1962-03-23

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that there was a defence estimate earlier this week, at which time the information could have been given to the house but was not, may I ask the minister whether he can confirm information given outside the house to the press to the effect that the acquisition of the CF-104 has been delayed five months and its cost will be increased by $30 million.


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this question should be asked of the Minister of Defence Production.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: I wish to advise the house that according to information received this morning from officials of the departments of national defence and defence production, production of the CF-104 interceptor aircraft is on schedule. We were supposed to have 80 planes delivered from the assembly line by the end of March. We shall have 84, so we are on schedule.
I wish to state also that officials of the Department of Defence Production have just advised me that the cost of the program to date is well within the estimate which was originally approved, namely, $420 million, plus $11.3 million for an additional eight dual trainers not included in the original program. I might explain that we are well within our estimate because the engine costs are below what was anticipated.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the minister's statement, will he be able to explain the statement of his colleague the Minister of National Defence that these planes will not be delivered to the squadrons in Europe until next year?


Mr. O'Hurley:: I shall be pleased to answer that question. As I said, production is on schedule. The officials of the Department of Defence Production advised me this morning that the weather for testing these planes has
been very bad for the last several months. However, 76 of these planes are now to be test flown. That is the report I received yesterday morning. The delay has been caused by bad weather conditions making it difficult to test these machines.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a further supplementary question. Would the minister now comment on the statement made in this house on September 15 last by the Minister of National Defence that the first squadron would be delivered overseas in November of this year?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: At the time the Minister of National Defence made that statement it was a correct assumption, but neither he nor anyone else anticipated there would be this very bad weather, unsuitable for the testing of the planes. That is the reason there has been this delay, and it can be verified by officials of the Department of National Defence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All due to the weather.


Mr. Hees:: Shot down again.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Five months of bad weather.


George Harris Hees: Ask another question.


An hon. Member:: How about one from Paul?


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: You would get a very interesting one.


Mr. Speaker:: When the debate is over the hon. member for Vancouver East has a question to ask.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: With all the dignified indignation at my command I should like to direct a very pertinent and important question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister noted the front page story in the Vancouver Sun under date of Wednesday, March 21, in which Mr. G. A. L. Murchison, head of Canada's unemployment insurance commission, is reported to have stated in Vancouver-my home city-that employers and workers were "conspiring to defraud the fund of millions of dollars every year" and warning that "contributions will have to be raised if the fraudulent practice is not stamped out"?

Inquiries of the Ministry
I should like to ask whether the Minister of Labour is in a position to comment on this charge made in Vancouver. Can he give the house any indication of how many millions of dollars have been lost to the fund through fraud and, finally, can he clear the good name of the vast majority of Canadian workers whom Mr. Murchison is charging with collusion?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I have not seen the original article, but it has been brought to my attention. Mr. Murchison is not the head of the unemployment insurance commission; he is one of three members. The chief commissioner is Mr. Fortier. Mr. Fortier has been in touch with Mr. Murchison with respect to this statement, and reports to me that Mr. Murchison in his own words did not make any estimate of the drain on the fund resulting from fraud committed by employers in giving false statements of reasons for separation. He was pressed to suggest a figure but declined for the reason that the extent of the irregularity was not known and could not be ascertained with any degree of accuracy.
The Canadian Press checked with Mr. Murchison yesterday morning and now know that no amount was stated. Mr. Murchison also has a copy of the statement which was used at the interview.



INQUIRY AS TO REPLENISHMENT OF FUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he can say whether or not it is a fact that the unemployment insurance commission has asked for a further amount in addition to the $25 million to replenish the unemployment insurance fund, and that this request was made at the time the original amount was decided on by the government.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps referring to facts when the things he is saying are not facts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am just asking a question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer is no. This figure was arrived at in the course of normal consultation on the part of those concerned, and it was concluded that this was a quite adequate figure to cover all likely contingencies.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the minister if a request for a larger amount was made? That was my question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: By whom?


Paul Joseph James Martin: By the unemployment insurance commission.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I have answered that question. This was a matter for discussion, and the figure that was put forward in the estimates, $25 million, was regarded by all concerned in the light of the discussion as quite adequate to meet all foreseeable contingencies.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. If he can, will the minister explain why Mr. Justice W. D. Roach, the commissioner appointed to investigate organized crime in Ontario, was not consulted before the release to the United States authorities of John Papalia, and what were the reasons for the release of Papalia to the United States authorities on March 15, 1962?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think if my hon. friend would look at the article from which he undoubtedly took his information, which article appeared in the Globe and Mail of March 21, he would see the reason Mr. Justice Roach was not consulted. There was no knowledge here that Mr. Justice Roach wished to question this man. I did consult with the attorney general of Ontario, who has made a statement as to why he did not inform Mr. Justice Roach.
The reason for Papalia's release from prison here was in order that he might be sent to the United States, an order for his extradition having been made, to stand trial on a charge of conspiracy in a very large narcotic importing racket. The United States authorities indicated to us that they wished to proceed with the trial this month or early in April, that they had a number of other accused persons ready for trial, and that it would be very much in their interests and in the interests of justice if Papalia were to stand trial at the same time, as all these accused in the United States were involved together.
We concluded that it was in the interests of justice and in accordance with the extradition treaty to release Papalia in order that the order made by His Honour Judge Forsyth for his extradition could be complied with.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it a fact that Papalia had not completed his sentence in Canada and that his counsel had asked that he not be released at this time in view of that fact?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not aware that any request was made by his counsel, Mr. Speaker. It is true that he had1 not completed his sentence, but the time for appeal had gone by.



SONS OP FREEDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to address another question to the Prime Minister. It is with regard to the Prime Minister's answer on March 21. Has he now received the resolution from the city council of Trail urging the establishment of a royal commission to explore all facets of the outbreaks of violence in the Kootenays? If so, what consideration is he giving to this important matter?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: A letter was received with the request in question. Because this is a matter that deals particularly with the administration of justice within the province, the setting up of any royal commission, I am sure, would be a matter for the provincial government of British Columbia.



SONS OF FREEDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have another question to ask the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I know he realizes how my constituents are concerned. Has the Prime Minister now received the letter from Mr. T. A. McRae to which I referred on March 21, asking that the federal and provincial governments share equally the financial losses caused by acts of terrorism? If so, what consideration is he giving to this request?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I received a communication from Mr. McRae who indicated that he was speaking on behalf of a group of persons at a meeting. No consideration has been given to this request.
The administration of justice is within the jurisdiction of the province and, sympathetic as it is to the situation in which the people of that area of British Columbia find themselves, the federal government cannot act unless the provincial government, within the provisions of the National Defence Act, calls for assistance. This being a matter which peculiarly falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial government I suggest to the hon. member that such questions could generally be directed to the government of British Columbia by those who have communicated with me.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister realize that this group he mentions is composed of members of all parties representing the whole riding, including capital, labour and agriculture?
26207-1-135
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the message received there is no identification as to the composition of the group. I thank the hon. member for giving the house that information. It was not given to me.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Triniiy-Concepiion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister been informed that foreign ships are operating inside the three mile limit killing seals at Grady, near Hamilton inlet off the coast of Labrador, and would he please have this matter investigated immediately by helicopter because of its importance to our Canadian sealers who are seal hunting in that area?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, my department has been aware of this report for some time now. We have already investigated it and found that there were no sealing vessels inside the three mile limit, but that sealers from at least one vessel had been killing seals in Canadian territorial waters. We have been assured by the Norwegian authorities that this occurrence will not happen again. I might add that we are watching the situation closely.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's reply yesterday that he has received a message from Washington, presumably concerning the ratification of the Columbia river treaty, could the Prime Minister now say whether he has replied to the United States government?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that communication was received just several days ago and no reply has been made as yet.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has returned to the house I wish to ask him whether he has

Inquiries of the Ministry anything to add to what was indicated to the house last evening by his parliamentary secretary about the negotiations with the British over the uranium contract and particularly with respect to the termination of negotiations and the price.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. As I explained in answering questions asked me by the Leader of the Opposition on several occasions in this house, the negotiations are going forward and we have hopes that they will be concluded in the reasonably near future.



THE ROYAL FAMILY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to give the house details of the visit of the Queen Mother in June?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member asked that question. I think the best way to answer it would be to simply table the press release with regard to the visit.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table the press release relating to the Queen's visit?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) asked me a question based upon an article which appeared in The Miner's Voice in which it was alleged that a person who wrote to the Prime Minister about a problem received no reply but was visited by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In the article it was also alleged that the R.C.M. Police threatened him if he wrote any further such letters.
As I undertook to do, I have investigated this matter. I am advised by the R.C.M. Police that they have absolutely no knowledge of having received a request to make such an investigation, or of having received any such letter that may have been sent to the Prime Minister. My office never referred any such letter to them. I have inquired of the Prime Minister's office and I am advised that

there is absolutely no recollection or record of any such letter having been received and referred to the R.C.M. Police for investigation.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is the difficulty with this kind of anonymous complaint. In the absence of a name it is impossible to establish with absolute accuracy that no such thing took place. However, in the absence of a name, on the basis of investigations that have been made in my office, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Prime Minister's office, I can only conclude that there is absolutely no foundation for the allegation appearing in that paper.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Air transport board-
664. Subventions for air carriers as detailed in the estimates, $300,000.
(Translation):


Mr. Bourgei:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) is not feeling well and cannot be with us this morning, for I know he would have certain questions to ask the Minister of Transport concerning the item under discussion.
Last night, in the course of his observations, the minister said this amount of $300,000 represented a monthly grant of $25,000 now being paid to the Pacific Western Airlines in respect of operation deficits suffered in the prairie provinces, where they have a line servicing Edmonton, North Battleford, Prince Albert, Saskatoon and Regina.
I should like to ask the minister why Que-becair, in the province of Quebec, has not been granted a subsidy, when, under the item we are dealing with, a private company is getting one. Why is this western company receiving a grant when Quebecair has been denied one?


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, it will be a pleasure to answer that question. But first, I should like to join with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) in wishing the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) an early recovery. I know his interest in the activities of the Department of Transport and I, too, am sure that he might have one or two questions to ask about those items this morning. I am positive that the hon. member for Levis will carry out this task with his usual skill.


Mr. Pigeon:: He replaces him very well.


Léon Balcer: Now, Mr. Chairman, I come back to my hon. friend's question. He asked why we granted that subsidy to the Pacific Western Airlines Company and why we had not seen fit to grant one as yet to the Que-becair Company.
In the case of the Pacific Western Airlines Company, it is a subsidy for a particular route. As I said last night, Pacific Western Airlines took over that route in 1957, after the withdrawal of the Canadian Pacific Airlines. At the time, the company was getting a rather substantial subsidy from the Post Office Department. The subsidy was discontinued and the Pacific Western Airlines asked the air transport board for permission to discontinue the service entirely.
We realized the government would be faced with the problem of certain communities being deprived of an air line service for the first time in many years. That is why the government decided to give the company a temporary subsidy of $25,000 a month, but only for that route in particular. That subsidy is only temporary and it will be paid in its present form only until the air transport board has made a complete report on what is commonly called the prairie milk run, that is the air service in the prairie provinces.
The request of Quebecair for a subsidy was based on the fact that this company was in a rather serious financial situation in 1961, which was not necessarily caused by one route in particular. Even though Quebecair had discontinued to serve several points on its routes, the latter were already served by several other air lines. Therefore, the public would not have been entirely deprived of air service. With regard to the other points not already served by the two air lines, Quebecair and T.C.A., other air lines were willing to provide such service. Consequently that request was quite different from the other.
As far as the financial difficulties of Quebecair are concerned, that question has already been studied by the air transport board and by myself. After a thorough study of the financial situation and the transport facilities of the company, the board made suggestions and examined, with Quebecair officials, the ways and means to balance the financial situation of the company. In fact, I am happy to be in a position to state today that the company has undergone a serious reorganization, concerning the financial aspect as well as operation and air services, and that it is now in a much better financial situation.
26207-1-135i
Supply-Transport
However, Mr. Chairman, this does not mean that Quebecair will not be able to get a subsidy when the air transport board has completed the general inquiry it is now making.
As I said a moment ago, the air transport board is conducting a complete survey of all regional services throughout the country. It held its last public hearing a few weeks ago and we expect to receive a full report within a couple of months. It is quite likely that the board may recommend subsidies for some routes and some regional air carriers. I am of the opinion that, at that time, Quebecair's application may be studied again by the air transport board and, should it be found then that the financial situation of Quebecair warrants a subsidy, according to standards that will have been set by the air transport board, following its inquiry, Quebecair will be treated on the same basis as the other air carriers.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the minister correctly, I think that Quebecair has applied to the air transport board for a subsidy. In that case, could the minister tell us if the board has recommended that the government pay the subsidy? In addition, could the minister tell us the amount of the subsidy the air transport board has recommended to the government?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, subject to correction, I think it was $340,000 payable in a lump sum. On the other hand, in its recommendation to the governor in council, the board set five or six conditions.
One was the refinancing of the company. In addition, the board suggested that Quebecair reduce its equipment, following which the company returned its two largest planes to its suppliers who have not yet formally accepted them. The governor in council will make no final decision on Quebecair's application until those conditions have been implemented.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the recommendation-
(Text):


The Chairman:: I think I recognize the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order-and I am seeking to raise this in a non-controversial way because Your Honour is fairly new in conducting proceedings from the chair in committee of supply, I think it has

Supply-Transport
always been recognized that when a series of questions and answers about a particular item are being carried on between an hon. member and the minister, it has been considered by the Chair that as long as it is carried on within reason it should be concluded before another hon. member is recognized, so that the matter will be dealt with consecutively in Hansard. I am not seeking to prevent any other hon. member from speaking, but I think we all want to get through these estimates as quickly as possible, and I suggest this would expedite the proceedings.


Paul Raymond Martineau: That is very reasonable. Of course I am not aware before the hon. member raises a question whether it is still on the same particular aspect of the item. If he is still dealing with the same matter then, with the permission of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, I would yield the floor to him.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister told us that the government had received the air transport board's recommendation.
Now, in his replies to the hon. member for Laurier, on February 2 and 5, the minister stated that the government had refused to accept the air transport board's recommendation.
Could the minister tell us why the government did not accept the board's recommendation?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, the air transport board recommended payment of a subsidy, on four or five specific conditions and, due to the fact, at the time the request for a subsidy was considered, those conditions had not been fulfilled, the government did not deem it proper to grant the subsidy. However, when those conditions are fulfilled, and if at the time the government considers that Quebecair is still in need of a subsidy to provide an essential service or else to prevent the public from suffering owing to the fact that this company cannot provide some essential services, the matter of a subsidy will once again be considered by the government.
With regard to all those subsidies, we should not overlook the fact that the government must base its decisions on the necessity of the service. This must be a public service, and the

government must not base its decision on the interest of the company itself, but rather on that of the public.
With regard to Quebecair, I must say it is of great service to the people of an area of the province of Quebec which is developing at a tremendous rate. Today, Quebecair serves communities which were not on the map some four or five years ago, such as Gagnonville, Wabush and Manicouagan.
Mr. Chairman, I point out those facts in order to show to what extent the situation is rapidly developing in that part of the country.
Quebecair authorities had made certain forecasts which did not prove to be accurate then, but quite recently, indeed during the last two months, the company has had tremendous success.
It has set up new schedules and, as we have seen recently, it has established a service between Montreal, Chicoutimi and Wabush, and I am quite certain that as a result of the commercial activity which is rapidly increasing now throughout Canada, Quebecair will probably achieve economic success enabling it to operate and serve the public without government help. But, just the same, the government is always ready to help air transport companies for the only purpose of providing transportation which is essential to the public.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, the minister stated a moment ago that a subsidy had been granted to a western transport company, solely because it was the only one to operate such a service in that area. If I understood the minister correctly, he said that Quebecair was the only one to serve certain new areas like Gagnonville and others, in northern Quebec. I feel that the situation is the same.
If a subsidy was granted to a western company because it was the only one to serve an area, I feel that the same policy should apply to Quebecair since it is the only one to serve those new areas in northern Quebec, and I fail to see why the recommendation of the air transport board concerning Quebecair was not accepted. I do not understand that difference in policy on the part of the government.


Léon Balcer: My hon. friend misunderstood me, Mr. Chairman. In the case of the Regina-Edmonton route via Saskatoon, Prince Albert and North Battleford, there was only one air line, the Pacific Western Airlines, and when this company expressed the wish to withdraw, no other company was interested in operating

that deficit-producing service. Thus, people in that area would have been left entirely without air service.
As to Quebecair, it is a regional air line serving Gagnonville, Manicouagan, and Wa-bush, and I am convinced that at least five or six companies would be willing to operate that air service because it is profitable. Indeed, if Quebecair decided to abandon that service tomorrow morning another company would seize within 48 hours the opportunity of running a service into those districts. That is the difference.
In the case of the subsidies paid to Pacific Western Airlines, the public was facing the threat of having no air service whatsoever.
In the case of Quebecair, the company was facing some financial difficulties, but I am satisfied that the citizens in the area mentioned by my hon. friend would not have gone without air services.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned the financial difficulties of Quebecair. Does the minister not believe that those financial difficulties were increased because of the minister promising the company exclusive operation in some districts, and more particularly between Quebec city and Seven Islands?
Would the minister, when replying, tell us whether he made the following statement at Rimouski on February 18, 1961, and I quote:
As far as Quebecair is concerned, its problems are now being considered and a satisfactory solution will be found and carried out in the next ten days.
In that case, could the minister tell us if the financial difficulties experienced by the company have not, in fact, increased because of the promises which he made in Rimouski?


Léon Balcer: I differ with my hon. friend on that point, Mr. Chairman, because the company had at that very time acquired some very expensive equipment in the last few months. When T.C.A. decided to reduce their rates, Quebecair had to face a rather serious financial problem.
As far as I am concerned, I attempted several times to assist the company through several means. We were not successful in every case. I tried to encourage its management as far as possible because every week bankruptcy loomed on the horizon. I always tried to maintain that service because the company employed several hundred employees, thus providing for the subsistance of part of the population of Rimouski.
Supply-Transport
I remember that during that difficult period the dedicated member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) was here in Ottawa asking me to try to maintain the Quebecair service.
We succeeded in maintaining it and today the company's business is more encouraging. Everything indicates that the company's future is bright, and that the population of the lower St. Lawrence will continue to benefit from the service of that company and of many others serving the area.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I can see why
the minister appears to be so optimistic about Quebecair, but it would be more interesting to find out what concrete steps are being taken by the government to actually help that company.
The minister told me a while ago that the government itself had rejected the air transport board's recommendation. Then, how can he feel so optimistic now, when in my opinion the government has not done anything yet to help the company.


Léon Balcer: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the last time Quebecair requested a subsidy, the air transport board made quite an extensive inquiry into the company's business operations, including flight schedules, equipment, operating costs as well as its general financial position.
When the experts of the air transport board referred their recommendation to the government, there were certain conditions to it. Well, all those conditions have not been met but the company did carry out several suggestions laid down by the air transport board.
There has been a complete financial reorganization of the company and it is no longer in danger of bankruptcy. Its financial position is sound now and we have every reason to believe that it will be able to meet its obligations and keep on serving the population of the lower St. Lawrence area.


