directly on this item.
Having made this supplementary statement about the report, he then went on to say there was some credence in this report. The word "credence" means there was some authenticity in the report. There was something in the report which made it believable. If this is the case, and the Prime Minister states that, have we not the right to ask the minister to tell us more about this statement than we have got from him so far?
If in fact this can be done, if in fact the Bomarc squadron at North Bay can be armed, if the government so decided to arm it, with nuclear warheads within an hour, that would be an entirely different situation and would have a very important bearing on our whole defence policy. If the F-101 Voodoos could be armed in that way in an hour that would make a big difference. But we know and the minister knows that this is one of the most absurd statements ever put on the record and we ask the minister to clear it up and to agree that it is an absurd statement.
The fact is, of course, that part of the money we are being asked to vote tonight will no doubt be spent on these Bomarc squadrons. These two squadrons occupy a pretty strategic place in the link of Bomarc squadrons across the continent. Presumably they were put where they are being put, in the Laurentians and at North Bay, to guard the entry into the continent, down through New York state and into the steel area of Pittsburgh and Detroit. If this Bomarc defence has any validity at all-and some of us doubt whether it has any validity at all- but if we are to take the government's position as stated that this is an important element in our defence, then those two squadrons right in the middle of that chain of defence are vital to that defence. They were put there by the Canadian government after
Supply-National Defence consultation with the United States government. They are now there, but they cannot be used because the equipment for that purpose has no ammunition.
We are being asked to vote money for these missiles without knowing whether or not these missiles could be used in an emergency because the government will not make up its mind how they are to be armed. When we keep pressing the minister for information on this vital point, he keeps on saying we are not going to discuss policy tonight; he says to parliament, you have to vote the money and we will later on decide whether or not this equipment can be used. This is the position the government has asked us to accept tonight.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you vote against it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very bright question, indeed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let us have a bright answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very bright question from the minister; it is his brightest intervention this evening. Will we vote against the estimate? All we are asking the government to tell us is what this estimate is for, and they refuse to do it.
The other element in this defence chain is the Voodoo squadrons. We are told there are to be five, but we are not to be told whether or not they are to be armed, as the government says they can only be effectively armed, with nuclear weapons. The minister has refused to give us information on that score. The Voodoo plane, which is now the equipment for this continental defence squadron, is a plane which is no longer being manufactured in the United States. It replaces the Canadian Arrow. We have a second hand United States plane replacing the Canadian Arrow, and we do not know how this second hand United States plane is going to be equipped.


An hon. Member:: That is all you know about it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I ask the minister, then, is this plane which is now the backbone of our continental squadron, now under manufacture in the United States at all or has it been given up in so far as manufacture is concerned?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition started by directing my attention to this vote. I have directed his attention, and that of various other members, to it on several occasions during this debate. I wish that he would pay some attention to the vote. He has not requested any information in connection with it. Every question he has asked tonight has

Supply-National Defence been in connection with nuclear weapons. This vote does not provide any money for any nuclear weapons whatever.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Leader of the Opposition wants nuclear weapons.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He has been talking at considerable length about the Bomarc. This item does not ask for any funds for the Bomarc, none whatever. Now, I outlined what the vote was for when we started to debate the item.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Major equipment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will repeat the purpose for which this money is being requested. It is to purchase real property, land and buildings, $50,000; aircraft and engines-this is for the CF-104-$47,200,000; ammunition and bombs -these are practice bombs-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Have you any other kind?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Bows and arrows.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -$1,261,000. Those are the items for which the money is being asked. These items total $49 million and some odd, but we have some offsetting items as I explained when we started this debate, because of the shortfall of some other items in this vote. The total amount required, therefore, is $31 million. There is not a single item here in connection with securing nuclear weapons in any shape or form. There is not anything here in connection with the Bomarc. These are all the matters about which the Leader of the Opposition and other members have been talking. They have deliberately refused to ask any questions about this vote. The Leader of the Opposition accused me of refusing to answer any questions. I have not refused to answer any questions about this item. I have not been asked any questions, except one or two by the hon. member for Trinity, about this item. All these questions have been in connection with the acquisition or non-acquisition of nuclear weapons, a subject which is not under discussion under this item and should not be under discussion under this item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the most preposterous proposition the minister has yet made. He told us that $47 million in this vote is to be spent on aircraft. Then, he says you have got to vote blind, you cannot ask a single question about how these aircraft are to be armed because none of this money is going to be spent on arms for them, except for practice bombs. In other words, to make some kind of homely comparison, it is like asking someone to buy a rifle and when he asks, "can we get ammunition for this rifle?" you say, that is none of your business; buy the rifle.


