1953-04-16

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table order in council P.C. 1953-562 of April 14, 1953, amending the regulations relevant to the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act and also order in council P.C. 1953-563 dated April 14, 1953, with respect to the issuance of a licence to Westcoast Transmission Company Limited for the exportation of natural gas.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Shaw:: 1.	What was the amount of contract awarded to McCready and Johannson Limited for work at Penhold?
2.	What payments have been made to this firm to date?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No contracts awarded at Penhold to McCready and Johannson Limited. They are subcontractors to Alexander for roofiing and sheet metal work.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CHILLIWACK GARRISON, B.C.-REMOVAL OF ASHES AND REFUSE
Mr. Cruickshank:: 1.	What were the amounts tendered for the removal of ashes and refuse in the Chilliwack garrison area?
2.	Who was awarded the contract?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Tenders for the fiscal year 1953-54:
No. 1-$750 per month.
No. 2-$800 per month.
No. 3-$900 per month.
2.	The contract for these services was awarded to V. Gibson, Chilliwack, B.C. at the rate of $750 per month.


WHEAT PURCHASES BY ELEVATOR COMPANIES
Mr. Argue:: 1. How much wheat was purchased by each elevator company at country elevator points, during the crop years 1950-51 and 1951-52?
2. How many bushels of each grade of wheat from No. 1 to feed wheat and including tough, damp and rejected grades were purchased by each company in each of the above years?


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, when this question was called on April 8 I indicated that to give the information requested would disclose the competitive position of each elevator company. I pointed out that it had never been the practice to give such information and I asked that the question be dropped. The hon. member asking the question was not in his seat on that day and at the request of his leader we let the question stand. I see he is here today, and I wonder if the question could be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	From what person or body was the house situated at Circular road, St. John's, Newfoundland, presently occupied by the premier of Newfoundland and taken over when Newfoundland entered confederation, purchased?
2.	What was the amount of the purchase price?
3.	Was the person or body the owner?
4.	If so, when did the person or body acquire the said property?



MARITIME MARSHLANDS


Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Are marshlands in the Shepody bay area, in the province of New Brunswick, being reclaimed under the provisions of the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the owners of said marshes to be thus reclaimed?
3.	Is this reclamation work being done by contract?
4.	If so, have tenders been called to carry on this work, and what are the (a) names and addresses of tenderers; (b) amounts of each tender; (c) to whom were the contracts awarded?



ADDITIONAL SHIPMENTS OF WHEAT TO HALIFAX AND SAINT JOHN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it the intention of the wheat board, because of the strike in Vancouver, to ship additional wheat
3942	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to the elevators in Halifax and Saint John, and is it the intention to ship wheat through these Atlantic ports during the summer months?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the strike on the west coast has, of course, placed an additional burden on the eastern routes. Whether grain will be shipped through Halifax and Saint John I do not know, but I may say that wheat is being railed to Halifax and Saint John with the idea, in any event, that the elevators will be filled at both points.
The situation of the maritime ports is that the cost of putting wheat in those elevators is obviously more than the cost of putting it into the elevators at Montreal. If the wheat board is able to sell wheat from the maritimes for delivery before shipments from those points would normally begin, with that differential, I presume that grain will be sold; but I cannot say any more than that.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In view of the announcement by the British food minister yesterday that his government will not participate in the wheat agreement, will not the government now consider sending a minister overseas in one last effort to induce Britain to reconsider the matter before April 30?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will speak for myself. I have no intention of going to Europe before I sail for the coronation, which I hope will be in the middle of next month.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It will be too late next month.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has a decision or an agreement between the federal government and the government of Prince Edward Island been arrived at with reference to the ownership of the condemned railway bridge on the Hillsborough river, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that some time ago I had correspondence with the premier of Prince Edward Island on that subject but, as far as my memory can stand at the moment, I have no recollection that agreement has been reached. I believe that the matter is still at the point of negotiation.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 334, to provide for the superannuation of persons employed in the public service of Canada.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in moving the
second reading of this bill I intend to limit my remarks to the major changes which are proposed in our system of providing contributory superannuation benefits for employees in the public service of Canada. I shall not try to cover the details of this admittedly complex piece of legislation because, as soon as second reading has been given, I propose to move that the bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee for detailed study.
In preparing this bill I have had the benefit of the valued advice of an advisory committee composed of representatives of our employee organizations and senior administrative officials, and I should like to place on record my sincere appreciation of the responsible and constructive assistance which this committee has given me. I am glad to be able to inform the house that all the proposed changes of substance have the support of this committee and that all the important points it recommended have been incorporated in the bill with one exception.
The one exception is a request that the pension benefits should be calculated on the retiring employee's average salary for his best consecutive eight years instead of his best consecutive ten years, which we are now proposing. The government has not been able to accept the cost of adding this further improvement in the pension provisions, because we believe that the other proposed major and minor modifications in the plan will place the superannuation account in a very close balance from the actuarial standpoint.
In this connection hon. members will recall that, just over a year ago, I tabled a report on the actuarial examination of the superannuation account prepared by the chief actuary of the Department of Insurance. This report revealed that the account was inadequate to meet its full estimated liability
[Mr. BalcomJ