Maurice Bourget: Does the minister mean to say that at present, the company does not need a grant or financial assistance?


Léon Balcer: I am not saying that the door is closed but when all the conditions have been met, we shall reconsider the advisability of a subsidy.
When the final report of the air transport board with regard to its enquiry throughout the country has been published, that is in a

Supply-Transport
couple of months from now, we shall see whether the board has reached the conclusion that we should establish the same system as in the United States, or whether we should more particularly assist certain air lines.
I am not an expert with regard to those details, but I am convinced that a report of great significance in the history of Canadian aviation, will be submitted to us by the air transport board, because there has never been so complete an investigation of conditions such as the local air transport companies have to face at this time.
This is the first time that such a far-reaching enquiry is being made from coast to coast, and I believe that it will bring about some extremely important recommendations.
As far as Quebecair is concerned, we will ' then be in a better position to decide whether that company has a right to an annual subsidy or whether, for instance, it has meanwhile been observing the conditions set forth by the air transport board. If so, the government will reconsider awarding the company an immediate subsidy to help it face up to the present situation.


Maurice Bourget: With regard to that company, Mr. Chairman, the minister undoubtedly remembers that, on February 28, the hon. member for Laurier asked for all correspondence between the Minister of Transport and the president of Quebecair or any other person interested in the matter. I believe that only part of the correspondence was tabled.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier raised that point the other day. I personally checked all our records on the matter and I want to say that all correspondence between the president of Quebecair, myself and the air transport board which was not of a purely personal and confidential nature, has been tabled.
There was some correspondence after the date mentioned by my hon. friend, but, at the request of the president of the company himself, it has been considered as personal and confidential.
As it is a practice in this house not to table any personal and confidential papers, those documents were not included. All we received, which was not of a purely personal and confidential nature has been tabled in this house.


Maurice Bourget: With regard to that matter Mr. Chairman, could the minister not look

over the records again to see whether there is not a letter dated November 13, 1961, which was not marked confidential? Could the minister do that or, having looked up the records, is he now in a position to state that there is no letter dated November 13, 1961, which could be tabled as not marked confidential?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I know which letter my hon. friend means. I believe there is a copy, but it is precisely one of those letters the president of Quebecair asked me to stamp personal and confidential, because he did not want it to be tabled in the house.
He said that the letter contained a few allegations which he considered as not accurate after checking.
At his request, that letter was not tabled because he said he had always considered it as personal and confidential.


Maurice Bourget: Did the president of Quebecair personally ask the minister, either by letter or by phone, to have that letter marked confidential, or is it not the contrary that happened, that is would the minister or officials of his department not have asked that it be stamped confidential?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I know that the new president of the company came to see me and that we discussed all those matters thoroughly.
I could not tell whether it was I or he who raised the question but we have discussed that correspondence and he was the first to admit than it contained some ridiculous allegations and that he did not want me to consider it as business correspondence. And he asked me to have it marked personal and confidential.


Maurice Bourget: Of course, Mr. Chairman, I cannot compel the minister to offer his answer, but those who are interested in this will be able to read it in Hansard.
However-and these will be my last remarks-I do feel that two policies are being applied-one for a western company and another for a company in the province of Quebec.
Mind you, I am not at all against a grant that may be needed by that air line company in a western province, but I believe the same policy should apply to Quebecair operating in the province of Quebec.

Of course, the minister is free to act as he pleases; however, he will bear the responsibility of the decisions he is now taking.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I wish to set the facts straight.
Let me repeat for the third time that my hon. friend implies things that are not accurate when he rises here and says that the Quebecair situation, as far as certain points of the lower St. Lawrence river are concerned, is the same as that of Pacific Western Airlines concerning the Regina-Edmonton-North Battleford line.
When he says that it is the same thing, he implies things that are not accurate. He knows very well that what he claims makes no sense because there is a tremendous difference between no service at all and service by another company.
In the case of Quebecair, if that company had withdrawn from any point where it now operates, within 48 hours there would have been another service in operation there by another company. As far as Pacific Western Airlines are concerned, if they had withdrawn from the points mentioned, the public there would no longer have had any service, at least for several years to come. So there is a difference between the two.
In the case of Quebecair, this was a company which was faced with financial difficulties. In the other case, we had a line which did not produce enough revenues for a company to be interested in continuing its operations.
Such was not the situation at all in the case of Quebecair. There was never any question of Quebecair asking permission to abandon any line.
(Text):


Mr. Pascoe:: At the risk of appearing too persistent with regard to this problem, I should like to bring once more to the attention of the Minister of Transport the complete lack of air service to the city of Moose Jaw which I represent, I raise the question now in connection with this item No. 664 which is being considered by the committee at the present time because the minister has referred to possible changes in the T.C.A. milk run which now passes directly over Moose Jaw.
There is no need for me to delay the committee at this time by going into details.
Supply-Transport
The minister has in his files earlier representations which I and other interested parties have made to him on behalf of Moose Jaw.
I should like to refer briefly to a few arguments concerning the inclusion of Moose Jaw in some air service. In addition to its population of 33,000, Moose Jaw serves a rural population of more than 40,000 and a trading area population in excess of 150,000. The city is greatly concerned over the essential necessity of securing adequate air service comparable to the service received by other prairie centres. The general public in this area is becoming more aviation-conscious each year. This is shown by the increased air traffic from Moose Jaw by T.C.A. even though Moose Jaw patrons have to drive over 40 miles to Regina in order to board planes.
As the minister has stated, the air transport board held hearings last autumn on the application by T.C.A. to abandon the air service which is generally referred to as the prairie milk run. In the belief that some other air line will take over this service should it be abandoned by Trans-Canada Air Lines Moose Jaw presented a very strong brief to support its claim for inclusion in any new air service. I should like to read a brief excerpt from a letter I have received from the mayor of Moose Jaw. He writes:
-we have consistently approached Trans-Canada Air Lines to give consideration to this city being included on the east-west run now under discussion by all cities concerned from Winnipeg to Calgary. We have repeatedly stated and sincerely believe that this city should be entitled to an east-west outlet.. . We think that any change that does transpire with regard to the operating of this service should include Moose Jaw in view of the considerable revenue that has been derived by Trans-Canada Air Lines from this city and district in spite of the inconvenience caused to the travelling public by having to journey by land direct to Regina.
This is a short extract from a letter I received from the mayor of the city. I wish to present once more Moose Jaw's claim for inclusion in any new air service that may take the place of Trans-Canada Air Lines' present milk run. The minister stated that the decision of the air transport board will be announced shortly. Moose Jaw hopes that the city's brief has been favourably considered by the board.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I wish at this time to raise a matter which I have already discussed with the minister. I thank him for the co-operation he has displayed in listening to the representations

Supply-Transport
made. I have also discussed this matter with officials of the department, with officials of Canadian Pacific Airlines and with other interested groups. The matter I have in mind concerns the development of the airport at Windsor, an airport which I think should be regarded by the department as one of the top priority airports in Canada, if that is not already the case.


Léon Balcer: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this item is entitled "Air transport board, subventions for air carriers". I do not think my hon. friend is talking about subventions for air carriers, and he is not talking about services. I believe he is speaking about airport construction, which subject has nothing to do with this vote.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I did not rise in a critical manner. However, as the minister knows, I can easily be aroused into becoming a critic. My point is that the minister's point of order should have been taken when the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was speaking. That hon. gentleman was not talking about the development of an airport but about the establishment of something that is non-existent-


Léon Balcer: He was talking about services and subventions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He was talking about services and so am I. This is a vote to provide a grant for the "commission des transports aeriens", the air transport board, and air services. If the facilities of the airport are improved, as I am going to urge and as I have already urged upon the minister, surely that is of direct benefit to the air services that use the port.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. On the point of order there is one thing I should like to point out. The details of the item read as follows:
Scheduled air services between Alberta and Saskatchewan-
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was speaking about air services in that area but I am afraid the hon. member for Essex East is embarking on a discussion of air services in his riding in the province of Ontario. I therefore cannot see at the moment that his remarks are relevant to the item before us.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Chairman, but if you will listen to me for a moment or two Your Honour will see how X can bring this clearly within the item before the committee. It will take only

a moment. I simply ask the minister to consider the following submission. In view of the fact that Canadian Pacific Airlines operates in western Canada and is covered by this vote, and in view of the fact that C.P.A. proposes to establish a run from Windsor to Mexico on April 14 next, I feel I am in order in asking the minister to give consideration to the request of Canadian Pacific Airlines for the building of a runway that would take care of the jet service which C.P.A. would like to have operate between Windsor and Mexico city. At the present time-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am afraid-


Peter Francis Martin: Will I not be permitted to continue?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have allowed the hon. member to introduce his subject but, as I see it, it is entirely irrelevant to the item before us. Much as I would like to allow the hon. member to continue in that vein, if I were to permit him to do so I would have to permit all hon. members to follow that course. I think he will agree that I cannot consider his remarks in order at this time.


Peter Francis Martin: I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I would not wish to take advantage of your generosity. May I say, however, I think you will agree that I have reminded the minister of something that is of great concern to the people of my constituency.


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes of the committee's time to speak on this item which provides a subsidy of $300,000 to Pacific Western Airlines travelling between Edmonton, North Battle-ford, Prince Albert, Saskatoon and Regina. Formerly the air line stopped at the city of Lloydminster. About two years ago this service was discontinued to that centre. Lloydminster is one of the most progressive small cities in western Canada. There is considerable industry in that city, and there are many businessmen there who require that service. For that reason, and inasmuch as we are paying the company an annual subsidy of $300,000, I feel the company should service the city of Lloydminster. It is important to the businessmen of that community that they have this service available in order that they may reach the larger centres of Edmonton and Saskatoon, at which points they make connections with larger planes travelling east.
I know the chamber of commerce and the mayor have representations on this matter before the board. I simply wish to draw this matter to the attention of the minister at this time. I feel that if we are to pay the subsidy the city of Lloydminster should be

entitled to service by the planes which, although they previously landed there, now fly right over the city.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up the time of the committee unnecessarily. I have received a number of letters from constituents complaining about a lack of co-operation between Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Airlines with respect to information as to flights and timetables between various airports. One constituent was recently at a prairie airport, I believe in Regina. At the T.C.A. airport it was impossible for him to obtain the information he required to take a C.P.A. flight, and things of that sort. Has the minister had any complaints along that line? I have had several which indicate some lack of cooperation with respect to information concerning times of flights and things of that sort, especially when the flights are delayed.


Léon Balcer: The only complaints I have received were those that were transmitted to me by the hon. member himself. I immediately transmitted those complaints to the air transport board and asked them to investigate and to make representations to the two air lines so that the public should be treated in the best manner possible, and also so that the service to the public should always be kept up to the very high standard that these two air lines have maintained in the past.
(Translation):


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, I have but one question to direct to the Minister of Transport merely as a matter of information.
He indicated, at the beginning of this week, that his department was prepared to contribute $65,000 toward building the Charlo airport in New Brunswick. Could the minister tell us if the company which is interested in the operation of that airport had asked for a subsidy? At the same time, perhaps the minister could report to the house on the request made by the municipality of Gloucester to build an airport in the Bathurst area?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I think the question of my hon. friend is not quite in order. Just the same, I wish to tell him that with regard to the request made by the municipality of Bathurst-no, the other one-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Gloucester.


Léon Balcer: -my officials are now considering the matter.
With regard to the air company serving Charlo airport-I do not remember exactly what company it is-and my hon. friend will perhaps tell me its name-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is the Maritime Central Airways.
26207-1-136
Supply-Transport


Léon Balcer: -I do not have this information at present, but I know my officials have decided to contribute that sum for the building of an airport, after having seriously appraised the economic possibilities of the area. I am convinced that the company or companies which will serve that area will also benefit from the closest co-operation on the part of of my officials, and we shall do our utmost to provide the people of that area with the service to which they are entitled.
(Text):


Mr. Fisher:: We approve this subsidy, Mr. Chairman. I just wished to underline first of all that there is hardly any air line anywhere in the world that is operating without government subsidies of a direct kind, particularly in the United States. There is nothing in this item that surprises us. The questions I wish to ask arise from the indication given by the minister that there are in preparation reports reviewing the whole scale of services. He mentioned this matter last night.
I wish to ask him some questions about how broad this investigation is. Does it include cost factors built into the Department of Transport through the provision of terminal facilities, for example? Is this survey not only taking into account a projection of the kind of services we need to supply to our communities across the country and the improvements in the next few years, but is it also an integrated look at the expense of providing the terminal facilities?
The reason I ask this question relates to an interest of mine that goes back several years and which indicates that only one or two airports in Canada are actually getting enough revenue from commercial air lines to meet their operating and maintenance expenses. These are very few and the margin is very small. In other words the basic provision of terminal facilities in the air line field is a very costly one to the taxpayer.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw made a point about his community. I think the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose also made a point. In our part of the country we have an interest in better services generally and certainly in better terminal services. I wonder whether these reports being prepared by the air transport board are looking at this total picture and the tremendous expense we have ahead of us in the next decade.
The minister is aware of the fact that we have a number of extremely controversial

Supply-Transport
questions relating to air policy, some of them beclouded by a rather phony fight, from my point of view, between free enterprise as represented by Canadian Pacific Airlines and Trans-Canada Air Lines, the government air operation. I say "phony" just to underline the very point that there is not any way in which the general or ordinary taxpayer of Canada can come out on top where air travel, freight or express are concerned. He is obliged to supply, through D.O.T., so many expensive services that in the long run we are brought starkly up against the realization that the provision of air transport is the provision of a service which in essence can never really be made remunerative or profitable in a total sense. Not only do Canadian Pacific Airlines and all these other air lines need subsidies in respect of the provision of facilities, but in many cases they need much more concrete subsidies than that, as indicated by this vote.
Maybe the minister wishes to wait until we have a debate on the creation of the T.C.A.-C.N.R. committee. However, I would appreciate at the present time a brief review of government policy and intentions in this field. I think the matter is opened up by the indication he gave last night that this report is one aspect of a complete review of commercial air line services in Canada.


Léon Balcer: I should like to say that this inquiry by the air transport board, as do all their inquiries, deals only with the carriers and not with the facilities such as airports and services like the meteorological services and others. I should like to state now that four or five of our major airports are covering all their costs and depreciation, and that several others are almost covering all their operating costs. That is a very encouraging situation when you consider the splendid airports we have in Canada. We have some extremely modern airports with all kinds of facilities such as radio, towers, meteorological services and all sorts of equipment. When you consider how expensive all these services are I think it is a credit to the department that so many of our airports at the present time are covering their operational costs and that some of them-I refer to the largest ones -are covering their depreciation as well as their operating costs.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is the minister now in a position to confirm treasury board approval of a grant for the construction of an airport at Bathurst, Gloucester county?


Léon Balcer: Yes, I am in a position to confirm this approval right now.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the airport at Dawson Creek, which is in the centre of the

busiest part of Canada. Piles of money are being spent there. Bennett is building a big dam at Hudson Hope.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I am sorry to have to tell the hon. member that these remarks are not in order at this time, as the item relates to air services in Saskatchewan and Alberta. I believe the hon. member is embarking on a subject-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order you have raised, Mr. Chairman, you have allowed a little latitude to some other hon. members. We all love the hon. member for Cariboo, and I am sure there would be unanimous consent to giving him permission to ask his question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to join with the spokesman for the official opposition and say that not only do we love the hon. member but we adore him.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am sure that the love the committee has for the hon. member is also shared by the Chair. However, I should not like the good nature of the committee to give rise to an occasion to infringe the rules. If the minister will accept the question, the Chair will certainly allow it provided it is not taken as a precedent.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the official opposition may love the hon. member and the C.C.F. may adore him but the government will still keep him on our side. I will be very pleased to hear him.


Walter Clarence Henderson: There is a lot of construction going on in the Cariboo and thousands of men are going in there. There is an airport at Dawson Creek, but the planes fly over and do not stop there. We want the planes to stop there. A $400 million pipe line running out of that area is being built, and $400 million is being spent on the big Bennett dam at Hudson Hope. Surely we are entitled to air services in a place like that where $800 million is being spent. That is all I am going to say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the item carries, Mr. Chairman, may I say I am sure that if the quarter of a million dollars that is being spent on the other Dawson had been spent in Dawson Creek the hon. member's wishes could have been satisfied. But I know that is out of order. I am going to ask the minister something that really is in order. He said last night, as found on page 2100 of Hansard:
One of the main sources of revenue-
The reference is to this air line that is now being subsidized out of the treasury.
-was a mail contract. Unfortunately, this mail contract was terminated. I do not remember the exact date of its termination, but it was some time in 1960.

I am not seeking to blame the present minister in any way, but does this not indicate a deplorable lack of liaison between the minister's predecessor and the Postmaster General? The Postmaster General cancels a mail contract and forces the treasury to pay a subsidy to this air line to keep it going, and no doubt the post office is still transporting that mail in some other way and spending still more out of the treasury.
It seems to me this is a clear indication that the Minister of Finance, the chairman of the treasury board, is not exercising the vigilance he should be exercising over public expenditures. Maybe it would have cost a little more to carry this mail by air, but if that had saved us from giving another subsidy to this air line it would have saved the taxpayer's money. I think the minister should tell us how much the company got out of this mail contract, how the amount compares with the $300,000 we are being now asked to provide, and how much is now being paid for the carriage of that mail in some other way. Perhaps it is a little unfair to ask the Minister of Transport to answer that, but the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance is in the house. We know how vigilant he is in all these matters, and perhaps he can answer that question if the Minister of Transport cannot.


Léon Balcer: First of all I want to say for the Department of Transport that the subsidy of $25,000 a month is much less than this mail service would have cost. The Post Office Department had figured out that it was becoming very costly for them to use the air line for this service, and they decided to carry the mail by truck. The saving was greater than the $25,000 we are now paying to Pacific Western Airlines.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You know, Mr. Chairman, in this matter, I am from Missouri and the minister will understand the sense in which I use that phrase. I was once acting postmaster general for a while and I know that some of these ideas that some people in the Post Office Department have on how to save money do not end up by saving much of the taxpayer's money. I would have thought that at least $25,000 a month in mail should have been carried in this way and the rest of it carried by truck, thereby reducing the cost of the trucking by $25,000 a month to the benefit of all concerned. No doubt some highly elaborate technical information could be supplied to show how silly that is, but it is not silly at all. If the treasury has to pay $25,000 a month as a subsidy for this service, surely there is some of the mail that 26207-1-136i
Supply-Transport
could be expedited and this line could carry that amount of mail and at least give the public something in return.
I am not going to press my question, but I think this does show that that eternal vigilance, 18 hours a day, about which the Minister of Finance boasted in 1957, is now being given by him to other matters now rather than to the affairs of treasury board.
I have one general observation I should like to make, and again I am not blaming the present minister but his predecessor. I think the present minister is trying his best to clean up the shocking mess that was made by his predecessor with regard to this whole air service business by reason of the phony doctrine of competition that was spread around before the 1957 election. Nearly all the trouble of these secondary air lines, Pacific Western, Quebecair and all the others, stems from the abandonment of the policy of Mackenzie King and C. D. Howe which was announced in 1944 and which worked very well until the minister's predecessor wrecked it during his passage through the Department of Transport; and, according to the best information I have, wrecked it against the advice of the air transport board and against the advice of the experienced officials in his department. In my opinion, and it is only my opinion of course, he did so for what are usually described as purely partisan reasons having nothing to do with the public welfare. I must say that I hope the minister is successful in cleaning up part of this mess at any rate, of which this $300,000 is only a small element.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that the member said in the middle of his remarks that he was expressing his own opinion, because I can assure him that this opinion is not shared by the great majority of Canadians. I also assure him that when I became Minister of Transport-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would that include the tribute that the hon. member paid to the minister?