You have no right to ask whether or not there will ever be any ammunition for it; buy the rifle.


An hon. Member:: That is childish.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Do not ask any questions about it. The minister said he was asked no questions, but my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition asked him if these planes were still being manufactured. He did not answer that question. I notice he started on a tirade when that question was asked because he obviously did not want to admit that this second hand plane that he and his friends decided to buy when they decided to destroy the best plane that has ever been made, was no longer being made or bought by the United States.
As a matter of fact, when the Prime Minister said at that Progressive Conservative meeting in Edmonton that our troops were not going to be armed with bows and arrows, we could reply by saying we are not so sure about the bows because that is apparently all the ammunition that is going to be purchased for these aircraft, but we know for sure they are never going to have any arrows because the government took good care to destroy them, and destroy them without a trace.
Now, sir, I do not pretend to know anything whatever about the details of defence. However, I do know that $47 million is an awful lot of money to be taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. I feel it is a most preposterous proposition to suggest that the opposition or the supporters of the government should not ask questions about this. After all, the supporters of the government have the same duty we have, if they were doing their duty, to inquire into these expenditures-


Mr. Flynn:: We are doing our duty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No shouting by the junior minister can cover up the principle that all sides of this house are elected primarily to save the taxpayers' money. Hon. gentlemen who were elected with Tory majorities-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: How about Mr. Howe?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never heard Mr. Howe refuse to give information in this house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Take your earplugs out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never heard Mr. Claxton refuse; I never heard Mr. Campney refuse. As a matter of fact, when we were in office points of order were not raised by ministers about defence expenditures. Ministers answered questions and they kept on answering

questions. They gave every bit of information except such bits of information as could not be given for security reasons.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is completely false.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They certainly did not deny information. Of course, then we had a prime minister who did not make these irresponsible statements. Here, the Prime Minister goes out to Edmonton and makes a statement. For what purpose did he make that statement in Edmonton? He made that statement in Edmonton to create a certain impression in the public mind in this country. The impression he created, as the hon. member for Trinity showed when he read that editorial from the Timmins press, was that these armaments for these planes could be obtained in an hour or half an hour. This is what the Prime Minister sought to do. He said there were reports of this and-


An hon. Member:: You were there?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -he said credence could be given to them. The word credence means belief. In other words either the Prime Minister was acting with total irresponsibility in making that statement or he meant it to be believed. Which did he do? Was he trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian people, or did he mean that statement to be believed?


Mr. O'Hurley:: Come back to the item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are right on the item. What the Prime Minister was talking about was the armaments for these planes for which the minister is asking us to vote $47 million. That is what the Prime Minister was talking about; it was about this precise item. I know that it must be very embarrassing for the minister to have to choose between sitting there quietly or having to get up and say the Prime Minister was talking through his hat. That is the terrible alternative which the minister faces. He has to sit there silent or get up and tell us what the facts are, and that would mean he has to describe what the Prime Minister said as nonsense, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier it was, and as the experts described it.
I think it is patent to anybody with any kind of experience that even if these weapons could be got in an hour it would take more than an hour to train men to use them. It is not only nonsense, it is irresponsible nonsense. It seems to me it is not only nonsense but much worse than that for the Prime Minister of this country, the leader of the house, to go to another place outside this house and make statements about the most fundamental of all our policies, the security of our people, and for the government to refuse to explain those 26207-1-128
Supply-National Defence statements in this house, to refuse to say what they really mean, to refuse to say what the position really is.
We are not asking the minister now whether he has made a decision about whether they are going to get nuclear weapons. We are asking him to tell us how quickly we can get them if we want them, and how quickly they could train the men to use them.
Before agreeing to buy these planes we should know how long it would take to get effective weapons for them. I shall not repeat what the Leader of the Opposition has already read, but I ask how long it would take to get them and whether they could be got legally at all at the present time-how long it would take and how long it would take for the men who are going to use them to be taught how to use them? Surely that is a most reasonable, simple and obvious question to ask before we vote $47 million to be spent on a plane made in another country, because this government saw fit not merely to destroy a plane but to destroy the whole complex by which it could be made in this country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate has displayed all his usual inaccuracies and lack of logic in the remarks he just made. He said this question was the most basic policy question facing the Canadian people, but just a little while ago he was arguing that all this talk was germane to this item; and as I pointed out this item has nothing to do with question of nuclear warheads.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has to do with getting the planes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is one thing I must comment on. The hon. member said he did not know much about defence or defence matters. He certainly demonstrated this was the case. He proved it, by saying that in securing the 101 we secured an obsolete, second hand fighter, and so forth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that at all. I said it was a plane which is no longer being made.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is what you said, and somebody else over there mentioned the same thing. I would point out that this is the most up to date, two-seater, long range fighter in existence in any air force. It is the most up to date-


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is no longer being made.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is the most up to date long range fighter plane in the United States or any other air force.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Thanks to the co-operation of the Canadian government in destroying the Arrow.