and, even after making special credits of $75 million in each of the fiscal years 1950-51 and 1951-52 and a further one of $25 million in 1952-53, there is still an estimated actuarial shortfall of $189 million as of March 31, 1953. Steps have been taken, as hon. members know, to see that no further deficits develop and the new bill contains a requirement that an actuarial report be laid before parliament at least once in every five years. This will provide a means of determining whether the procedure adopted since that report was prepared is, in fact, adequate.
I think that I should make it quite clear at this stage that our basic objective has been to devise a plan that can be supported on the basis of equal contributions by the employer and employee to which the government would add interest. In addition, of course, special contributions, such as those which I have just mentioned, will have to be made from time to time to reduce the deficiency which already exists or to make good any new deficiency created by a general salary increase which cannot be foreseen in establishing the contribution and benefit pattern.
Taken as a whole this bill provides for a contributory system of pensions for public servants and their dependents that is in line with the best prevailing practices of government and of private industry as developed in this or in other comparable countries. I believe the proposed plan is fair to our employees and is also fair to the people and the taxpayers of Canada who, in an ultimate sense, are the employers of all those in the public service of our country.
Under these circumstances, the government cannot recommend acceptance of all the many requests that have been made for improvements in the benefits which would add materially to the cost of this pension plan at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. If, however, several years of experience under the new plan show that there is room for some further improvements, the matter can be reviewed at that time. And, of course, if there were a general willingness to pay higher rates of contribution the benefits under the plan could be still further improved.
I turn now to a summary of the principal changes proposed in this bill. Perhaps the most important change of principle is the proposal that, in future, as I indicated the other evening, the benefits under the act will be a matter of right rather than a matter of grace, as has been the rule heretofore. Up until now, all payments under the act have been grants by the governor in council in recognition of good and faithful service. In future, payments will be matters 68108-250^
16, 1953
Public Service Superannuation Act of right with ultimate determination, if necessary, by normal judicial process. Concurrently with this change of principle we have endeavoured, as far as is practicable, to spell out all the rules and their application in the law. In as complicated and as human a matter as pension rights it is impossible to cover every conceivable situation by a clause in the act and there must therefore be some provision for the making of regulations by the governor in council; but hon. members will find, if they compare the present act with the bill now before us, that much more has been spelled out in the bill and much less has been left to regulationmaking powers of the governor in council in very general terms.
These two factors-the establishment of a legal right to benefits and the effort to put more into the bill and less into the regulations-are responsible for the somewhat greater length and apparent complexity of this bill as compared with the existing acts.
The principle I have just stated is perhaps the most important change in the legal aspects of this bill, but the change which will have the greatest impact on the whole body of the public service is the proposal to withdraw the present distinctions under the act between so-called permanent and so-called temporary employees.
If this bill becomes law, that distinction will disappear and, once any contributor has five years of pensionable service to his credit, he will become eligible to receive annuity benefits in accordance with the circumstances of his retirement. While a new employee would normally be appointed on a temporary basis in the first instance, this bill provides a waiting period of not more than one year of substantially continuous employment before such a person would become a contributor to the superannuation account. If he were appointed on an indefinite basis before the year was over, he would become a contributor from the time of that appointment.
The word "temporary" will still be used in future but it will be applied, and more appropriately, to the types of employees who were formerly -described as "casual". The new class of temporary, like a casual employee in the past, will neither contribute to nor, of course, receive benefits under the new scheme.
Consequently, unless provision is made for his retirement benefits under some other act, every full-time employee in the public service, married or single, male or female, with an annual rate of salary of $900 or more, who is not a sessional employee and