Léon Balcer: That was the only part in what he said where he was really on solid ground. All the rest was extremely weak. I think it is unfair to say that of my predecessor, because he went to work in the department in 1957 with the vigour we know he possesses, and he needed all that vigour to clear up the mess that had been accumulating there for 22 years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have one further brief observation to make in reply to the minister. The minister is gallantly defending his predecessor and that is to his credit, but let

Supply-Transport
me add this. I will agree with the minister to this extent, that his predecessor did not make quite such a big mess in the Department of Transport as he made at Accra when he went there as Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has introduced a general criticism of air transport policy, and I would have appreciated a more substantive answer from the minister with regard to the whole question of the actions of this government, and particularly of the minister's predecessor, in opening up a competitive situation concerning the domestic air lines in Canada, with its subsequent catastrophe in terms of air line deficits. Today rather than having one successful national air line and a number of regional carriers, which previously seemed to be doing well, everyone is in the hole. I should like to deal with the words which the minister used last night, when he said:
-the air transport board has made a complete survey of all the regional carrier operations all across Canada starting with the eastern provinces.
What is the purpose of all these regional surveys? The minister says they do not inquire into airports, and by the way I am very pleased to learn that today there are four or five airports making money over and above their operating expenses and depreciation charges. I believe that two years ago there was only one airport doing that.
What is the intention of the air transport board with regard to these surveys? What are they trying to find? For example, are they just examining the present situation in regard to the provision of service to eastern Ontario, to Kingston, and whether it needs a subsidy; or are they trying to get an appreciation of what all these regions need and will need within the next year or two?
If the minister wants to be specific, what about northwestern Ontario? Has there been a survey there? What has the service provided by a United States line from Duluth and Minneapolis into the lakehead, got to do with the situation? Is it included in the survey? Are the surveys taking into account the regional carriers which do not have regular schedules and which are on a chartered basis? Is any appreciation being made of charter services to determine whether they should be encouraged to introduce a schedule service? Are such things being considered in order to develop this situation?
If this is the kind of survey which the air transport board is making, then I wonder how it can move without making some appreciation of terminal facilities and standards at the airports. Wherever one goes in Canada one sees places like Elliot Lake or the town of Atikokan which have not got proper
IMr. Pickersgill.]
services at the present time. They want them, but the main difficulty seems to hinge around airport facilities. I believe the minister should give us a more detailed appreciation of how all these regional surveys are dovetailing into the responsibilities of the air transport board. He should also tell us, as the minister who answers for the board, whether he has given any directions or made any requests to that board with regard to these surveys and their purposes. He need not tell me he has not got the authority to do this, because we have seen examples in the past of ministers of the crown holding his particular office giving instructions and asking the air transport board to do certain things. I would like to know whether he has issued any instructions or requests to the air transport board in connection with these regional surveys.


Léon Balcer: I do not want to take up the time of the committee in describing all the various functions of the air transport board. However, when one considers the manner in which the air transport board proceeds in these general inquiries and in dealing with particular applications, then he will realize that its work has always been done with the utmost care. As hon. members know, representations are made by municipalities, boards of trade, chambers of commerce, industries and other public groups. These bodies make submissions to the air transport board, and the board also publishes advertisements in the newspapers. Anybody who has anything to say on a submission before the board is heard and so I would say that every air service authorized or refused by the air transport board is only authorized or refused after an extremely long and careful study of the matter.
It is also quite logical that the air transport board, before they make any decision authorizing a certain service to a certain community, will make sure that the service to be given that community will have the proper airport facilities for it. The two go together, but it is not the air transport board which decides the kind of airport to be built. This is a decision for the Department of Transport. All the air transport board does is decide on the carriers and on the services to meet the needs of the Canadian people.
In their present general inquiry they have had public hearings all across Canada. They have heard all kinds of representations from interested parties and individuals, and we are quite convinced that by the time this major inquiry has been completed into regional services an inquiry undertaken for the first time in Canada, the board will make recommendations to the government which should have a real, marked effect on the history of Canadian aviation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It seems to me the minister has indicated that the board, in making this survey, has some kind of a planning function. Could he give us any indication as to how his advisers on air matters are working at present in order to relate the total air picture to the regional studies being made? I know that is a very general question, but this will have to fit into a national scale of expenditure in terms of the provision of facilities. In other words, we might be trying to do too much in too many places at the same time.
Could the minister give us any indication to the effect that after these reports are made available to him we are likely to have a new kind of over-all air line policy from the government? I am not particularly fishing with an eye on the election, or anything like that.
I would really like to know whether in a year, 18 months or two years the department will have the information and the plans so that not only the nation but even the regions and towns will know where they fit into the general scheme of things in air matters.


Léon Balcer: As I said earlier, the air transport board has been directed by the Minister of Transport to make this survey and hold these hearings all across Canada. As soon as they have finished with their work, which I imagine will be in a couple of months' time, they will report to the minister. The minister will then consider their recommendations, and it will be up to the government to decide what part of the recommendations will be implemented. At the present time regional carriers are performing functions and rendering services. The air transport board hold hearings and makes decisions on various regional services. When they have completed this inquiry across the country, they have been asked by myself to make a report, and that report will certainly have its effect on the future policy on the matter of regional carriers. As far as the relationship between the policy on regional carriers and the over-all aviation policy of the government is concerned, this is a matter for the decision of the government when the report is before them.
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a brief question to the Minister of Transport concerning the government grant requested by the Quebecair company. Could the minister tell the house if he held discussions with T.C.A. representatives with regard to the possible withdrawal of
Supply-Transport
that crown company from Saguenay airport, better known under the name of Bagotville?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I am constantly in touch with T.C.A. representatives regarding all matters likely to interest my department in its relations with that company. With regard to my friend's question, I wish to tell him that this matter was discussed on several occasions.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, can the minister give us the assurance that T.C.A. will continue to serve the Saguenay district?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, no change is expected at present as concerns that service.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, as far as I am
concerned, I have one last question to ask the minister.
So that everyone may understand what has happened in connection with air mail service, could the minister tell the house the amount of the contract passed between Pacific Western Airlines and the Post Office Department?
In addition, could the minister tell the house how much it costs the Post Office Department to carry the mail following the adoption of the present means of transportation?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend will have to wait until Monday to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) that question because I do not have the information he requests. Only the Post Office Department can provide that information.
As far as we are concerned, the people of that area came to us and said: "Listen, we no longer have any air service and we need one." That is why we have paid a subsidy.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister must realize that the questions I am directing to him are very important, because we shall know whether or not the government was justified in making that change.
Not having the required figures at hand concerning those two air mail transport contracts, we cannot tell the difference between the two. I am not asking the minister to reply right away, since he said he did not have those figures at hand, but we shall probably have the opportunity, when we consider other supplementary estimates, to get a reply from the minister in order that we may know the difference between the costs in transportation.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
666. Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority-further amount required, $1,291,400.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of the continuing representations from those interested in the reduction of tolls on the Welland canal, he has anything to announce respecting the reductions of these tolls. I am informed that within the past month or so the minister has received a brief from the St. Lawrence seaway development association and that some assurances have been given to that group that favourable consideration will be given this year to a reduction of the tolls.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier in this house, we had a very interesting meeting with the association. They presented me with a brief, gave all kinds of explanations and brought forward the various factors which could justify the abolition of tolls on the Welland canal. At the conclusion of this meeting I gave them the assurance that I would personally convey their request to the government and that it would be given very close study and very serious consideration.
Unfortunately I cannot give the hon. lady an answer yet on what the government is going to decide; it is a complicated matter. However I can assure her that the government is giving very serious consideration to the matter.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister will say whether the matter will be considered with a little more speed than has been the case in the past few years, particularly bearing in mind the repeated reports in the press that in New York state it is likely that an all-American canal will be built with a view to bypassing the Welland canal if the tolls continue.
I should hope that one of the oldest canals in the country, which has had a considerable amount of money spent on it through the years and which has generated a considerable amount of business for the people in my riding and in the other parts of the county of Welland, will not be allowed to go by the board because of any possibility that because of these tolls the United States will bypass it completely by constructing their own canal.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall vote 666 carry?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether the minister could indicate what the estimated deficit is for the coming year in relation to the St. Lawrence seaway. I think it is fair to ask the question, since

it has been apparent that the seaway has not been the financial success that had been anticipated; that is, it is running behind schedule. Also, as the questions just asked by the hon. member for the opposition indicated, there are very active pressures on hand seeking reductions in tolls, which would probably immensely increase the possibilities of a deficit.
For this reason I would like to ask the minister this question. If, for example, the thesis or argument being advanced by Admiral Mainguy was accepted in toto, would it mean the end of the conception of the St. Lawrence seaway as a revenue producer that would in the long run be able to pay itself off? I would like to ask the minister, is this one of the factors the government has under consideration at the present time?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that an abolition of tolls, a reduction in tolls or a new set-up of tolls would have quite an effect on the future financial picture of the St. Lawrence seaway. However, I am not a financial expert, and it would be pretty difficult for me to tell at this stage what would be the effect on the future financing of the seaway. But there is no doubt that any reduction in tolls or the abolition of tolls would have its effect on the revenue and expense figures of the St. Lawrence seaway.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have seen reports in the press that the minister's officials have been meeting with their United States counterparts in relation to the St. Lawrence seaway project as a whole. I want to ask the minister a specific question. Have any discussions been held, not with the United States seaway authority people but with United States cabinet or executive officials-I am thinking in terms not of the authority but of the President's executive-with a view to determining what the United States policy position would be if Canada decided either to abolish or to drastically reduce the tolls on the Welland canal? I ask this question because I assume it is a relevant consideration. If tolls are to be abolished the United States government must be consulted, because of the general agreement that there are certain balances when charges are made. I should like to have an answer to that question.


Léon Balcer: There is very close co-operation between the two authorities, and I am sure that if anything were done on this side we would keep the Americans informed. As to whether there has been any discussion at cabinet level, I must say there has been none in the last few months.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask another question lor information. Could a unilateral decision be made by Canada to abolish tolls on the Welland canal?


Léon Balcer: I am really being asked there for a legal opinion. I would have to refer to the treaty. I would prefer not to give an opinion now.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I ask the minister if he would provide me with an opinion in the form of a letter in the near future?


Léon Balcer: I would pleased to do that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: With respect to the subject raised by the last speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether it is not correct that one of the bases upon which it has been urged for some time that there should be a reduction or abolition of tolls on the Welland is that the original treaty contained a somewhat vague description of the waters of the seaway which were to be included; there has been doubt, since the conclusion of that treaty, as to whether or not the Welland should be included, particularly as the twinning of the locks has not been completed and the funds which were to be expended on the canal were expended before the construction of the seaway.
For these reasons, the requirement of joint action by both countries may not, in fact, be applicable to the Welland canal. However, I assume this would require an adjustment of the tolls on the whole system from one end to the other, and I do not think it would be possible to do this unilaterally. If the minister does accept this suggestion-and he has indicated that there have been no high level discussions, or discussions at cabinet level, with opposite numbers to the south- may it be taken that there are no immediate hopes for the reduction or abolition of tolls on the Welland canal?


Léon Balcer: That is not my opinion. I have studied this matter of toll abolition on the Welland canal. I am giving my personal opinion now, but I am convinced that the Canadian government would have the authority to do this without asking for approval from our counterparts in the United States. That is my personal opinion. Of course I speak subject to correction, but I think it is also the opinion of the association which met last month.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, and the permission of the committee, may I revert to item No. 664? I asked the minister for certain information, and I think inadvertently I was given the wrong information. I asked the minister if the treasury board had approved a grant for the
Supply-Privy Council construction of the Bathurst airport in Gloucester county, and the minister said it had. I think the minister was incorrectly informed. A grant has been approved for the Charlo airport, but formal authorization has not yet been received in respect of the Bathurst airport although the project is under consideration by the minister's department.


Léon Balcer: That is correct. I was misinformed.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to ask the minister a question but merely to say how we, on this side, regret the absence of the member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell) who is always pleased to find fault with this wonderful achievement, the St. Lawrence seaway.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Paul Raymond Martineau: That completes the supplementary estimates for the Department of Transport.
PRIVY COUNCIL Emergency measures-
652. Administration and operation of the emergency measures organization-further amount required, $261,500.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps, as it is almost one o'clock and as the Prime Minister is not here, we should call it one o'clock so that the Prime Minister can be here for the discussion of this very important matter having to do with the survival of the Canadian people.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Pitman:: Mr. Chairman, this vote is related to the general administration of the emergency measures organization. This subject which has received more comment across the nation than any other is surely deserving of some attention in the committee at this time when the supplementary estimate for the privy council is before us. There is probably no subject more serious and perhaps more distasteful than the problem of civil defence and preparation for thermonuclear war. There is no estimate in the blue book or among the supplementaries which it would be more easy to criticize and ridicule than that relating to privy council, yet it would probably be the one in relation to which it would be hardest to put forward any substitute for what has already been done.

Supply-Privy Council I am sure all hon. members realize that the preparations which are being made at the present time depend upon a tremendous number of variables. So far, at least in this country, we have not made an investigation of the variables and the direction in which our efforts should be directed. We do not know how big an attack we might have. We do not know essentially whether it would be by bomber or I.C.B.M. or what the effect would be of an attack on the North American continent by nuclear submarine. We do not know whether the enemy would attack our cities, our military establishments or our communications. We do not know whether there would be a single first strike or whether in an atttack on the North American continent there would be a series of strikes assuming that the enemy had a great degree of mobility in its attacking instruments. We do not know whether there would be an allout nuclear war or some kind of limited nuclear war, assuming the nation receiving a certain amount of punishment would wish to negotiate peace and therefore forestall a Certain amount of destruction. We do not know whether the main emphasis would be by a blast or a series of concentrated blasts or whether the enemy would rely upon the effects of fall-out.
With as many variables as those I have outlined and others which may occur to hon. members I submit in all humility it is difficult to decide exactly what efforts should be made in the field of emergency measures. As the Prime Minister indicated when he introduced the related main estimate last autumn, speculation on this subject has ranged the spectrum from the attitude of Nevil Shute who sees virtually no existence or life on the planet after a thermonuclear war to the equally ridiculous position adopted by Life magazine which assumes that by taking a few simple precautions 97 per cent of the population would survive without severe ill effects. Somewhere between these two fantastic positions at opposite ends of the spectrum we must adopt a position that has some reality.
What must be done is to determine how this can be done. Across this country there has been active questioning about what we have done so far. As I have said, it is easy to ridicule in this area. One has only to consider the number of variables in relation to the kind of attack and the kind of war which might take place and it is easy to ridicule the program introduced by any government or individual. As it now stands the Canadian people are extremely concerned and for proof of this one has only to examine the facts and figures.

Following exercise Tocsin last autumn there was much publicity concerning the fact that under the terms of the National Housing Act it was possible to make application for allowances for the construction of fall-out shelters in new homes. What has been the result across the entire nation? The figures for the provinces are as follows:
Number of N.H.A. loans, for new houses which included allowances for fall-out shelters, to January 31, 1962.
Newfoundland	 1
Prince Edward Island	 nil
Nova Scotia	 nil
New Brunswick	 1
Quebec	 30
Ontario	 13
Manitoba	 2
Saskatchewan	 1
Alberta	 11
British Columbia	 3
As all hon. members realize the value of N.H.A. home improvement loans for the construction of shelters has been given some publicity in the press. It was hoped that because of the emphasis placed upon the construction of home shelters by this government through the distribution of pamphlets and newspaper publicity people would take advantage of this means of constructing shelters. What have been the results across the country? The figures are as follows:
Number of N.H.A. home improvement loans for fall-out shelters, to January 31, 1962.
Newfoundland	 nil
Prince Edward Island	 nil
Nova Scotia	 nil
New Brunswick	 4
Quebec	 17
Ontario	 27
Manitoba	 2
Saskatchewan	 10
Alberta	 18
British Columbia	 16
Only 94 Canadians have taken advantage of N.H.A. home improvement loans for this purpose and only 62 have made use of the provisions in relation to the purchase of new homes in a country with a total population of approximately 18 million. I am not saying that these are the only shelters that have been built. Obviously others would have obtained money for this purpose through normal channels and some would have built shelters from their own reserves. But I am sure the government would not claim that a substantial number of people have taken the advice of the government in building shelters.
The Ottawa Citizen of March 13, 1962 reports the attitude of Premier Roblin of Manitoba:
Premier Roblin told the Manitoba legislature Monday he has decided he won't recommend shelters to the public.