Supply-National Defence


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Which you were going to destroy, yourself.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is so up to date that the capabilities of the plane are still on the secret list and have never been given out. Such a statement by the hon. gentleman from Bonavista-Twillingate indicates his lack of knowledge in regard to this matter, and he referred back to the greatest mistake ever made in defence ordering. This was to order and start putting into production the Arrow aircraft which cost this country a very large amount of money and which, if carried through, would have cost an enormous amount of money and would have resulted in practically cutting out all other defence expenditures, or bringing in a large increase in taxes. It was the worst mistake ever made in regard to securing defence equipment.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I did not hear the minister. Did the minister say this Voodoo plane is now being manufactured in the United States?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is not being manufactured at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what I said.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact the planes we got came off the production line not so very long ago, and the fact that there are no further ones being manufactured now has nothing to do with the performance of this plane or whether it is up to date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The fact that the plane is not being manufactured at all at the moment shows that the Americans have given up on that plane, and that is the end of that plane so far as manufacture is concerned. The facts speak for themselves. It may be a first class plane, but it is not really a first class plane when the Americans have given up manufacturing it.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister say if there is anything included in this item for acquisition of manual control back up radars as an alternative means of controlling our air defence in the event that the majority of our SAGE installations have been wiped out?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not in this estimate.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Before it does I wonder would the minister just tell us the reply to this question. Is he asking us to vote money for the F-101 not knowing whether it will ever

be equipped with an atomic missile which in his opinion, as he stated earlier, it has to have if it is to reach its full potential?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman. Just give the minister a moment to reflect on the question.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have one more simple question. Is the minister asking us to vote funds for the acquisition of the F-104 without knowing whether it will ever be equipped with
atomic missiles in order to perform the strike attack role for which the aircraft were originally purchased?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before it does, will the minister admit that these questions are relevant to the item under discussion?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just a minute. Would the minister say if there are any armaments being bought at the present time for the F-104?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the 104's have only begun to come off the production line and we are just setting up training facilities to train the crews to operate them. They will not be going into operation for a year and, as I said several times before, the matter of securing armaments for them is not an urgent matter at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the matter of securing armaments is not urgent surely the question of what kind of armaments will be secured is urgent because it affects the decision as to whether or not we should proceed with this expenditure?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Vote against it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister has cast aspersions on the decision to commence the construction of the Avro Arrow. He did this many times before. He did it on the west coast, in Victoria, when he was out there during a by-election. He has said that it was the greatest mistake Canada ever made, and so on, notwithstanding the fact that when the cancellation was made the Prime Minister had told the house that it was in complete good faith.


Mr. Pugh:: What did Mr. Howe say?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The question of the cancellation of the Arrow came up by way of analogy previously. I hope

that the committee will not get into a general debate on something that is already in the past.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I promise you that I shall not, but I just wanted to make this comparison. Here we are embarking upon another program and the total commitment involves at least half a billion dollars. If the minister and the government have no intention that these carriers shall ultimately fulfil the role for which they were being manufactured, then we are embarking upon another $500 million fiasco, and the time for us to be told is now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Henry Frank Jones: He has admitted it.


An hon. Member:: Don't correct Hansard on that one.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman, I will not correct Hansard on that one. It was a fiasco because in cancelling it at the time that they did, and in the manner in which they did, this government did more damage to the industrial potential of this country than could be deliberately achieved by any government in a decade, and they know it; and the people have been scattered to the four corners of the earth and a whole generation of young Canadians have lost faith in their country as a result.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am only interrupting the hon. member again because I want to be fair, and I hope he will be fair to the Chair in not bringing in a subject that is not relevant to the item under consideration in little bits and pieces. Perhaps he could come back to the item and give his co-operation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am very sorry; I have no intention of embarking upon a debate on the Avro Arrow at this late stage even though I noticed that Your Honour did not interrupt the minister when he introduced it into the debate-