Premier Roblin is reported to have said:
I don't think we've had sufficiently clear directions from federal authorities to make me enthusiastic about building more shelters or putting them in public buildings.
That is the position of Premier Roblin. Surely of all people in Manitoba he should be the one most concerned about emergency measures.
Let us turn now to Saskatchewan. In an article dated November 19, 1961 by Patrick O'Dwyer which article emanated from Saskatoon it is stated:
Saskatchewan's farmers are bristling with annoyance at what they consider an inept federal Department of Agriculture pamphlet designed to help them fight fall-out.
I realize this does not come under the item we are dealing with but it is part of the picture of confusion and concern. I continue:
The reason for the farmers annoyance is that the Ottawa pamphlet is of no real value in helping them prepare for survival. Many of them have complained that instead of being helpful it is a study in futility. This blueprint, of which 200,000 copies have been printed, is a dud.
The Peterborough Examiner of November 29, 1961 carried a Canadian Press dispatch from Edmonton under the heading "Fall-out Advice for Farmers 'Fantastic' It reads in part as follows:
Ed Nelson, Alberta farmers' union president, described as fantastic Tuesday a dominion agriculture department pamphlet designed to help farmers fight fall-out in the event of nuclear attack.
The Ottawa booklet says:
"After heavy fall-out you may be advised to plow the topsoil under so as to bury the fall-out as deep as possible before seeding or planting."
United States government scientists have said the ill effects of fall-out would continue to contaminate plants for years if the affected topsoil were plowed down, Mr. Nelson said.
Mr. Nelson said most of the directions are so impractical "that many farmers after reading the pamphlet are apt to throw their hands up in horror-''
In dealing with this matter last September the emphasis in both Canada and the United States was on the construction of individual shelters. Protection thus depended on the means of individuals to construct shelters in their own basements. At that time hon. members of this group were somewhat critical of the fact that the building of shelters should be related in any way to the means of the individual to undertake this construction. Similar criticism was made in the United States and since last September the emphasis has changed from the construction of individual shelters to the construction of community shelters. A recent press release from Washington indicates that under the program of the Kennedy administration fall-out shelter protection for virtually all United States citizens will be provided within five years at a cost of between $5 and $6 billion with the
.	Supply-Privy Council
federal government contributing approximately $3 billion. In Holland the Dutch government plans to construct 400 community shelters in 1962. Each shelter will have room for 100 persons. There are presently 262 shelters in the Netherlands with room for 50 persons in each. The country's population is more than 11,500,000.
Then this last fall we had the Canadian municipalities arguing in a brief to the government that the cost to carry on a national program of fall-out shelter construction will be enormous but that the cost of not doing so may be completely disastrous. It seems to me that this is an area in which the dominion government has a responsibility. Surely throughout the history of mankind the defence of its citizens has been of importance and surely this is about the only area about which you can use the word defence in its true meaning, that is the defence of the life, freedom and the security of people of this nation. I am afraid this is an area to which we have given too little time and thought and emphasis at the national level.
I should like to read from a book which is certainly more attuned to the posture of other parties than is this one. It is a book by James Eayrs called "Northern Approaches". His position is that we need this for the first time, that we cannot as I stated, give partial service to the people of Canada. There has not been any great enthusiasm for what the government has been doing now. Perhaps this is because they did not have sufficient knowledge about this matter. One of the things I think we need in this country is some kind of committee on defence which could solve the problem, which could deal with the problem, which could bring witnesses and allow this house to deal with this problem. It is very easy to say that. Last September the Prime Minister said, when he was discussing this problem, that these scientists who are in the know are those who know something about it. But the problem is that those who know seem to be the ones who are creating the most confusion. You have one physicist disagreeing with another physicist. I am suggesting now that Iowa physicists were attacking Dr. Willard Libby who has suggested certain measures for survival in case of atomic attack, by saying this:
It is extremely dangerous to give the impression to the public that the building of fall-out shelters will enable the average citizen to survive a nuclear war.
These are the remarks of James Eayrs in his book "Northern Approaches" at page 20:
It is a tremendous affront to the people of this country that such knowledge as is available of the chances of survival under atomic attack has not been placed squarely before them by their own government. A Canadian citizen, desiring the

Supply-Privy Council
opinion of experts about the effectiveness of the new weapons and the prospect of defence against them, must turn to the testimony of British and American witnesses before committees of their legislatures provided for that purpose. During the debate on defence policy in the last parliament, Conservative critics argued powerfully for the creation of a House of Commons standing committee on defence similar to those now functioning at Westminster and Washington.
Then he goes on to say that this party is in power. More than ever before we need some kind of committee to give us the different opinions of experts in this field so that we can take a national approach to this problem of national survival. I think that one cannot quarrel with what has already been done by the emergency measures organization. I think one would be wrong not to suggest that a great many devoted people have given a tremendous amount of time and energy to the work of this organization. I think they are doing the best they can on the information they have and the money which is made available to them. I will admit that only over the last year we have had a real focus on this matter or any real sense of proper perspective in this field of emergency measures. However, as I say, we still have not captured the Canadian people in this matter in any way whatsoever in terms of the number of people who are taking the advice they have been given by this government.
Last fall we held a civil defence exercise known as Tocsin B. As I said, I have the greatest respect for the emergency measures organization but I think we should not use this organization to project the number of variables in this matter which have no actual reality. For example, after the Tocsin B exercise ended last fall the Prime Minister announced that some 4 million people had been killed or that 3 million or 4 million had been killed as a result of that simulated attack.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: And he was one of them.


Walter George Pitman: One of the hon. members suggests that the Prime Minister himself was one of those who was killed. However, that is irrelevant to my argument. The point is that after this simulated attack the Prime Minister said that some 3 million or 4 million had been killed. If all the facts were brought forward in terms of what kind of attack it was, I think we would realize that this was not a group of variables which would be likely and therefore this number of people killed does not really come down to reality as the number who would be killed in a thermonuclear attack in the circumstances we have read about. For example, there were only 17 weapons dropped with a total megatonnage of some 75. All the bombs were from one to five megatons or only one was

of 10 megatons. Yet Mr. Khrushchev himself has said that he would certainly use the largest size weapon he is capable of using.
The whole problem is not the number of megatons a country has at its disposal. It is a problem of getting them there. The United States authorities state that every bomber S.A.C. has could carry the 100 ton bomb that Mr. Khrushchev had exploded in Siberia last fall. I realize that certainly a 20 ton megaton bomb is not 20 times a one megaton bomb but it is sufficiently great in order to have great effect. In a full scale attack on North America it is not a realistic variable on which to say that a certain number of people will be killed.


Mr. McGee:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Walter George Pitman: Yes.


Frank Charles McGee: He has suggested that certain assessments were unrealistic. Will he give us his assessment, which presumably will be realistic?


Walter George Pitman: At the beginning of my speech and during it I think I simply stated that there are a tremendous number of variables which no one can determine. I think the most unrealistic thing is to state any number of people killed on the assessment of a simulated attack. If the hon. member will listen to what I have yet to say, I think he will find that the number that was assessed is not realistic in the kind of thermonuclear attack which is envisaged.


Frank Charles McGee: What is realistic?


Walter George Pitman: If the hon. member will listen maybe he will learn. Only six bombs were delivered by I.C.B.M.'s, it was suggested in the simulated attack. There was not one single bomb that was dropped by mistake. There were no Russian bombs which were directed at United States cities and which ran out of fuel. I am sure we have a great deal of admiration for Russian technology but surely it is not quite that good. In addition, no assessment was made of the number who would be killed during the interception of bombers over our territory by our Bomarcs. Perhaps this is realistic, but none the less it is not included in the assessment of those who would be killed as a result of a thermonuclear attack on North America. There is no account of any nuclear devices released from submarines, one item which is suggested here.
You have a group of variables for the smallest possible attack which could be deposited, if it could be deposited at all. For example, there were only 350 individual aircraft attacking. On the knowledge we have

of the number of bombers the Russians have -and this is brought before both the houses of parliament and congressional committees -is this realistic in terms of the total attack which could be made? As I have said, there are a great many variables. I realize that it is not easy to deal with this matter. However, I suggest that it is wrong to assume and to tell the people of Canada 3 million to 4 million people will be killed in a thermonuclear attack unless you are assuming a set of variables which has some relation to what we know of the variables present in various other systems of government. For example, here is another thing in terms of the number of bombs which undoubtedly will be unleashed on the United States; and yet in the whole population of Canada there were only 180,360 radiation sickness casualties as a result of the nuclear explosions in the United States. Is this realistic in terms of the kind of attack which would take place? I think the position we have taken so far has not worked out. We have not got the Canadian people aroused about the problem of emergency measures. A great many people, of course, feel that they do not want to survive a nuclear attack. Indeed, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said as much, and I refer to a newspaper report of a speech he made in Victoria in which there is the following:
It wouldn't be worth surviving a nuclear war, external affairs minister Green told the Victoria branch of the United Nations association Thursday night. Civilization would be "blown apart", and the end of the war would mean a "return of the dark ages", said Mr. Green. "Many would survive of course, but I doubt if it would be worth surviving. We must learn to live together."
I think the problem is that if we are going to survive we should be surviving together, and I do not think the Canadian people are very much enthused about the idea that we can build shelters singly, that those who have money should build shelters whereas in the case of those who do not happen to have homes and who happen to live in apartments or in blast areas obviously no shelters are possible. There are so many other areas where the problems would be even greater in terms of getting shelter.
Nor are the people very enthused when they receive so much information that is in direct conflict with what they receive through official government channels. For example, I think a great many hon. members are familiar with Consumers Reports which publishes information on a great many different products. These articles are published by an organization which has no advertising interest in the products involved and therefore they carry a degree of reliability which a great many people in this country and in-
Supply-Privy Council deed in other countries respect. What does Consumers Reports say about fall-out shelters?
-the fall-out shelter, which is the specific kind of protective device around which our great debate has centred, must be distinguished from the blast shelter. The essential difference between them is that a workable blast shelter, which would provide great protection if one could be devised, really does not exist in the nuclear age; while a fall-out shelter, which can be devised very easily, really does not work.
This generalization, like all generalizations, can be made to yield exceptions. For, given the proper conditions, anyone can devise a shelter which would work to some extent. The trick is to get the conditions, and whether anyone might get them unfortunately is not known and is largely unknowable.
The article goes on to point out that really the individual fall-out shelter is not insurance protection as we have been talking about it, but rather is a bet. It is simply a bet exactly like a bet on a horse race. What you have to assume is that this series of variables will come together in such a way that your particular shelter will protect you from a certain amount of fall-out. But the point is, and a great many scientists have been indicating this, that this group of variables is not very likely to occur so far as fallout shelters are concerned and a great many believe that the only way we can meet the problem is through community shelters built at public cost.
The cost of such a program in Canada would be fantastic. Probably in no country in the world would it cost more in view of the size of our nation and the way in which our people are spread about. But surely this is the problem about which the people of Canada are concerned and which we are not meeting with any kind of conviction. We are just doing something. We are not sure at all whether that something has any relation to what the danger really is.
If we do develop a shelter program, and here I bring the committee back into focus again, we must deal with a great many problems. Will this develop a war psychosis? Will it enfeeble our desire to prevent war? Will we spend money and energy on shelters when it could be spent on programs to alleviate the tensions which create war? Will we lose our democracy in the very act of defending it?
The debate that took place in the house a couple of nights ago was in my opinion rather interesting and illustrates exactly what we are saying. The Minister of National Defence said that they cannot do anything about these people who graduate from our survival courses, that they cannot keep track of them because this is a form of conscription and because our system of government and democracy deny the right to keep track of these men. Members of the opposition and to some

Supply-Privy Council extent those of us in this group kept saying that national survival is a national problem, a problem serious enough that we should give consideration to the question of freedom for this group who are taking these courses in order that we may have them ready in case of a national emergency. This is the kind of debate which is going on all across the nation and the problem is one which I think it would be well for us in this chamber to consider.
Is it simply going to create bureaucratization? After all, once you get a group of people involved the thing is going to escalate. You will have all kinds of people in it who will not be involved in the building of shelters. The thing becomes irreversible. What effect would this have on the promotion of war?
Some people are convinced that the Russians have a very highly developed system of civil defence. I have an article here published by a highly regarded journal, the New Republic, which suggests this is not true at all. On the other hand, there is an article in this morning's Globe and Mail which suggests there is a great deal of feeling that this may be true. I think this is a question which we should be considering before we go any further in dealing with fall-out shelters.
What effect would it have on our allies, on nations such as India and the nations of South America which have no possibility of building fall-out shelters or protecting themselves from nuclear blast? In concluding my remarks because I see my time is up, may I say I have nothing but the greatest sympathy for those who have to deal with a set of variables which are so difficult as those concerned with emergency measures, but I suggest that unless we take a national look at the problem and get some kind of national purpose in this chamber I do not think we are going to have very much effect on the building of fall-out shelters or, indeed, in any other area of activity going on under this program.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of questions I want to put to the Prime Minister. This vote, of course, is for a further amount required for the administration and operation of the emergency measures organization. It may be recalled that last year the Prime Minister, who had had it brought to his attention that there was another unfulfilled promise of his lying around, caused a committee to be set up to study the War Measures Act and the bill of rights and to report on any possible amendments. That committee was thrown together in a hurry in June. It sat three times very briefly and has not been heard of since.

At the time the Clerk of the Privy Council was called before the committee and a number of things were discussed respecting the emergency measures organization. There was one matter which caused me considerable concern, and this has been the first opportunity to inquire of the Prime Minister or of any other responsible person with respect to the answer. As found on page 41 of the proceedings of the committee on June 28 last, Mr. Boyce, the Clerk of the Privy Council, was explaining to the committee the difficulties involved in such exercises as Tocsin I and Tocsin II. He pointed out to the committee that the question of how to bring the War Measures Act into force was of great importance, and part way down the page he made this statement with reference to Tocsin I:
We tried out, in this exercise which we had in May, how long it took us to get the War Measures Act proclaimed in a legal way; and, from the time the Prime Minister received warning from the chiefs of staff, until we had the proclamation sealed by the great seal-
I draw particular attention to those words.
-it took us 23 or 24 minutes, or something of that kind.
First, I wish to know whether in fact there was any proclamation sealed. As I understand the situation, the only authority that this or any other government has to issue such a proclamation is that found in the War Measures Act which contains these words in section 2.
The issue of a proclamation by Her Majesty, or under the authority of the governor in council shall be conclusive evidence that war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists and has existed for any period of time therein stated-
There is absolutely nothing, of course, that permits anyone to have a mock war or trial war. It would appear to me that under the authority of this legislation there has to be a real or apprehended emergency and not a trial in order to put any machinery into operation. Indeed, this appears to have been the opinion of the Clerk of the Privy Council who explained that some means of bringing the War Measures Act into effect had to be ascertained. I do not know whether any such means has been arrived at by the government. If so, I hope the Prime Minister will favour the committee with such information.
I put a question to the Clerk of the Privy Council as to what was done in the United Kingdom and the United States, and he informed me that he did not know. Mr. Currie, the head of the emergency measures organization, also was a witness and he did not favour that committee with the answer. Perhaps the Prime Minister knows what they do and what might be done in this country.

The Clerk of the Privy Council, who is charged with responsibility for this matter, pointed out that in circumstances such as a possible nuclear attack it would be necessary to disperse the government as well as disperse parliament so that there would not be a target presented to any potential enemy. However, if of course it takes 23 or 24 minutes to get the proclamation signed-and elsewhere during the committee proceedings the clerk had indicated that a missile attack might take 20 minutes and would not be preceded by a mass of planes and I.C.B.M.'s whereby we would have intelligence that an attack was coming-then we could not get on a war footing. The Clerk of the Privy Council knows what is going to happen, but even with parliament sitting it would take five or ten minutes beyond that safety factor of 20 minutes to get the proclamation signed because it is necessary that there be some legislative authority for the government to act.
I suppose the reason why this house has not had another committee set up this session is because of the deepening threat over Berlin last summer and fall when the government thought it might be necessary to have the war emergency powers which the last government required to use in a national emergency. I suppose the Prime Minister thought that trying to marry a horse to a cow, which is what we were trying to do in this committee by saying that in an emergency the state must be paramount and on the other hand a private individual's rights are paramount, then this philosophical discussion would have to remain until such time as there was no emergency.
If by reason of the fact, as the clerk said, that this declaration was certified by the Great Seal and signed by His Excellency, I would suggest to the committee that at that time we would be on a war footing in this country, but I would like to know what makes the Prime Minister and the executive branch think this.
Recently we had a second Tocsin exercise, and under the E.M.O. a great deal of money was spent which had already been voted by this house for the purpose, among others, of protecting the executive branch. No one would deny that it would be absolute anarchy to have an attack come and have the cabinet, who must decide the policy of the country, live in a place where they would be blown up. If that happened there would be complete and utter chaos.
We have read speculation in the press, indeed it is more than speculation, that there is a point to which the members of the cabinet will be taken. It has been referred to as the "Dief Bunker" among other things,
Supply-Privy Council and ostensibly it must be somewhere in the Ottawa area. It was a great shock, however, to everyone in the country when Tocsin II took place when the Prime Minister, who is the Prime Minister to direct any operations and direct emergency measures, is not in this special place built at the cost of the taxpayers but is instead sitting with his dog on his lap and his wife's hand in his hand, in his own home.


Mr. Palleil:: On a point of order, this is just another illustration of the type of thing that the Liberals are building up-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not a point of order.


John Cameron Pallett: I have sat peacefully-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order-


Mr. Jones:: The parliamentary secretary is on a point of order already.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the parliamentary secretary rising on a point of order?
Mr. Pallet!: Yes, I am. I sat and listened with-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, he is not stating his point of order. This is a speech.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I have no way of knowing whether or not the hon. parliamentary secretary is stating a point of order until I hear him out.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Chairman, I sat and listened patiently to this debate. The particulars of the item under consideration refer to informational publications and the debate has ranged far wide of that. I think the committee appreciated your general attitude of permitting a broadening of debate, but I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the type of speech that is presently being made by the hon. member for Niagara Falls is entering into personal attack, for which the Liberal party is now becoming quite famous.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Cameron Pallett: It has extended beyond-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of privilege-
Mr. Pallet!: -beyond the rules of the house that have permitted a fairly wide debate on this limited item.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I attempted to rise on a point of privilege which the Chair apparently did not hear. I made no personal attack and I resent the Prime Minister's assistant saying so. I made an attack on the office of the Prime Minister by saying it was not in the

Supply-Privy Council place provided for it by the people of this country, under vote or appropriation, to protect the country should there be a nuclear attack. I made no reference to the person of the Prime Minister at all. It was to the Prime Minister's office being removed from that place where it should be with the other officers of the cabinet.
Mr. Pallet!: Perhaps the hon. lady would indicate by telling us-


Gordon Campbell Chown: I think I shall just intercede voluntarily to state that in my opinion to some extent I think the parliamentary secretary had a point that was reasonably well taken. I heretofore allowed a fairly wide ranging discussion on this item which has to do with the administration and operation of the emergency measures organization. The word "administration" led me to leave a fairly wide basis for discussion. However, I think at this point I should caution hon. members to try and hold themselves fairly close on the track.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I did not mean and I did not ascribe to the Prime Minister anything improper as the present incumbent, but I wish to state that I do believe any incumbent in that office has no right in time of national emergency to be other than with his cabinet directing the affairs of his country.
I am particularly interested in obtaining from the Prime Minister an answer to the problem I originally raised. What authority has there been under which the emergency measures organization, and in particular Tocsin I and Tocsin II, have been set in force? What, in fact, has been done with respect to the orders in council? Will the Prime Minister table the two orders in council for Tocsins I and II to indicate to this house how he acted and under what legislative authority?
This matter has been raised with me by constitutional authorities, constitutional students, who are concerned whether in peacetime a government may on its own choice enter into such measures without having parliamentary authority to do so. As I understand it, there is no act of this parliament which has given the government such authority. However I understand what was said by the official of the cabinet who was charged with it that this problem remains to be solved and will be solved before there might be any emergency. Hon. members know that we could have been faced with such tension over Berlin.
We have not discussed this in committee of this house since June of last year. Now almost another year has gone by. Perhaps

the Prime Minister would tell this committee whether the executive has such a committee set up to work out this problem, or whether he has worked it out already within his own office, and whether any legislation has been drafted which would make the War Measures Act automatically come into effect.
I am informed that it does not automatically come into effect unless the cabinet has a declaration issued and signed by the Queen's representative, and that means that the government then, under authority of the statute, can operate in an emergency situation. I would be grateful to the Prime Minister if he could favour the committee with that authority.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the Prime Minister not think he should make a statement? Earlier I thought he was going to initiate the discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: This is purely for information services.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not the Prime Minister's intention first of all to answer the questions of the hon. gentleman?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to deprive the hon. gentleman of the opportunity to give the committee the benefit of his views.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the Prime Minister is one of those who could profit by views which come from this side of the chamber.


John George Diefenbaker: Not from the experience on the part of the hon. gentleman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would have thought, in view of the fact that we have not had a statement from the Prime Minister, who really is in charge of all civil defence operations as chief co-ordinator, we would have had from him a report of what has been done in this important but difficult field since we last met. The Prime Minister, however, has chosen to confine himself, as his observation of just a few moments ago indicates, to questions involving information services, the direct matter involved in the specific vote before the committee.
Mr. Chairman, the committee will of course appreciate that the information services of civil defence, the pamphlets, the publications, the films and so on, deal with every aspect of civil defence. While one does not want to abuse the area which you, Mr. Chairman, envisage for discussion, it is difficult to conceive that we could have an adequate discussion even of this particular item without traversing in a general way, as the hon. member for Peterborough so ably did, the whole matter of civil defence.

I do not propose to embark on idle criticism because this is a very difficult question, and this was noted by the hon. member for Peterborough. This is too important a matter to permit idle criticism to dominate what one has to say. This does not mean that there are not some things that should be put forward which are agitating the public mind. We must recognize that the difficulties which attend the formulation of civil defence policy are being experienced in countries other than our own, but I think it is only fair to say that, particularly since we last discussed this matter in the house, there is throughout the country, rightly or wrongly, among the people and on the part of those holding office in provincial and municipal governments a feeling that more direction should come in certain aspects of civil defence activity than is now the case.
The premier of Manitoba indicated recently that because there was no clearcut policy as to shelters, he was no longer going to use the private shelter which he had built, and he was not going to encourage citizens of the province of Manitoba to engage in the construction of shelters. I asked the Prime Minister a question about this last week; I asked if he had any comment to make on this statement by the premier of Manitoba. The Prime Minister said he had not seen the statement and on that account could not make a reply at that time. I think it will be expected of him that before we reach the hour of five o'clock he indicate if there is any ground for the action taken by the premier of Manitoba.
Last year when we discussed this problem of public shelters, the Prime Minister stated that the government believed, and I think rightly so, that a considerable avoidance of human destruction and suffering could be avoided by the use of shelters. I think that is a valid statement. I notice that only the other day Mr. John Gelner, a specialist in this and military fields, said that those who opposed the use of shelters under private or public auspices are simply engaging in an unmistakably irresponsible course. The question is not whether we can relieve ourselves from damage in the event of thermonuclear war by the use of shelters, but whether we are going to have a shelter policy that is nondiscriminatory. That really is one of the important issues at this time and it is being discussed in the country.
The government has not indicated that it proposes to give any financial assistance in the building of public shelters. That was the statement of policy of the government given by the Prime Minister when we discussed this matter in 1961. We have a right to ask the
Supply-Privy Council government if that continues to be the government's view. Is it simply going to continue to encourage, through publications and through the information services, the Canadian people to build basement shelters or shelters above the ground? Is it going to provide for loans under the existing arrangement? Is that the extent of the policy? We are entitled to know what the government proposes to do about this. We are entitled to know this particularly because in the United States there has been, as the hon. gentleman for Peterborough pointed out, a change of policy.
When we discussed this matter last year the Prime Minister was in a position to say that the United States were pursuing a policy of encouraging the American people to build their own shelters and that shelters could be built by private individuals at various prices, but down to a figure manageable for certain income groups. Since that time, as I say, a change has been made in United States policy. The President of the United States announced that the government of that country was going to engage in a program of assisting in the building of public shelters and they were going to spend a considerable sum of money toward reaching that objective.
Is the government going to continue with the policy enunciated last fall, or is it going to do what has been done in the United States, where the government of that country in the month of December announced a program of $700 million to build community shelters for 20 million people. The money under that program is to be spent in a 12 month period starting July 1, 1961 and a major share of the shelters under this program is to go to schools, universities and other non-profit institutions.
As I say, this marks a sharp reversal in United States policy. It no longer makes the provision of shelter the responsibility of the individual citizen; the government of that country now accepts this responsibility, and this proposal appears to be the first step in a much larger program. What is the attitude of our government?


John George Diefenbaker: Has that received congressional approval?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think it is still being discussed in congress, but it went from the president to congress. I think I saw something only the other day about there having been an increase in the amount proposed. The president proposed $700 million and I think it was Senator Douglas who has almost doubled that amount to take care of a much wider area of shelters.

Supply-Privy Council
In any event, this shows that in the United States there is some recognition by the executive of the argument that is made; that is, we are all going to have to face the same danger and no one should be given a privileged position because of his or her financial capacity to provide a shelter, something that might be denied others not so fortunate to possess resources which would enable the building of a shelter in a residence or place of business. Certainly, in principle it is difficult to resist the suggestion that if we think a shelter policy is desirable there should be a policy of non-discrimination so that every Canadian, particularly the younger people and the older people, should be afforded an equal opportunity, regardless of their economic resources, to receive the protection which would come from a shelter program sponsored and financed by the government of the nation.
The Prime Minister has observed that an adequate program of public shelters would cost between $4 billion and $5 billion. I think the hon. member for Trinity, who has given this matter a good deal of thought, suggested a much lower figure when he spoke on this subject last year. In any case, this is a large sum of money, and the government must take into account, in the light of its other obligations, whether or not such a program should be undertaken. My own view now is that if the government feels that the scientists have satisfied it that protection can be provided by shelters, we must now at least begin to embark on a program of public shelters based on the principle of non-discrimination. The extent to which this program will be developed must be decided by the government, because it has information not available to the rest of us, besides having responsibilities which do not belong to all of us.
The government, then, will make that decision. But the government is entitled to receive from us an indication of what we feel is the course it should take. I think the reaction of Premier Roblin will impress the Prime Minister with the frustration which many people have-a frustration which is not entirely due to the way in which this problem is being handled by the government, but is due in a large measure to the inherent character of the problem itself. However, the government cannot escape its share of responsibility for not giving clearer guidance in certain particulars, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is not fair to the premier of Manitoba, and it is not fair to the development of civil defence policy for the Prime Minister of the country, who has such heavy responsibilities, to be himself the co-ordinator of the entire program of civil defence. It is just not possible, in my view, for one holding the office of prime

minister to be in charge of civil defence over three other ministers, who have a shared responsibility in civil defence policy.
I said a moment ago it was up to the government to determine if we should embark on a program of shelters under public or private auspices. I say I now believe strongly that we should have public shelters. I am not saying to what extent. I would have to give further thought to that in the light of views expressed by those who are authorities on this matter; but some of those who are within sound of my voice know that we have had some discussions on this question recently. But we are entitled to be told by the government if a program of shelters will do the job or not. For instance, Dr. Waldemar Sackston, professor of entomology at Macdonald College, who participated in a public discussion on this subject with the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence has stated he is concerned about the program in Canada stemming from one in the United States. The report quotes Dr. Sackston as follows:
He said serious under-estimation of the casualties that might come from a nuclear attack was deluding the public into a belief in the possibility of survival.
And, later:
People in shelters stand no chance of being rescued because there would be no one to rescue them.
What is the considered opinion of the government in this regard? That was not its opinion a year ago. I suspect it is not its opinion today. But we are entitled to have a clear direction as to the value of shelters and the protection they afford.
Then we should have from the government, I think, as they recently had in England, a clear and unequivocal statement as to evacuation. Evacuation was the policy in Canada until four or five years ago. It was originally the policy of the United Kingdom, though it was for a while abandoned there. I understand the United Kingdom has recently gone back to the position that evacuation as a policy is not to be considered as having been abandoned. Some people believe that evacuation represents the effective form of civil defence. Is that the policy of the government of Canada? It is important that we should have direction along these lines. Only in today's paper we saw a report in the Globe and Mail on the first page, from Mr. Topping under a Moscow dateline, indicating that western observers have found what they believe to be evidence of an extensive system of bomb shelters in a number of cities in the Soviet union. The article goes on to indicate that some of these shelters obviously represent a policy which was developed in the

atomic period as opposed to the present nuclear period. But more lately it appears that the Soviet union has embarked on a policy of providing shelters for school children, for university students, for the aged, for certain classifications of workers and the like. Does the government believe this to be the case? Should we embark on such a program, or seek to emulate it. We know, of course, what has been done in countries such as Sweden. We know that a long time ago Sweden embarked on a program of public shelters. This has been discussed in the house on many occasions. I think it is generally recognized that there were special provocations in the case of Sweden, because of that country's propinquity to the Soviet union and the value that such shelters would have over and above their protective qualities.
These are questions which are in the public mind. We have a right at this time to ask the right hon. gentleman, who is the coordinator of civil defence, to tell us what is the latest thinking of the government on this subject and the extent to which the government believes it should participate in the financing of a public shelter program-the extent, also, to which it believes that the individual should relinquish these responsibilities.
Criticism has been directed by the hon. member for Peterborough against the exercise Tocsin B, 1961. In that exercise, close on
2,600,000	Canadians were presumed to have died from the immediate effects of blast, while another 1,600,000 were presumed to have been injured. It was also assumed that many of the injured would die later and that a further undetermined number would die as a result of the effects of fall-out and lack of shelter. There has been considerable criticism of this exercise. I know it is easy to criticize an exercise of this kind. I do not intend to indulge in that luxury. No matter what exercise was developed in this difficult field it would be bound to give rise to criticism. However, the observation of Mr. Walter Lippmann with regard to a similar exercise in the United States is not without significance. He said:
The evil comes from telling the people that they are in danger of being exterminated, and that they can and should save themselves separately, each family for itself, and the devil take the hindmost. This is the way to breed panic.
This represents the thinking of some of those who have criticized the exercise. Some argued it created panic and a false sense of danger and that unless you could equate the reaction of danger to the means in existence to provide a defence against that danger, it was wrong to create a situation that would cause such panic.
Supply-Privy Council
There are two points of view. The government undoubtedly has its point of view and we should hear from the government the extent to which it has been influenced by this criticism which, editorially at any rate, has a uniform character.
I think the observations made by the hon. member for Niagara Falls were misunderstood certainly by the parliamentary secretary. I do not think she intended a personal reference to the Prime Minister. She was talking about a matter that has a potential which should inspire all of us to the most precise thinking we can achieve. I believe she is justified in saying that if we have a separate place for the government to seek refuge in the event of nuclear war, we should expect the Prime Minister as head of the government of our country to be in that place so that he could do what at the time would be the most useful thing he could do, and that is to help govern the nation in the very extraordinary circumstances which would prevail in such a situation.
The Prime Minister on one occasion, obviously for my benefit, quoted from an editorial in the Windsor Star by a particular columnist. Let me quote from that same columnist who on December 29, 1961 in the Windsor Star wrote:
Foreign policy and war scare talk going hand in hand, this is as good a place as any to pass on the gripe of one Windsorite who thinks Prime Minister Diefenbaker has made a wrong decision about what he'll do if war comes. On more than one occasion, the Prime Minister has said he elects to stay in Ottawa with his wife and use their standard fall-out shelter,
What is said about the Prime Minister's wife is not, of course, intended in any way to involve that distinguished lady in this discussion. I am sure that was not the intention of the writer nor is it my intention. The writer went on to say:
"This is a stupid policy," says the Diefenbaker critic. "The Prime Minister is head of government and should go where he can be safe if war comes. It is his duty to see the government functions. He can t do that by appointing a deputy prime minister, it may sound noble to say he elects to stay with the people and suffer whatever happens to them. That isn't his duty. He should go where he can keep the government running."
I am sure most people will agree with that statement. The statement of the Prime Minister that he was going to stay at home on Sussex street is not the kind of assurance the people of Canada want the head of the government to give in the circumstances envisaged by exercise Tocsin B-61 or that would eventuate if the circumstances of that exercise were to become a reality.
I am not saying the Prime Minister does not appreciate that view now. I suspect that

Supply-Privy Council on reflection he must agree that in those circumstances his place would be where the government is.
There are some highly important questions that have to be resolved. Some direction not now in existence must be given by the government particularly with regard to shelters. Are we to have public shelters or are we not? Are we to allow shelters to be built now under the principle of perhaps unintended but actual discrimination as is the inevitable consequence of the present policy? Are we still to regard evacuation as a practical course to adopt in certain circumstances? What are those circumstances?
These and other questions are in the public mind. Although this is a small item involving a relatively minor portion of the budget for civil defence, it does afford an opportunity to express our views on this vital matter, and to invite the Prime Minister to make a statement with respect to this question, one which is of urgent concern. We should receive a statement from the Prime Minister who is in charge of civil defence, who is the co-ordinator in this area over the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and their colleagues in other departments of government concerned.
This is not make believe. This is necessary preparation for something we hope will never happen, and to the extent we are prepared in a practical way we have added to our strength in a defensive way.


Walter George Pitman: Surely the Prime Minister is going to answer some of the questions directed from this side. It seems to me the people of Canada are seeking direction in this connection. We now have the worst of two possible worlds. We have a shelter policy which gives us some hope of survival and defending our freedom, but to be of use in our defence posture the program must be related to the real effects of a nuclear attack. If our enemies believe that civil defence is for us a mere posture and that we are going through the motions of constructing basement shelters with their having no relationship to the effects of real danger, surely this is simply a provocation to war. It is virtually an exposing, an opening up, of our defence posture. We must prove that what we are doing in civil defence is as sensible and realistic as what we are doing in our relationship with NATO and the various elements of our total defence position.
I would hope the Prime Minister would indicate whether he would be willing to establish a committee of this house to consider the whole matter of civil defence. Certainly he should be willing to indicate whether there have been any discussions with respect to

community shelters. Is there any doubt in his mind about their value especially when the United States in their greater wisdom have undertaken a program of this kind? If we are to be a part of NATO and NORAD our civil defence should be related to our total defence position since we will be facing equal danger. Our policies should go hand in hand.
I hope we may receive an indication of the Prime Minister's thinking on these points.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Essex East while he reviewed the problem in a way which revealed the knowledge of the subject he gained during the period he was in charge of this particular phase of defence in the former administration. I had been waiting to hear suggestions from hon. members opposite and have not wished in any way to see the debate restricted to discussion of the item under consideration.
This item has to do with civil defence. I would be the last person to transgress the rules of the house by engaging in a discussion of the whole question of E.M.O., the emergency measures organization, at a time like this. However, there have been some observations made which I believe deserve attention.
As I understood the hon. member for Peterborough he suggested that a committee be set up for the purpose of considering this whole question. When one considers what progress has been made in this house in the last two or three weeks it is found that thus far approximately 16 days have been spent considering supplementary estimates-
Mr. Pallet!: It is more than that. It is
19 days.


John George Diefenbaker: Nineteen days? Oh, well, I always believe in being "conservative". Considering the progress made within the last two or three weeks one realizes that it is absolutely impossible for hon. members opposite to accord important matters that remain to be considered at this session the attention they deserve in a reasonable length of time. However, the manner in which the hon. member for Peterborough dealt with this question has impelled me to say something in regard to it.
I am most anxious not to deny any hon. member the opportunity of placing his ideas before the government. But having waited in order to give everyone the opportunity, I might review one or two matters to which reference has been made.
Reference was made to the general subject of fall-out shelters. As I followed his argument, the hon. member for Essex East stated that there should be an equality for all in survival. I accept that principle. But I notice

that immediately it was followed by the suggestion of how difficult that would be. He said, "How could this be achieved, in effect?" He said that it was going to be a tremendously costly proposition to provide public shelters, that the estimate last year was some $4 billion to $5 billion and the estimate now is somewhat higher. Then he stated that he thought the proper course to follow would be to cover the whole field and to assure equality of security and survival now but rather to decide on priorities. Then he asked this question: Who is to have priority? By asking that question he fairly well answered his suggestion as to a national emergency shelter program financed by the people of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I said children.


John George Diefenbaker: He said, "Where do we start, who is to have priority?" Those were the words he used. In doing that he showed his capacity for getting to the heart of the proposition. He was in favour of the general principle that all should be assured of equality of survival and he dealt with it immediately by that question, a fair and reasonable one, the one that actually is the nub of the problem we face, the question of priority.
There have been changes in viewpoint in the United States. Mention was made by the hon. gentleman of the fact that in the United Kingdom there have been changes in this regard. The hon. member for Peterborough spoke of the vast number of variables on many of which we have not full information and the difficulty of arriving at a program in the face of a problem that we hope will never be an actuality, one that we have never faced previously and one that in the days ahead we hope will not have to be faced.
We have also to look at the thinking of the people. If we act as we did in connection with Tocsin B, some say that we arouse fear in the hearts of the people; and mention was made of that matter today. On the other hand if we do not act, we bring about a state of mind that is not in keeping with reality. The same problem has been experienced in the other countries. The hon. member for Essex East mentioned the United Kingdom. In recent months I think there has been a vast alteration of viewpoint in regard to this whole matter. The hon. gentleman quoted from authorities to the effect that there could be no survival and a little later he argued that action should be taken in order to secure survival. No one in any part of the world today knows with finality the course that ought to be followed.
Mention was made of the U.S.S.R. which has the dictatorial power of directing where
Supply-Privy Council persons shall go and where they shall not go. The hon. member mentioned an item in today's Globe and Mail. The report was to the effect, as I saw it, that in that country basement shelter construction started to diminish in the mid-fifties and was abandoned in the late fifties. On the other hand, pre-attack evacuation planning in that country has been receiving some emphasis as well as an apparent increase in the construction of what are called "free standing" shelters. These two aspects in the U.S.S.R. seem to indicate a combined shelter and evacuation policy.
Until about five years ago, if Canada had a policy, it was one of evacuation. Today it is a combined policy of shelter and evacuation. It was for that reason that we instituted the various programs and national exercises that have been undertaken.
In view of the mention of the U.S.S.R. I think I should place before you something of what it is doing in this field. The possibility of a surprise attack is admitted by the Soviet authorities. However, they think that actual hostilities will be preceded by a period of growing tension. The central responsibility for civil defence was until January 1960 that of the ministry of the interior, and its responsibility was abolished at that time. The head of municipal civil defence is the chairman of the town executive committee. In each town and city actual planning is carried out by the civil defence staff of the municipality. Residential areas and educational establishments organize "self-defence groups" numbering from 45 to 73 people. Groups are formed for administratively convenient units, varying from 200 persons in rural areas to 700 in densely populated urban ones. Each group consists of leaders and six teams: preservation of order, fire, decontamination, rescue, medical and shelters. They have training schools. In those schools instruction is given about the capabilities of nuclear weapons, starting with a 10-hour lecture course. They also have a further course of 18 hours which recently was brought into effect and which introduces information about fall-out. Shelters against blast, fire, radiation, and biological and chemical agents have been incorporated in basements of new buildings. Basement shelter construction started to diminish in 1955 and seems to have been abandoned in major urban centres since 1959.
Pre-attack evacuation is receiving considerable emphasis but at the same time, there has been an increase of "free standing" shelters. They have a mass training system in order to train the leaders in the various communities to take their parts.