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who introduced it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: However, the question of comparison is a valid one. We are embarking upon a commitment of half billion dollars and we have no guarantee whatsoever by the government that the purpose of the expenditure will be as was represented at the time when we embarked upon it. This is a serious omission. Furthermore, if we carry the comparison to its ultimate, in purchasing this $500 million worth of aircraft and appurtenances we are diverting hundreds of millions of dollars which could be used for other purposes; which could be used for the
Supply-National Defence Canadian army in the acquisition of the Are power and transport it needs; which could be used for transport aircraft; which could be used for fighter aircraft for air support of the ground troops; which could be used for many other things. These are the alternatives that we could turn our attention to if this money were available for other purposes.
In order to intelligently consider the alternatives we must know, and we should know, at this stage whether the government intends to proceed to the fulfilment of its obligations in respect to the strike role and arm the F-104 with atomic missiles, because without that information the committee is, if I may use this expression, flying blind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a very simple question and I am sure he will be able to answer it. It is in connection with the manufacture of the F-104. The minister has said that no decision need be taken in regard to its weapons system; that can be done later; the first aeroplane has not yet been delivered; it has not been tested; it is not going to reach the air division-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not say the first aeroplane had not been delivered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister said that the first aeroplane had not yet been delivered to the Canadian air division. Not a single aeroplane delivered, nor a decision taken to adopt this aeroplane until I do not know how long ago. In any event, would the minister answer this question. How can you manufacture, turn out and equip an aircraft without knowing what weapons system it is to have?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member had been here between half past four and five o'clock this afternoon he would have heard me say that this particular aircraft will have the capability of carrying eight different types of weapons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was here between half past four and five o'clock and I did not hear the minister say that. But that does not answer my question. Are you going to equip an aeroplane for overseas service, knowing that it can have any one of eight different weapons system, and not decide which one you are going to use in the aeroplane?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite evident that you might use different ones at different times, depending on what particular purpose you have in mind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?

Supply-National Defence


Neil Alexander Matheson: Mr. Chairman, the minister was speaking about the superiority of the equipment which has been purchased under this estimate. I am looking at an article on defence published in Saturday Night of February 18, 1961, which says:
Recently, It has even indicated that it-
Referring to the government:
-might purchase a fighter in the United States, the McDonnell Voodoo, inferior in performance to what was expected of the Arrow ... If the Voodoo was acquired, we would be back where we were at the beginning of 1959, with the only exception that the R.C.A.F. would be getting two American weapons systems for aerial defence instead of one Canadian.
Is the equipment the minister was speaking about the McDonnell Voodoo referred to in this old article of February 18, 1961?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The F-101B is referred to as the Voodoo. Whether or not it is the McDonnell Voodoo, I do not know. The Voodoo is one of the names which has generally been applied to it. I have already stated the fact that it is the most up to date interceptor aeroplane of its type that exists.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 645 carry?
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Chairman, would you call a standing vote on this item.
Item agreed to: Yeas, 82; nays, 2.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the item carried.
Pensions and other benefits-
646. To provide that George Alvin Baycroft, a former employee of Her Majesty, shall, subject to such terms and conditions as the treasury board prescribes, be deemed to have been designated a contributor pursuant to paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Public Service Superannuation Act on the 1st day of October, 1957, $1.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting to say a word on this vote. I trust I am in order, because this item refers to pensions and other benefits and I want to refer to one or two items mentioned by the Auditor General in his report which was tabled at the end of March.
The report mentioned a 27 year old corporal who was fired as an "administrative nuisance" and granted a life pension worth $27,000. Then the auditor general mentioned that a 37 year old R.C.A.F. officer-


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not like to interrupt the hon. member but this particular vote has no general application. As is indicated, it is to provide a pension for a member of the department who inadvertently, because of the regulations that existed, did not get a pension. In other words, it is to correct a mistake and
[The Deputy Chairman.]

is to provide a pension for this gentleman who should have been designated by the governor in council to have been a contributor under the superannuation act but, due to an administrative oversight, this was not done. The omission was not discovered until after his retirement and consequently for superannuation purposes under the act his employment ceased on September 30, 1957, whereas in fact it continued until August 31, 1959. This administrative error reduced his public service by one year and eleven months, so that instead of getting the pension to which he was entitled he is receiving a pension of some $12 a month less than he should be getting. This action is taken to correct that administrative omission.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If I am out of order, I will wait for the main estimates to deal with the question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
670. To authorize loans to be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years in respect of housing projects constructed, pursuant to an agreement with the Minister of National Defence, for occupancy by members of the Canadian forces; such loans to be at interest rates and in accordance with such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes-further amount required. $5,000,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister explain this vote?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is to provide for funds for the construction of housing on a loans basis. We are having constructed several housing projects in connection with which the Department of National Defence puts up the money or makes a loan to the entrepreneur to construct the houses. We agree to maintain occupancy for a certain length of time which varies from one project to another. We lend this money, and in return we have a guaranteed rate of rental which amounts in nearly all cases to approximately the same amount as is charged for permanent married quarters, a sum which varies according to the rank of the individual.
This is a means of getting these houses built without making a capital outlay as far as the department or the government are concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this an addition to the total vote, or is this money intended to be spent on some special project?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is just an addition. The sum of $22 millions has been authorized so far for this purpose. Housing projects already approved, and those approved in principle, amount to $26,254,000, so we need this extra