Supply-Privy Council
With regard to the government in the event of war, may I say that I have listened with interest to suggestions that have been made arising from a statement which I placed before the house to the effect that I would be in the same position as other Canadians in the event that war came. That statement was made after full consideration had been given to the matter by those associated with this whole problem.
We have a number-half a dozen-of defence locations where government will have its place. We are not going to concentrate the members of government in any particular one. When it was originally bruited or rumoured that there was a place for government there were many, including the press, who stated that the leader of the nation should not be there, that he ought not to ask others to do that which he himself would not undertake. Arrangements were made whereby in the shelter at 24 Sussex street, which is identical in form and construction with those that we suggest for Canadians across this country, whereby there would be provision for co-ordination of government among the half dozen places to which it will disperse.
We are not going to have our key people in government and in the civil service concentrated in any one place. Otherwise all chance of giving leadership and administrative control to the nation might be lost by one direct hit. Some will stay in Ottawa and other places close to Ottawa will house various ministers and their departments. Full arrangements have been made, that there will be co-ordination which will assure not only the continuation of leadership to the various elements that must necessarily be considered but as well within the base itself. I want to emphasize that fact.
I believe, and I think it is fair to say, that in the last year and a half or two years more work has been done effectively on behalf of civil defence in this country than in all the preceding years. There is no question about that. We have brought about an organization in every part of this country. The hon. member for Essex East was fair enough to say that no matter what is done in this regard it can be subject to the luxury of criticism. I point out that the organization headed by Mr. Curry and those associated with him has been diligent, has given of its best and has brought about in co-operation with municipal authorities and others across the country a unity of purpose that was lacking in the past.
The responsibility, as was said by the hon. member for Peterborough, of the emergency measures organization is to co-ordinate planning for wartime emergency not only among federal departments but with the provinces and through them with the municipalities.

Planning in federal departments is progressing satisfactorily, with a better comprehension of functions that will have to be performed under emergency conditions. Greater attention is being given to detailed planning, both at the national and regional levels. Key officials have been designated and trained and plans prepared for the quick relocation of a small core of government personnel outside Ottawa as well as near each provincial capital city in time of emergency. I could give the records in this regard showing what is being done in that connection province by province, if it were desirable.
Facilities are now available in the Ottawa area that allow, as I said a moment ago, for the relocation of these essential elements of government. In addition, construction of permanent regional emergency government facilities has progressed on schedule and it is expected that the first four of these headquarters will be completed this summer with others being available early in 1963. In the meantime, interim facilities in all provinces have been made available on national defence establishments.
Then we come to the question of communication, which is most important. An adequate communications system has been provided to ensure continued contact with federal regional headquarters and with all provincial governments.
Emergency orders in council and regulations, required for the continued operation of government in wartime, were tested during exercise Tocsin B and further progress is being made in improving these and correcting overlapping of authority and responsibilities wherever such things occur. The basic authority required to operate in an emergency is provided under the War Measures Act, under which orders were purportedly made, but in each case it was clearly written across the order in question that it was for exercise purposes only. In other words, it was simply the carrying out of the technique rather than the application of the act itself.
Mention was made of the fact that a committee was set up last year on the War Measures Act in relationship to the bill of rights. When it is suggested that we ought to have set up that committee this year, I again point out that for weeks and weeks we have been held up more than I believe to have been necessary or understandable, and it has not yet been possible to bring this matter and several others of major importance before the house.
The basic authority, as I said a moment ago, is under the War Measures Act. The suggestion was made that in the United Kingdom they require something similar. I understand that is not so. The only reason for the War

Measures Act is that in the case of an emergency or anticipated emergency it enables the invasion by the federal government of areas within provincial jurisdiction. It declares a national emergency or an impending one, and authorized thereby by the use of the word "emergency" in the preamble, which has been held sufficient for the purpose, the federal government is enabled to do those things that under ordinary circumstances are exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Records essential in an emergency have been selected and stored so that they will be available at all times. Equally important in providing for continuity of government is planning by the provinces and by municipalities. This planning supplements that carried on by federal departments. The cost of emergency planning by provinces and by municipalities is borne to the extent of 75 per cent by the federal goverment. Many hundreds of municipal emergency planning projects are approved each year. Many municipalities are engaged in working out plans for suitable emergency headquarters and are assigning functions to the key personnel who will be involved.
This is a very large undertaking. The hon. member for Essex East suggested that it was too large to be left in the hands of the Prime Minister. It covers three departments of government; there must be someone in the position of having co-ordinating authority and for that reason the responsibility was placed on the privy council office.
The question of survival touches not only the hearts but the imagination of Canadians as a whole. What are we going to do? How far shall we go? Someone suggested that as a result of the Tocsin exercise people have been filled with fear. The hon. member for Peterborough answered this very well in the argument he advanced when he showed that whatever their fear may be, that fear has not been translated into any action commensurate with the danger that there is.
Indeed all of us recognize this fact today, It has been the same throughout the ages. When people are living under fear from day to day, week to week, and month to month they finally develop an attitude of mind which causes them to believe that there is no danger of that fear ever bringing about the catastrophe regarding which the fear has been engendered. That is the position today and all of us hope that out of this conference in Geneva we will be able to remove something of this fear from the heart of man. All of us who are following that conference from day to day are beginning to wonder whether mankind has learned a lesson and whether there will come out of
Supply-Privy Council that conference anything that will give hope to mankind in place of the fear that today overhangs all of us.
In connection with the survival of people, the army's warning facilities in the form of sirens have been steadily increased and the coverage extended. The army is now studying the possibility of suitable warning devices that might be recommended for use in homes. This is a device that is activated by a signal sent over the normal electrical power circuits. The army is developing its plans for re-entry operations in damaged or heavily contaminated areas. It has made good progress in organizing survival columns and establishing target area headquarters to take control of these emergency operations.
We are now working closely with the provinces in an effort to establish suitable emergency communication plans, and through the provinces to establish municipal radiological defence organizations. These will be the means of conveying to people the information they will need about the degree of radioactive fall-out to which they might be exposed, and what measures they should take.
The vote in question has to do with public information. There has been a tremendous demand for literature on this subject. That demand has been increasing year by year and has now come to a point where we have had to ask for this extra amount in order to meet it. I shall not go into particulars except to say that of the publication "Basement Fall-out Shelter," first issued in May, 1960, to date there have been three printings totalling 1,250,000 copies in English and
300.000	copies in French. The figures for other publications are as follows: "11 Steps to Survival", first printed in April, 1961- four printings totalling 1,708,000 copies in English and 322,000 in French; "Survival Folder" first issued in July, 1961-600,000 copies in English and 140,000 in French. "Simpler Shelters", which deals with shelter protection that will provide a reasonable degree of protection against fall-out at a cost of $100 for materials, was first published in the form of a pamphlet in February of this year and has had one printing totalling
800.000	copies in English and 200,000 copies in French. Another publication is "Survival in Likely Target Areas", which is being issued this month in one printing totalling 800,000 copies in English and 200,000 copies in French.
I could go through a very lengthy list of such publications which indicate that people want information. They want to know what the picture will be so that, having got that information, they may immediately react and carry out the suggestions made.

Supply-Privy Council
There was a mention made of the exercise in November and I think the hon. gentleman from Peterborough said that there should be some report given to the house. The exercise was planned to practise manning and operation of emergency government headquarters at all levels and, in particular, to test the capability for emergency government in those aspects where weaknesses were revealed in the May exercise. When I last spoke in the house on this subject I quite frankly admitted that there were shortcomings in the May exercise. I did not conceal them. We did not try to paper over the cracks in the wall. We realized that there were shortcomings and we had a further exercise based on the experience of May, designed not only to remove those shortcomings that had been ascertained earlier, but also to expand and extend the field of operations. Special informative programs on radio and television were arranged. The provincial premiers were advised of the decision to hold the exercise and their cooperation was requested. Each and every one of them gave that co-operation very fully. The initial assessment, and this is one that has not been arrived at loosely, is that the exercise fulfilled its primary purpose.
There was some comment that it was unrealistic because of the short duration and the nature of the assumed attack. The hon. member for Peterborough said they had not purported to use as large bombs as could have been used. I do not really get the point of that. It was the exercise and not the size of the cause of the exercise with which we were concerned.
The general purpose of the exercise was not to test the size of the instruments that would be used against us or their effectiveness. Indeed the effects of a bomb do not increase in proportion to the increase in size. The exercise was designed to test our basic arrangements for survival. We recognize that should nuclear war ever take place there may well be longer periods of attack and greater disorganization that was apparent from the exercise. Nevertheless I want to emphasize that not only we, but also those responsible in the provinces, agree that these exercises have helped greatly to develop a basic capability of ensuring that there will be in existence a framework of government services to provide guidance and leadership to the country.
As in the May exercise, federal participation was quite complete with maximum numbers participating. Provincial participation, especially at the senior level, represented a considerable advance over the May exercise, and reflected substantial progress in provincial planning between May and November.

At the central federal exercise headquarters, 17 federal departments and agencies actively participated in the exercise. I remained at 24 Sussex street, in continuing communication. An exercise cabinet consisting of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Defence, the Postmaster General, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Defence Production and the Minister without Portfolio met on a shift basis throughout the 24 hour period of the exercise. They were supported by a staff, including deputy ministers and other senior officers, of some 215 persons.
With regard to the previous exercise, it was noted and commented on by the hon. member for Vancouver East that during the time in which the federal government moved from Ottawa to the exercise headquarters it risked being ineffective, due to a lack of communications. This problem was met in Tocsin B by reorganizing the advance party to include in it members of cabinet and an improved staff capability. This solved the problem to which the hon. member made reference, after a very complete and thoroughgoing examination of the May exercise.
As well as the reinforced advance party, additional measures and safeguards may be necessary and are being investigated. Furthermore-and I have already mentioned the question of the drafting of federal emergency regulations and orders-in the May exercise there were difficulties. As a result of that experience sets of these draft regulations and orders were made available in all the provinces when the emergency exercise began. There was a complete review of all the possible contingencies that could arise that required regulations. These were drafted by a committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council assuming a large degree of responsibility in this connection. All these draft regulations, extensive as they are, are now being reviewed in the light of the comments received on the November exercise.
There was also a considerable improvement in departmental organization and training. There has been considerable continuity in staff from previous exercises, and as a result all departments were able to make advances in exercising their emergency organization and fulfilling their functions at such a time.
Many departments, in addition to their staffs at central and regional facilities, operated for the first time comparatively large operational staffs at departmental relocation sites. It is probable that most of these latter departments came out of the exercise with a clear view of the steps they need to take in

all fields, but especially in regard to clarifying their functions, their organization and staff training to further improve their emergency capability.
To date in these exercises people generally have been requested to participate in a passive sense only. In fact, the aspect of these exercises aimed at the general public has formed a part of the over-all program of information and education on national survival matters. It is also becoming more and more apparent that although national exercises do achieve much, it is of concern that not enough attention has been paid to the subject of municipalities. While a considerable number of municipalities, actually some hundreds, participated in the exercise, greater efforts must be directed to having municipalities participate more fully, because in the event of a nuclear catastrophe this is the level of government which will feel the first impact. Possibly by recasting our concept of exercises we could achieve more. We have therefore been encouraging provincial governments to conduct exercises within provinces whereby greater emphasis will be placed on exercising municipal governments.
During the early phases of Tocsin B in which the continent was being subjected to a combined bomber and missile attack, it was apparent that our recommendations to the public on steps they should take to ensure their survival, on the basis of public warning systems, needed some modification. A general assessment of the exercise, however, indicates that it achieved its main objectives and reflected a considerable advance over the exercise of May, 1961. Hon. members will recognize that much remains to be done to ensure that fully comprehensive plans for national survival are developed. One of the purposes of these exercises is to test the advances that we make from time to time and to direct attention to the next stage.
That represents a summary of an exercise which was extensive and which was also much more effective and efficient than had been the one in May. This is one of the reasons for the exercises, to learn where there are shortcomings and, having learned, to act in order to prevent a recurrence.
Mr. Chairman, I think that in general covers my statement in respect of this matter. I again say to the hon. member for Essex East and to the hon. member for Peterborough that I appreciate very much having the benefit of their views, because both have studied this matter. All hon. members who have anything to contribute in this connection will receive the fullest co-operation of the government. This is a matter that transcends partisan considerations, the survival of our people to the largest degree possible.
Supply-Privy Council That is the responsibility of government. It is also the responsibility of all our people to join together, as they did on these two occasions, in a national spirit of co-operation for the benefit of each and all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee will welcome the statement the Prime Minister has made. It was a comprehensive statement on this subject, the importance of which it is difficult for us even to conceive. While I do not propose to hold up the passage of this estimate, I do not apologize for saying a few words on this matter in the light of what the Prime Minister has said, nor indeed do I think we need apologize for discussing these supplementary estimates at a much greater length than would normally be the case, in view of the fact that we have no assurance that any of the subjects concerned with them will be open for discussion during the remainder of the session.
Especially in connection with civil defence we do desire to take advantage of this opportunity to listen to the policy of the government as it has been expressed by the Prime Minister and to add our own views, which might have some bearing on that policy. This is an item which does raise the whole question of co-ordination by the government of measures of civil defence. While the Prime Minister has stated, as did the Minister of National Defence before him, that the government is satisfied that these measures are efficient and would be effective in the awful emergency which is contemplated in case they ever had to be used, we cannot on this side of the chamber ignore the fact-and this has been pointed out this afternoon-that there are others who are not nearly so satisfied as to the effectiveness of these measures and their co-ordination. When those people include the premier of Manitoba and certain municipalities in the country, then we have, I think, good justification for expressing our anxiety that perhaps everything is not as perfect as we would like it to be and as the government undoubtedly hopes that it is.
Therefore this afternoon we have put forward some suggestions and proposals and we have asked some questions. The Prime Minister has this afternoon dealt with one of these questions; that is, the measures that have been adopted to enable a government to be carried on in the awful emergency, or in the awful fact of nuclear destruction. We had assumed on this side of the chamber that there was being constructed not very far away, we believed, from Ottawa what perhaps might fairly be designated as a national command post in which the effort to ensure survival and reorganize the life of the country after nuclear attack would be centred.

Supply-Privy Council Surely that is a sensible and reasonable step for any government to take. That will involve, of course, very special preparations and operations. We had assumed that at this national command post there would be very special methods of protection, as, indeed, there must be, and very special methods of communication, as, indeed, there must be. While everyone would sympathize with the desire of anyone, whatever position he might hold, to share in the dangers of the people, nevertheless a position of responsibility does require certain protection in order that that responsibility might be discharged. We had assumed that that responsibility could best be discharged from these particular posts upon which a great deal of money is, I think rightly, being spent.
The Prime Minister has told us this afternoon, and this is the first time we have been so informed, that there is no single place to which the government would be dispersed. I think he said there are half a dozen places from which government activity might be conducted during an emergency, in addition to the residence of the Prime Minister himself, and we had assumed that that was a national command post. This throws a new light on this problem. It is not possible, of course, to discuss this awful problem and what should be done about it without trying to reach some conclusion as to the nature of the destruction which would be visited on us if we ever allowed ourselves-and by "ourselves" I mean humanity-to drift or be pushed into the catastrophe of nuclear war. We cannot know what will happen. All we can do is protect ourselves to the best of our ability under the leadership of the government in readiness for whatever is thought most likely to happen. The extent of the menace and of the possibilities of destruction are changing month by month and I suppose government attitudes and policies have to change as the capacity for destruction changes. What might have been and, indeed, was a kind of protection against bombing in the second world war would amount to nothing at all now, and the kind of protection we are now considering might be worth nothing at all in a few months time. We have been informed, and I think it is no longer a matter of secrecy, that the communist empire of Russia, from which an attack would likely come should it ever take place, has developed a thermonuclear weapon equivalent to 100 million tons of t.n.t. One hundred million tons: that is startling enough, but it is even more startling when one realizes it would be the equivalent of an attack by ten million bombers carrying the average bomb load of the last war. All this, as the Prime Minister and others have pointed out, certainly makes 
for fear and it imposes an obligation not only to do something about survival in case of an attack, but also to do something about removing the fear itself. The aim, of course, is peace, but peace cannot be achieved unless we remove this awful fear. Yet when we give publicity to statistics showing the nature of the destruction which would occur in the event of nuclear attack we are, in a sense, increasing fear. That is a result which, in one sense, one does not like to see because fear can itself be an enemy of the resolution required to bring about the policies which may remove the fear politically. In that sense the fear we created in trying to convince our people of the necessity of measures for their protection can be used against us in the form of blackmail. That is the destructive circle we are up against.
The Rand Corporation, which has done a great deal of investigation into nuclear warfare and civil defence, and especially Herman Kahn, a member of that corporation, I believe, have told us that in the United States under the present circumstances they have to assume that 90 million people would be killed in any major nuclear attack and that it would take 60 years for economic recovery to take place after such an attack. However, according to this report, if they spent a minimum of $500 millions on their protection they could reduce that figure of casualties to 50 million and reduce the period of 60 years to 15 years. The report is embodied in a long book which perhaps some of the members of the committee have read, and it goes on to say that major evacuation, added to the other measures, could reduce the figure of casualties to 15 million. That apparently, is the irreducible minimum. Then, as the author says, when you cut it down to 15 millions it becomes credible.
It is very important, according to him and others, to maintain what is called the credibility of the deterrent. One aspect of the credibility of the deterrent is the credibility of the people to accept the acceptability of destruction. I do not think anyone can get much comfort out of that, yet the fact that the figure could be reduced, by protective action, from 90 million to 15 million, according to this report, does, I suggest, underline the necessity for the government taking whatever action is possible and it does emphasize the fact that civil defence becomes a part of the deterrent. That is another reason why, I suppose, something has to be done about it in addition to the obligation to do what we can to ensure survival.
We assume that while there is no protection against a hit from a nuclear weapon, or practically none, except by an arrangement

of the kind we are operating for the government of this country against any form of nuclear blast, there would be protection against nuclear fall-out, and presumably that is the reason we are taking the steps we are taking. Yet I have seen a report from the head of the department of physiology in the University of Minnesota as part of a study commenting on the Rand Corporation studies and on the civil defence policies of the United States, to the effect that if there was a "real nuclear war"-I do not know what he means by a "real nuclear war"; presumably it is one where there would be attacks followed by attacks; that is presumably what we have to expect-it would be necessary to stay in a shelter for a year if the lethal effects of fall-out are to be avoided. This gives some idea of the nature of the problem we are dealing with on this sunny spring afternoon in this committee of the House of Commons. We on this side of the committee know the agony which is involved in trying to decide what to do about it, though perhaps we are not as intimately associated with these matters as are some people on the other side of the house. There are too many variables, as the hon. member for Peterborough has said, and as I have repeated this afternoon, for us to be able to ensure finality in any policy with regard to this matter.
The only finality will come if we fail in our policy of peace and get into nuclear war. That may well be final. Therefore, the only protection is peace. But I should like to emphasize, as my friend the hon. member for Essex East has emphasized, that while there cannot be any finality in policy or decision it does seem to us on this side that somehow there have to be priorities of protection established.
The Prime Minister has mentioned the fact that we cannot have equality in this matter except in principle and I do not quarrel with that nor does the hon. member for Essex East. There cannot be equality of safeguards or of safety in a matter of this kind but there will have to be priorities established. Indeed in the present policy of the government a priority has been established. The priority that has been established is that if you have the resources yourself as an individual, and if you have the facilities, if you live in a house where there is a possibility of doing this, you can, if you can afford it, give yourself some protection against fall-out. That leaves it up to the individual, with encouragement and support, up to a point, from the government. But surely there must be some more collective approach than that to this problem. If we have to have priorities is it not desirable to add to the individual priority-and I do not think we 26207-1-137
Supply-Privy Council should take away from the individual the right to do what he can for his own protection and that of his family-a priority for children established by our collective action under which there will be some degree of assurance of survival of the children of the nation. If we could have that kind of action through collective shelters on a basis of cooperation among federal, provincial and municipal governments, is that not the kind of priority which would be justified through ensuring the survival of our children?
I do not know how it could be worked out. I do not have that information, and I do know something about the difficulty. But let us add to whatever priority we are giving, by the very nature of our society to the individual who can do these things with government support and encouragement, some kind of collective priority to the one element of our population whom we would, I should think, especially desire to have survive in this kind of situation. Perhaps this would be a principle upon which we could extend our activity in the future.
There are one or two other points which I feel should be brought to the government's attention. We have pointed out before that it is essential that stockpiles of food and materials be secured at strategic sites, where they will be accessible in times of disaster, if shelters are to be of any value. I do not know whether anything has been done about that yet.
This has also been pointed out by many hon. members on this side. A national system of automatic warning must surely be worked out. Does that not mean having individual units installed in individual dwellings in a way that they could be activated from a central emergency headquarters? It seems to me that is the only kind of warning which would be adequate in the missile age.
There is also the idea of dispersal, of evacuation. The Prime Minister has told us this afternoon that the policy of the government in respect of civil defence and emergency measures is now based on the twin principles of shelters against fall-out, and dispersal and evacuation. We were of the impression on this side-and the Prime Minister's statement rather indicates that we were wrong-that the principle adopted by the government now was the principle of fall-out shelters and not dispersal or evacuation. It has been pointed out, I believe, that the United Kingdom up until the last year or so based its policy on the construction of shelters, but has now reintroduced the idea of evacuation and survival. I do not wish to delay this item but if the Prime Minister could reassure the committee on that point by telling us that the government has indeed now based its policy