amount in order to finance these various housing propositions which are urgently needed and in respect of which approval in principle has already been given.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, they have been approved on the assumption that parliament would grant this money, because this is March 20 and I presume this money cannot be used for anything in the new fiscal year. Or is this a continuing fund?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Once the loan has been approved it can be made in the next fiscal year. These projects have been approved within the department and, I think, in most cases by treasury board; but before a number of them can be started there must be parliamentary approval of this extra amount.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one other point, and possibly I can get this cleared up. It may not be very important. Can the minister say whether if there were any loans approved after April 1 there would have to be a new vote for this purpose, or is this a continuing vote of money that could be used?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is a continuing vote. Although $22 million have already been approved for this purpose we are asking for a further $5 million. The amount which has been actually put out so far is only $9,784,000, but a further $16,470,000 has received treasury board approval. In some cases the projects have been started. In others approval has been given by the treasury board. In order to go ahead we need the extra money contained in this vote so as to increase the amount of the loans.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: We now turn to the supplementary estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would take items 647 and 667 which are noncontroversial and which, perhaps, could be passed tonight. Then, tomorrow, we could come to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
647. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required. $298,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the research council. Perhaps the minister could give us a word of explanation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I would be glad to. This is to provide for the acceleration of
Supply-Veterans Affairs certain construction by the national research council. There are really five items-the construction of a power line installation into the council's radio laboratory in Algonquin park, an air control plant installation at the laboratory on the Montreal road, acceleration of the vertical take-off and landing project, the erection of two-storey huts and the erection of a number of similar items of equipment by the national research council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Miscellaneous payments-
657. To deem the election made by the late Emery Leduc on the 16th day of September, 1957 to be valid for all purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act, notwithstanding that he was not medically examined as required by section 18 of the said act, and to authorize payment of benefits to his widow and children as if he had taken and passed the medical examination so required, $1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Could we have an explanation of this?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is something like the item which was just dealt with by the Minister of National Defence. It affects one individual. An error was made at the time he should have made an election with regard to his past departmental service. There was an omission in that procedure, and consequently his widow and children have been deprived of part of the superannuation allowances to which they would have been entitled had that election been correctly made. There was an error, inasmuch as the deceased did not at the proper time undergo a medical examination as required by section 18 (1) of the Public Service Superannuation Act. The action being taken now will result in a benefit to the widow and the children.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this being made retroactive to the date of the man's death?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a return of the superannuation contributions rather than a continuing pension. Apparently the amount which was returned was inaccurate. As a result of this non-election the widow and children are entitled only to a refund of his contribution in the amount of $1,100.49.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the leader of the house could say whether there is any change in the program announced last night.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope the opposition will announce a change in their method of procedure in the committee with regard to passing these estimates.


An hon. Member:: Since when?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Simply to speed things up. I know how co-operative they are.
I should like to correct a misapprehension which might arise from my announcement of the business last night. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Laurier, as reported in Hansard on page 1964, second column, having to do with the final supplementary estimates which were tabled yesterday-I think he intended to ask me if they would be taken immediately after the conclusion of these supplementary estimates-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that was his intention.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But he did not use that phrase and I did not intend that my answer would imply that they would be taken immediately after these. We will carry on tomorrow starting with mines and technical surveys, item 637.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then we will carry on consecutively from there on?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Army-
644.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $35,000,000.
Royal Canadian Air Force-
645.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment-further amount required, $31,000,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
646.	To provide that George Alvin Baycroft, a former employee of Her Majesty, shall, subject to such terms and conditions as the treasury board prescribes, be deemed to have been designated a contributor pursuant to paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Public Service Superannuation Act on the 1st day of October, 1957, $1.
670. To authorize loans to be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years in respect of housing projects constructed, pursuant to an agreement with the Minister of National Defence, for occupancy by members of the Canadian forces; such loans to be at interest rates and in accordance with such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes-further amount required, $5,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
647.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $298,000.

[Stage Direction]
Miscellaneous payments-
667. To deem the election made by the late Emery Leduc on the 16th day of September, 1957 to be valid for all purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act, notwithstanding that he was not medically examined as required by section 18 of the said act, and to authorize payment of benefits to his widow and children as if he had taken and passed the medical examination so required, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 21, 1962