Supply-Privy Council on evacuation as well as survival through fall-out shelters, that would be a very important result to have been achieved from our discussion this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution. With regard to the first point raised concerning the priority of the survival of children, all of us can accept that as a principle that appeals to the heart and is important in terms of the needs of the future. However, the hon. gentleman in discussing this question was careful to say that this would be a difficult matter to achieve. How are you going to bring it about? Are you going to provide fall-out shelters in the basements of the schools or in some public place, while the parents would be at home? Hon. members can imagine the heartsickness of a father and mother at home with the children somewhere else. Are you going to establish public shelters for the children only? When these questions are considered you can readily realize what the difficulties would be. Adults would have to be present in order to make possible the effective use of these facilities. All of us will be in agreement with the objective, but we will be equally in agreement as to the difficulties inherent in the achievement of this desirable objective.
I believe I can summarize the policy of the government on civil defence in this way. Evacuation was the policy. That was the policy in effect when we came into office. However, nothing could be done to effectively implement it or to plan properly for evacuation. We now try to get the provinces and municipalities to be ready for voluntary evacuation, because many thousands of people will try to leave the cities and urban centres anyway, and we cannot stop them. We point out what the difficulties and problems are and we make it possible for the municipalities to do their planning for this. We also warn, as we did at the time of exercise Tocsin in November, that those who move should move only if they have arranged their destination in advance. If that were not arranged for it would be quite impossible to have an effective evacuation policy. Instead of a policy of evacuation there would be simply a policy of annihilation. It would bring about a degree of panic that would only serve to add to the dangerous situation prevailing following an attack.
In speaking most frankly on this subject permit me to say I very much appreciate the expression of the views on the part of those who have participated in this debate. I assure them, the committee and the country that I am fully convinced of the importance of this decision. As the Leader of the Opposition has stated it is one of those agonizing decisions


that have to be made from time to time. In this matter we have no past experience. All we do is not in the nature of action based on experience but is anticipatory action founded on experiment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
654. Expenses of the committee of inquiry Into the Unemployment Insurance Act including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the committee. $75,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the Prime Minister tell the committee when he expects this committee to report?


John George Diefenbaker: According to information from the chairman of the committee, no definite date has been fixed, but it is expected some time later this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Paul Raymond Martineau: That completes the supplementary estimates relating to the privy council and also completes our consideration of supplementary estimates No. 3.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
['As hon. members know, a message is expected from the other place. Perhaps by unanimous consent hon. members would agree to sit beyond the hour. Otherwise we might rise and return.']
Mr. Nowlan (for ihe Minister of Finance) moved:: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1962, the sum of $153,270,929, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Nowlan (for the Minister of Finance)
thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-78 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1962.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
['Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1962, the sum of $153,270,929, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.']
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave, now.


George Clyde Nowlan: the second reading of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before this bill passes second reading, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say that it covers the third set of supplementary estimates

that have been presented to the house this session and we also have No. 4 to deal with at some time in the near future. This group recognizes the need for supplementary estimates. Under present circumstances or indeed under any circumstances it is impossible accurately to judge the amount that will be required for the full year, owing to changing circumstances and conditions. However, we wonder why there have been four lists of supplementary estimates which have contributed to a lengthening of debate. In my opinion this procedure provokes debate unnecessarily. In the opinion of this group the time consumed in debate on supplementary estimates would be shortened if we could have them consolidated more than has been the case during this session. For instance, we have had No. 3 and No. 4 presented here in close succession. I make this suggestion in order to save the time of the house in future sessions. Without a doubt the continuous introduction of supplementary estimates provokes debate and extends the time which is required to deal with these matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am greatly tempted by what the hon. member has said, Mr. Speaker, but I will resist the temptation until the fourth bill comes along when I hope to say something more extensive along the same lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
['I am greatly tempted by what the hon. member has said, Mr. Speaker, but I will resist the temptation until the fourth bill comes along when I hope to say something more extensive along the same lines.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the parliamentary secretary should give the usual assurance.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: I shall be glad to assure the committee that this bill is in the customary form for appropriation acts giving approval to supplementary estimates. It is in that form which has become standard and which is well known to the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the schedule corresponds precisely with the supplementary estimates?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, the schedule corresponds precisely to the supplementary estimates No. 3 which have just been adopted in committee of supply.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on having the opportunity to perform this onerous duty on behalf of the Minister of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
26207-1-137i
Supply-Agriculture
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
['May I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on having the opportunity to perform this onerous duty on behalf of the Minister of Finance.']
Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the bill carry?


Mr. Peters:: Just before the bill carries may I say this. I am curious about this matter. This appropriation bill was prepared in this form and the date on it is February 12. I am just curious to know whether it is the intention that there can be no changes in the supplementary estimates and that the only thing that could happen is that they are accepted in the form in which they are presented and that there can be no modification in them, or whether it means that this bill would have been changed if there had been any modifications.


Richard Albert Bell: This is simply a draft bill which was prepared on that date. When bills are drafted a date is stamped thereon. Had changes been made by the committee of supply of course there would have been changes in the bill. A new draft would have been prepared and it would have had a new and later date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might say perhaps that there would have been a new government also.
Bill reported.


George Clyde Nowlan: the third reading of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister not going to divide the house?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration branch-
675. Departmental administration-further amount required, $77,500.


Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Chairman, we on this side were gratified to hear the announcement of the Acting Minister of Agriculture that the government plans to reduce the price of butter by about 12 cents per pound and thereby endeavour to assist the country with regard to the record surplus that has been accumulated over the last four years. We wish that this action could have been taken a long while ago. We do not understand clearly, of course, the details of the plan in mind, but we would remind the committee that on January 19 last we on this side directed a question to the Prime Minister asking whether

Supply-Agriculture
a request had been received from farm representatives for a consumer butter subsidy of 14 cents a pound in order to dispose of the large stocks of butter. I do not believe the Prime Minister ever answered, although there was some statement by the Secretary of State which did touch on this subject.
On January 23 in the debate on the speech from the throne I asked for an immediate consumer subsidy of 14 cents a pound so that butter might be put on the market at 50 cents per pound, hoping that this would permit the large accumulated surplus to be dissipated and that over the course of a few weeks or months it might be possible to let market forces operate so that supply and demand would apply without loss to the producer, who is struggling right now because of the price of 64 cents. I pointed out that consumption of butter has dropped to 15.1 pounds per person in Canada from 19.5 pounds over a very short period and that with the present population of Canada all we need is consumption of approximately 20 pounds of butter per person per year to balance supply and demand.
We consider butter important because it has a critical influence on all dairy commodities. We have taken the view that since the government put the price of butter at 64 cents, just prior to the 1958 general election, the effect has been to channel the dairy surplus of approximately 3 per cent into this one commodity, a commodity which unfortunately had to meet the new challenge of alternative products and also the challenge of the criticism with regard to cholesterol content and of the various directions that were being given by certain medical authorities at the time against the use of butter. I believe there has been a substantial shift in the point of view and we read with encouragement what has taken place in the United States as late as February of this year. Time of February 2, 1962, indicates that the United States has followed other countries like Great Britain and France with a very aggressive dairy program.
We on this side feel that there is no area of agriculture facing a more difficult problem in the immediate future and probably for the next few years until our population, which does not now have the stimulus of immigration but only of natural increase, has built up to a position where our consumption of dairy products will match increased efficiency on the farm in their production, even with a substantial decline in farm families. This matter was brought before the session of the national Liberal policy council on January 30, 1962. That council accepted the proposition that the government should use either a consumer subsidy or a deficiency payment to

the producer to get rid of our butter surplus. We do not know whether the figure suggested in this statement-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it is now five o'clock. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
On the order:
January 22-Second reading of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Indian Act (liquor rights)-Mr. Howard.
Mr. Churchill:: Dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


BANKRUPTCY ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
January 22-Second reading of Bill C-27, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (wage earners' assignments)-Mr. Argue.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
January 22-Second reading of Bill C-28, an act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960, with respect to representation in the Senate- Mr. Nielsen.
Mr. Speaker:: Before placing this bill before the house, may I comment on it briefly. Bill No. C-28 seeks to amend the British North America Act by providing for two additional senators, presumably representative of the Northwest Territories. The consequence of creating two additional senators would be that they would be paid, as senators are paid, under the Senate and House of Commons Act.
The problem, namely that the bill may be a money bill and perhaps should have been preceded by a resolution has come to my attention rather late. I have not come to a conclusion and I wonder if the hon. member, in whose name the bill stands, would

permit it to stand and the house would permit it to stand in its present priority while further consideration is given to the point.


Mr. Nielsen:: I have no objection to that course, Mr. Speaker, if the house would give its unanimous consent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just going to say that we on this side of the house are quite agreeable to the course Your Honour is suggesting, and apparently the hon. member directly concerned also agrees.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the house for giving me an opportunity to come to a rather firmer conclusion before the measure is proceeded with. I take it this is at the request of the government, if I may put it that way.
Order stands.


CANADA FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
January 22-Second reading of Bill C-29, an act to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (age discrimination)-Mr. Howard.
Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


LOTTERY
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
January 22-Second reading of Bill C-30, an act to provide for a Canadian lottery-Mr. Pigeon.
Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


FLAGS OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
January 22-Second reading of Bill C-31, an act respecting flags of Canada-Mr. Boulanger,
Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


MERCHANT SEAMEN COMPENSATION ACT
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo) moved: the second reading of Bill C-39, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.
He said: This bill, Mr. Speaker, is so simple that there is not much need to say a lot about it. It seeks to improve the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act in so far as orphans are concerned, and though it is a simple bill nevertheless it is a very important one for
Merchant Seaman Compensation Act the people in my province. As hon. members know, many people there get their livelihood from the sea but every year the sea takes its toll and children are left fatherless.
As the act stands at the moment, if a seaman leaves no widow, or if the widow subsequently dies, the care and maintenance of the orphans constitutes a claim against the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. The act provides for the children to be taken care of by relatives or foster parents who must, of course, be satisfactory persons in the judgment of the administering board. Unfortunately, however, for some reason I have never been able to discover, the act provides that orphans cannot receive the maximum benefit unless the relatives or foster parents move into the house that was actually occupied by the orphans' parents.
There does not seem to be any necessity for this restricting provision in the act. I cannot see that it serves any good purpose and it places a handicap both upon the orphans and the people looking after them. In many cases the home of the foster parents may be much better and more comfortable than the original home of the orphans but, as I say, when the orphans move into the foster parents' home they cannot receive the maximum allowance provided by the terms of the act. It is to remove that handicap that I have introduced this bill.
All it seeks to do is to give to orphans and foster parents the same benefits as they would receive if they were living in the deceased parents' home and I hope the bill will commend itself to all hon. members.


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliameniary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: One
is most reluctant, Mr. Speaker, to contend with authorship in private members' hour. The hon. member who has brought this matter to the attention of the house has contended in his remarks that this is a simple matter of legislation but I question whether it is altogether adequately described by that. In so doing I hasten, however, to assure the hon. member and the house that which I think we all share, namely an understanding of and a regret for the men who ply their trade upon the sea and, as the hon. gentleman said, the sea taking its toll, leaving behind dependants for whose care and provision surely parliament desires as adequately as it properly can to provide.
However the amendment which is proposed, in my view, is not wholly satisfactory in its present form. To introduce my comments upon it perhaps it may be useful to those hon. members of the house whose other duties are so onerous that they have not a close awareness of the history of this legislation, if I set the matter briefly upon the record.
2146	HOUSE OF
Merchant Seaman Compensation Act
The merchant seamen compensation regulations of 1945 were issued by order of the governor in council made on July 17, 1945, under P.C. 4755. They were subsequently deemed to have been revoked on August 31, 1946, and for the purposes of section 19 of the Interpretation Act, an act respecting compensation for merchant seamen was deemed to have been substituted for those earlier regulations. That act, which is now before us, is chapter 178 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, amended by chapter 16 of the acts of 1952-53 and by chapter 9 of the acts of 1957, assented to on March 28, 1957.
Mr. Speaker, what would the amendment before us seek to do? The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) would seek to amend section 30(2) of the present legislation in order to empower the merchant seamen compensation board to name as foster mother someone who would take care of a child or children of a deceased seaman in another home, not the existing household of the deceased seaman or of the deceased seaman's family. This amendment would have the effect of entitling the foster mother to the widow's pension of $75 a month as long as she was caring for the children up to the age of 18 years, or in the case of an invalid child, beyond that age. That would be the situation if the seaman died leaving no widow.
Normally under section 30 of the present act the merchant seaman compensation board would pay the $75 monthly to a suitable person who moved into the existing household to care for the children. The idea behind the present section seems to be that the children could be better brought up in the home to which they had become accustomed. There would not be a separation, which would have the effect of only adding to the loss of the father.
Two things might happen if the hon. gentleman's amendment were immediately acceptable. Let us first take the case of a seaman who dies leaving children who are not subject to compensation; that is, able, noninvalid children aged 18 and over. What would become of them if, as the proposed amendment would allow, children up to the age of 18 were enabled to be removed to the care of a foster mother in another household and be subject to compensation; what would become of the children aged 18 and over who would not be subject to compensation? Is the hon. gentleman who proposes the bill satisfied that this would not mean the division of the families of seamen?
Indeed, what would be the case in regard to those children eligible for compensation who are removed from their home into another household? Would their interests not perhaps become compromised by being shared with
IMr. Morris.]

the interests of children of that foster mother, children native to the household to which the children subject to compensation are to be removed?
Mr. Speaker, let us see what is done under somewhat comparable legislation; let us consider the provincial workmen's compensation act. Most provincial workmen's compensation acts appear to me to have a section similar to the one which is incorporated in our present Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. I understand that Saskatchewan interprets its provisions in such a way as to allow the existing household to be regarded in the sense of being within the family, rather than strictly within the physical building. So that I understand the province of Saskatchewan, under its provincial compensation act will, other factors being permissive, allow full widow's pension to a foster mother in another household if it considers this to be in the interests of the children.
Manitoba also pays the foster mother the widow's pension as long as the workmen's compensation board in that province considers the children are being satisfactorily maintained in the foster mother's home.
British Columbia appears to me to be enabled by its practices to pay the pension to a person such as a maiden aunt if the children are moved into that person's home. In Newfoundland, the very beautiful native province of the hon. gentleman who introduced this bill, I understand that they do not hold strictly to the term "existing household". Like Saskatchewan, a foster mother can live elsewhere and can qualify for compensation.
The other provincial workmen's compensation boards, to the best of my knowledge, hold to the rule that the existing household must be maintained by a foster mother if she is to receive monthly compensation. Section 30(2) of the present act seems to me to be predicated upon the basis of a positive desire to maintain the existing household.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo says he has not been able to discern why this is kept in the act. I can only say that my reading of the history of this legislation would indicate to me, and I hope rightly, that there is a positive intent in the act-it has not come in accidentally-to preserve the seaman's household.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman accept a question?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Yes.


Chesley William Carter: Is the hon. gentleman taking the position that the interests of the child should not come uppermost and that a judgment must be made as to whether the interests of the child are best served by maintaining

the existing household or by moving that child into another household? To my mind the interests of the child or children should be the guiding factor.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the hon. gentleman is asking me if I have stopped beating my wife. I am trying to portray here an interest in the child, but it can be portrayed in a different way. I pointed out earlier-the hon. gentleman was sitting there; I do not know whether he was ossified-that the child who was being, taken out of the household might be done harm-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us not lose our tempers, now.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I am not. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) says, "Let us not lose our tempers". I have no intention of losing my temper. I simply said that the interests of the child can be preserved in other ways. I might also add that it is pleasant to see the hon. member for Essex East back in the house. Section 30(2) of the act-


Peter Francis Martin: I have not been here for a long time.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -says that in order for the foster mother to qualify she must keep up the existing household and she must maintain and take care of the children entitled to compensation. In this situation the foster mother now would appear to receive $75 a month plus $25 for each child entitled to compensation. If this situation does not exist and the child leaves the existing household, then the child would become eligible for the orphan's rate of $35 a month. The whole purpose of section 30(2) seems to me to be to maintain the existing household. If someone also keeps up the existing household, either moving in from outside or being already there, then that person is in the same position as the mother. This provision would seem also to have in mind that for the benefit of the children whatever was existing in the way of a household should be continued. The hon. member asks: do I place the priority of the interest of this child above the other interests. I say in answer to that that there can be no dispute between us. However, we do not share the same opinion as the best way of ensuring the object we have in mind. I believe that the present legislation is intended to preserve the interest of the child by preserving that which is known to the child, by not running the risk of dividing the family.


Chesley William Carter: Does the hon. member think that the foster parents should be penalized in cases where the existing household cannot be preserved?
Merchant Seaman Compensation Act


Edmund Leverett Morris: Perhaps if the hon. gentleman would allow me to complete the few remarks I have to make he would understand more clearly what I am trying to say.
The proposed amendment does not take into consideration the continuance of the existing household. That is the whole objection of the hon. gentleman who introduced it. It does require that prior to the time of the death a domestic establishment was maintained for the child or children entitled to compensation. There is nothing which says it should be condemned. I maintain that this amendment defeats the whole purpose of the legislation and, indeed, encourages the dissolution of the previously maintained domestic establishment. It simply ceases to exist as a unit. This is the purpose of the present section.
I am sure there are other hon. gentlemen who wish to participate in this debate. I will, therefore, not compromise their time by dwelling upon the sections to which our attention was drawn by the hon. member in his explanation of the proposed bill, wherein he recommends a close reading of sections of the Pension Act. I wish to summarize my views on this matter by saying that I believe that both the Pension Act and the act we are now considering are at one in their desire to preserve the household. I submit that the concept of the household is as much an underlying factor in the present Pension Act as it is in the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. If the proposed amendments, devoid of the household factor, were to become law, then section 30(3) would permit the payment of a lump sum of $200 to a foster mother who keeps up the existing household. It would permit that payment now only to a foster mother outside that household only if she keeps up the existing household. With the greatest care may I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the hon. member's amendment would also appear to me to make it possible to take a seaman's children, subject to compensation, and place them in an orphanage, when the orphanage would be entitled to compensation.
We in this house have the highest regard for all those people across Canada who, in the absence of a family connection or a relative in a position to act as a foster parent, voluntarily, and under the grace of God, assume the functions of parents by taking care of children who were in public orphanages. However, none of us would strenuously argue that that was more desirable than that they be left with a fellow human of their own family.
I take the view, in summary, that the present act may not be as bad as the hon. gentleman portrays it. I did, in reading the
2148	HOUSE OF
Merchant Seaman Compensation Act act, find other sections of it which appeared to me to require further study. I noticed, for instance, that section 12 of the present act states:
The right to compensation provided by this act is in lieu of all rights and rights of action, statutory or otherwise, to which a seaman or his dependants are or may be entitled against the employer of such seaman for or by reason of any accident happening to him while in the employment of such employer, and no action in respect thereof lies.
I should like to have the merchant seamen's compensation board study this particular section. I am not a solicitor, but I find it just a little beyond my recognition as a matter which perhaps denies people rights *which they should possess. Similarly, I think sections 14 and 18 require clarification. What I am saying is this: I think the intent of the hon. gentleman's amendment is one with which we can all agree, but when he says that this matter is one concerning the deprivation of children, let me tell him that I have taken the precaution of consulting the board about this and the board assures me that no case has come up for consideration in which the settlement of the children has not been satisfactorily arranged or, if it has, they are not aware of it. I do not make this point as an argument against the hon. member but I do think it removes the urgency. The board says there has been no case in which satisfactory arrangements have not been made. Where there was no foster mother available to live with the children the usual arrangements have been that the child or children have gone out to live with relatives, in which case the orphan's allowance of $35 a month was paid to the relative by the company which had employed the seaman. Not the widow's allowance, however; she did not receive the allowance unless she came into the seaman's household and preserved it, and preserved the family as a compact unit.
Further, I suggest that the attention of the merchant seamen's compensation board should be drawn to this debate-and no doubt this will be done-in the hope that the board will consider the points of view which have been expressed, and that it will perhaps consider making a further study of other parts of the act. Then, if it sees fit, it can make appropriate recommendations to the minister concerned, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr).


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: In rising to take part in this debate today I think I might be wise first of all to dispel the surprise, or what might be the puzzlement on the part of some hon. members, as to why a member from Edmonton, Alberta, where


we do not have any seamen at the present time engaged in the fishing industry, should be taking part in this debate.
If the house would bear with me and consider it relevant, I might perhaps explain that all my life seamen have been a topic of conversation in my house, because my mother came from Fox Harbour, Placentia bay, Newfoundland, and my father came from Kelligrews, just outside St. John's. From my earliest days, therefore, I became well acquainted with the tales of hardship and struggle on the sea and what happens to the families when disaster strikes. In fact, my interest goes a little further than that, inasmuch as I still have throughout Newfoundland and in many other parts of that coastal area first cousins, second cousins and so on engaged in the fishing industry. Further, I have had the pleasure of visiting Newfoundland, all too briefly I must confess, but I was most impressed with the hardihood of the fisher folk there. I must confess, too, I was a little depressed at not finding that evidence of wealth which I would like to have seen enjoyed by the very fine people I met and talked to there. It is, therefore, a very personal interest I take in this because of family and personal associations with these people engaged in the industry, as well as the normal interest of a member of parliament, when we are discussing legislation which is predominantly concerned with dependant children of those who are not fortunate enough to be able to look after their offspring.
In listening to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who introduced this bill I must say I felt he had an excellent point in attempting to cover any possible emergency which might arise or which might in some manner or other preclude some children from receiving the full benefits of the legislation, all the money that is available for this assistance. I know that in any case where the breadwinner is gone-and it is especially true in cases such as this where both parents are gone-it is difficult to imagine that the compensation, even if those concerned can take full advantage of the measure, is sufficient to adequately compensate those who remain. Despite what has been said I am not convinced that if this bill were passed it would really have the effect of improving the lot of the child in these circumstances. Although some additional benefit might be made possible under the legislation this amendment might psychologically open the door to harmful effects which I know is not the intention of the sponsor of the bill.
I do not pretend to be a psychologist but we hear more and more every day about the results of psychological studies. The factors and influences which are essential in


the upbringing of a youngster to provide him with a sense of security and belonging, which seem to be the basic traits that contribute to good citizenship, most psychologists appear to agree, are those to be found in a constructive home atmosphere, and the family unit appears to be the best environment in which to foster these elements. Although not intended to have this effect the amendment in application would I think tend to destroy rather than increase family units and this causes me some concern.
Under the existing legislation the compensation is paid to the person who takes the place of the head of the family and maintains the household. The hon. member in saying that they had to move into the same house was, I think, construing the term "household" somewhat narrowly. In my view the words "maintaining the household" do not necessarily mean that they have to live in the same house. Surely what is intended is that "household" means, above all, the family unit. Surely the reference is to the association with the other children. Surely reference is made to the family as a cohesive unit together with personal articles including furniture, and a home if there is one. Essentially, however, in my contention "household" means the family unit. I do not think we must insist that they occupy the same house.
We are dealing here with children who have lost both parents. I am sure all of us know families in which either or both parents is gone. The loss of even one parent is a severe psychological shock to the family. Depending on the age of the children, the loss of the mother is sometimes the most severe shock. Often, too, in families where older boys require firm discipline the loss of the father will have a most disconcerting influence. I am sure all will agree that the loss of both parents, leaving orphan children, is a severe shock indeed and I believe we must tread warily and not fail to recognize the significant consequences of further disruption in the family. We must try to provide every encouragement to maintain these families as units so they will have a sense of belonging when they have experienced a severe blow through the loss of both parents.
I do not think the argument I am presenting is without precedent. While the bill before us seeks to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act there are other compensation and pension acts in all the provinces across Canada dealing with the unfortunate families of those who are bereaved through loss of a parent by an industrial accident or other means. If we examine those measures and the manner in which they are administered I think we will find that emphasis is placed on maintaining the unity of 26207-1-138
Merchant Seaman Compensation Act the family. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to deviate from the legislative enactments in this field across Canada.
That, however, is not the main point. In considering these matters I believe the emphasis should be on maintaining the family unit. In other words, as the minister might put it, we do not live by bread alone. Merely securing the maximum financial assistance for each child is not necessarily the most important factor, although I do not underestimate its importance. We must consider the maximum amount of good we can do for these orphans, no matter what form it takes. I hope hon. members do not interpret my remarks as meaning that in this instance we should take the inexpensive way out and fail to make available as much assistance as possible. I invite hon. members to consider the fact that what is done in the provinces, legislatively, need not necessarily be done on the federal level. There is no essential need for the action of one government to match that of another.
I do suggest, however, that in the provincial compensation and pension acts we have had the benefit of the considered opinion of legislators across the country and the benefit of the experience of those administering these measures. This should offer some guidance as to the most effective means of dealing with this problem.
I suggest, therefore, that when we consider making a departure as radical as I suggest this is, we must consider the custom, procedure and usage that has been tried and proved. I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member who sponsored this bill but I suggest we must not be reckless in considering a bill of this nature. We must do all we can to encourage the maintenance of the family unit. Surely it is more important to keep the family unit intact than merely to provide additional financial assistance, important though that is.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question. Does the hon. member not keep in mind that this bill does not relieve the board of their responsibilities to see that the family unit is maintained, where it can be maintained? That is the responsibility of the board. It appears that the hon. member seems to have lost sight of that fact. This bill does not interfere with that responsibility in any way.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I quite appreciate that fact. I hope my comment was not unfair to the hon. member. I will try to rephrase it. It is simply this. I merely refer to the act as it was, section 2, where it states "and it seems desirable to continue the existing household." When the board is considering the possibility
2150	HOUSE OF
Merchant Seaman Compensation Act of keeping the household together, I am sure that these hon. gentlemen when they are dealing with these matters have the welfare of the child very much at heart. But I am directing attention to the psychological influence of the board having to consider further the fact that we have put more emphasis on money than we have on the family unit. In other words, by giving greater scope and more possibilities to pay increased money if the family unit is broken up, you take away some of the pressure which normally is there to keep that family unit together.
I am not sure how effective this proposal is. The parliamentary secretary from Halifax mentioned that this situation had not arisen. I hope it does not arise. Perhaps there is much worry about very little. However, whether or not there has been an actual case, the principle about which I am speaking, namely, the emphasis on keeping together the family unit, this method of caring for the welfare of orphans, cannot be overemphasized. We must be extremely careful not to put the emphasis on pure money matters and so detract from what I consider to be the most important principle in caring for the welfare of these children and maintaining the family unit.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo when he spoke on this bill said there was no need to say much. I suppose it is against the rules- if I had a chance to know what he was going to say the situation might have been different-but I wish he could have dealt a little bit more fully with this matter. While I said to the house that I am not disinterested personally in fishermen, I realize that my connection is a distant and a rather tenuous one. It may very well be that he is more familiar with these hardy people. It may well be that the children who are orphans of fishermen in Newfoundland, having always lived more rugged lives than apparently we are obliged to live on the prairies and having perhaps grown up in the shadow of the fear that their father at least might be taken away by the sea at any time, have a more grown up approach. It is possible that the psychological effect of this environment, the means by which their parents earned a living, the way in which they became accustomed to so many widows and perhaps orphans being around, has itself left them psychologically in a much different frame of mind. It is possible that the hon. member who introduced this bill has a better understanding of the particular type of people about whom he is talking.
In considering anything I have said I trust that hon. members will not discount the possibility that it is perhaps presumptuous of me, one who comes from the prairies, to speak.


It is easily possible that those who live by the sea and who work day in and day out with seafaring people will find that I am trying to judge them exactly as I would Canadians in other parts of the country and that I have not paid enough attention to the environmental influences. If I am wrong in this matter I trust that some member from one of the coastal areas will straighten the house out, if I have led it astray in any way.


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: In rising to speak briefly on this bill, Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to congratulate the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who saw fit to bring this matter to our attention. I may say that I appreciate many of the things the hon. member has done over the past few years. He is one who has always been ready to speak on behalf of those who were obliged to face the perils of the sea, namely our fishermen and our merchant seamen. It is quite fitting that he should bring this bill to our attention at the present time.
Coming as I do from the banana belt, as it is often called, in the Niagara peninsula I fully realize that it is perhaps not too appropriate for me to discuss too deeply the merits of this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Does my hon. friend not know that the banana belt is in southwestern Ontario, Essex county in particular?


John Smith: We have the banana belt. In any event, if we wish to get along with this bill, I think perhaps we had better begin to discuss it. However, before doing so I should just like to mention this fact. Over the years this government, like other governments, has introduced many measures to make seafaring, both on the ocean and on the great lakes, much safer than it used to be. I was very happy this year to note that we brought in a measure to provide coast guard service for Canada, something that we have needed for a long time.
As far as the bill is concerned may I say this. It certainly has a great deal of merit. It brings to our attention a problem which arises in the riding from which the sponsor of the bill comes more than it does in mine. However, I do not feel that we should move too quickly on it. I think it is a matter to which we should give a great deal of attention. After all, the first intention of the act is to preserve the integrity of the family home or to keep the family together. I would be inclined to feel that by broadening it out as far as the hon. member proposes, we might find there would be a tendency to break up those

family homes rather than to keep them together. If surviving children are required to move into a foster home, they could be moving into an institution, as we know that foster homes are often not confined to one particular family. Oftentimes you will find several families in them. That is one thing about which we must be very careful.
I do not think that we should move too quickly in this matter. I feel that we should certainly keep the family home together. However, I also realize that, in communities such as the one from which I come, the standard of living is probably among the highest in Canada. When one looks at $75 a month for the foster mother and $25 a month for the children, one just wonders how they could make ends meet in keeping a home together. That is another reason why I think this act should be given a great deal more study rather than trying to pass this bill as it is at this time.
There is also the question whether the home might have a mortgage on it which it would be impossible for the foster mother to pay off. These are all matters that should be taken into consideration before we proceed to amend the act. As set out in the bill, suggestions have been made already that perhaps the merchant seamen compensation board should take a good look at the matter before any changes are made. I agree with this, and I feel that if we went into the bill a little more thoroughly as we should we might find other provisions that should be changed slightly. While the bill has a great deal of merit and is one I could support in principle, nevertheless 1 think there are a lot more details that should be worked out before we give it final approval. Again I wish to compliment the hon. member for bringing this matter to our attention.


Mr. W. H. Payne (Coasl-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with respect to Bill No. C-39. I think it would be proper to say that those from the west coast of Canada must regard with a great deal of sympathy the purpose and intent of the mover of the bill, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. I am sure that the situation he finds on the Newfoundland coast is not entirely different from that on the Pacific coast.
There was one note thrown into the discussion today that gives me some concern. Basically we are dealing with the dependants of merchant seamen and not with fishermen. We are also dealing with people rather than legal terms and I think it is very important we should keep in mind that in the rehabilitation and settling of orphan children, whether they be on the seashore or inland, the prime environment which will best establish and 26207-1-138J
Business of the House
guarantee their future development as citizens who will be a credit to the nation and themselves is the family. The basis of the existing legislation ties this adjustment entirely to property and certainly not to the family unit.
I endorse and approve the spirit of the amendment and I am certain those who inhabit the Pacific coastal region and who are familiar with the plight of orphans in some of our remote outposts will also concur in the intent of the amendment. However, I do feel, not being trained in any way as a solicitor, more than somewhat confused by the wording. I think it leaves the bill open to a great deal of misconstruing and errors of interpretation.
I am sure it would be the wish of those living in the coastal area in my part of the country that we should look not only at the suggestion brought forward in this amendment but should also give some thought generally to the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. I refer more particularly to the merchant seamen compensation board which, as I am sure all hon. members know, is composed of three officers of the public service of Canada. In my view this whole matter should be reviewed and surely any review should contemplate the establishment of a board with appointees from other than the public service. I think there are great advantages to be gained by orphans and others who benefit under the act. I could continue at great length, Mr. Speaker, but I see it is six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it is six o'clock? It is very close to it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, a message is expected from the other place. Perhaps by unanimous consent hon. members would agree to sit beyond the hour. Otherwise we might rise and return.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we might take advantage of this little lull in our proceedings to ascertain from the leader of the house what business it is proposed we shall deal with on Monday. Possibly when the leader is speaking he might indicate not only what we are going to do on Monday but what he envisages we might do all next week. I would even go further and suggest that he might tell us what we are going to do up until April 6, which may be a very decisive date.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If things happen on April 6 such as are anticipated by the hon. member, the decisive date will be later.

Business of the House


Peter Francis Martin: Yes, but thal would be the beginning.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not looking forward with too great pleasure to the end of my hon. friend's association with this house but there are some here who might appreciate it. On Monday we propose dealing with the following items under government orders which we had hoped to get at much earlier. The first item will be No. 10 on today's order paper, the setting up of a select committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker. The second item will be No. 6, the resolution in my name dealing with amendments to the Veterans Land Act. The third will be second reading of Bill No. C-75, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The fourth item will be second reading of Bill No. C-38 dealing with financial and other statistics. That would be the business for Monday. We will see what progress we make. If possible I should like to carry on with legislation on Tuesday; then on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday deal with dispatch with the final sup-plementaries for the fiscal year which is just about terminating; and then the normal interim supply for one month, which is the customary procedure at the end of March.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I may make a comment, I am rather amazed that the government leader should indicate that if we should finish these various items we may deal toward the end of the week with supply, in the hope that there will be some dispatch with regard to supply because of the approach of the end of the month. That statement rather amazes me in the light of the fact that the first item we are going to discuss on Monday is a resolution that encompasses consideration of the closure rule when what the hon. gentleman has just proposed now is one of the most effective forms of closure I have ever heard suggested in this house, namely, that we should take supply in the dying days of the month in the hope that it will be passed before the end of the month in order to pay for salaries and the like. I suggest that is a form of closure that is not worthy of the hon. gentleman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You were a past master of the practice in your days.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Justice cannot withhold comment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When such inaccurate statements are made they have to be corrected.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would suggest to the hon. leader of the house, who is more understanding in these matters than the Minister of Justice-


Edmund Davie Fulton: And than you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that I hope in view of this order of business which the government is imposing on us, the Minister of Finance will not be encouraged to repeat the speech he made the other day when he said that unless we passed the supplementary estimates by such and such a time people were going to go without their salaries and the like. I hope it will not be the case, when we have to engage in the discussion that we must have on the supplementary estimates, that the Minister of Finance will not again rise in that unctuous way which he can adopt when he wants to or chooses to, and that the estimates will receive the consideration to which they are entitled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have had enough of this.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps in the interval of waiting for Black Rod there is no more entertaining way of passing the time than listening to the hon. member for Essex East, but I am afraid his remarks are going a little bit beyond what is proper in asking the house leader about the business for next week.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was provoked.


Mr. Speaker:: Enticed is the word.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not get a
chance.


Mr. Speaker:: We might suspend the sitting without leaving the house until the Gentleman Usher arrives.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise for the purpose of expressing my concurrence in the statesmanlike approach taken by the main agricultural spokesman for the opposition. I support his stand and his criticism of the government for introducing this legislation at this late date, when we all know there is a necessity to pass these supplementary estimates as expeditiously as possible. There is no necessity for me to repeat the excellent exposition of the situation placed before the house by the hon. member for Essex East.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is what the former Liberal government did. It dealt with the final supplementaries on the last day of March.


Peter Francis Martin: Never.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The record shows that very clearly and I shall give that record on Monday.


Peter Francis Martin: I wish to observe again-


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest we suspend our discussion.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Export Credits Insurance .Act).
An act to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.
An act to incorporate Cochin Pipe Lines Ltd.
An act respecting Muttart Development Corporation Ltd.
An act respecting The Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada.
An act respecting Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.
An act to incorporate Westmount Life Insurance Company.
An act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.
An act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
An act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
An act to authorize the construction and operation on behalf of Her Majesty of a line of railway in the province of Quebec between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts.
An act to amend the Representation Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1962.
Supply-Items Passed It being twenty three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
B-General-
Air transport board-
664.	Subventions for air carriers as detailed in the estimates, $300,000.
Canadian maritime commission-
665.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $510,164.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
666.	Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority-further amount required. $1,291,400.
PRIVY COUNCIL Emergency measures-
652.	Administration and operation of the emergency measures organization-further amount required, $261,500.
Special-
653.	Expenses of the royal commission on banking and finance including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $123,000.
654.	Expenses of the committee of inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Act including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the committee, $75,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 26, 1962