Public Service Superannuation Act has not been locally engaged outside Canada, will commence to build up his superannuation credits after no more than a year of substantially continuous employment. Prevailing rate and seasonal employees will, as in the past, become contributors to the superannuation account when they are designated for that purpose by the governor in council or when, in the case of the former, their status is changed from prevailing rate to classified. Perhaps I should point out here that, as the name implies, the Public Service Superannuation Act has a considerably broader coverage than just the employees who are subject to the Civil Service Act. This was the case under the Civil Service Superannuation Act as well so there is no change in policy in this respect.
Before going any farther I should make it clear that, while it may be some months before the administrative machinery can be adjusted to handle the great influx of the present temporary employees as contributors, any contributor to the superannuation account who retires after December 31, 1952, or the dependents of any contributor who dies after that date, will be able to enjoy any improvement in the benefits which the new act would bring. There is no need therefore for any of these persons to worry about a slight delay in bringing this act into effect. Any additional payments to which they may be entitled will then become payable retroactively. On the other hand, no change is proposed in the allowances where the retirement or death occurred prior to lanuary 1, 1953.
The general pattern of benefits under the rew act will give all contributors rights to annuity benefits after five years of pensionable service. If a contributor ceases to be employed during those first five years, the only benefit available will be a return of contributions.
If retirement takes place after five or more years of pensionable service and the contributor is over the age of sixty, an immediate annuity only will be available. If a person leaves the service before sixty because of disability or otherwise, he will have the option of some form of lump sum payment or an annuity commencing immediately, if disabled, or at the age of sixty under other circumstances. If the treasury board agrees, the deferred annuity may be paid as early as the age of fifty but reduced on an actuarially equivalent basis.
In the event of dismissal due to misconduct the treasury board will be empowered to look into the circumstances and may give entitlement to the whole or any part of

any benefit to which the person would otherwise have been entitled, subject to a minimum benefit of the return of contributions. Under the existing act the most that a dismissed person can get is the return of his own contributions which in some cases can prove to be a very severe financial penalty in relation to the offence which brought about his dismissal.
In the case of the death of a contributor before his own retirement, the widow or children will receive an immediate annuity, if he has had more than five years of service, or a return of his contributions if he had less than five years of service. Where death takes places after retirement and no lump sum benefit has been paid to the contributor, then the widow and children will receive an immediate annuity. If there is no widow or child the contributions, less any benefit already received, are payable to the estate of the deceased.
Under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, the normal annuity of a retired contributor was based upon his average salary in his last ten years of service. As I indicated earlier, under the new bill it will be based upon his average salary over his best ten consecutive years. This will be of assistance to those who, for one reason or another, may be in less well paid positions during the last years of employment.
The allowance payable to a widow and children of a deceased contributor will continue to give the widow one-half of the husband's annuity in the normal case and one-tenth for each child; but, under the present act, no matter how many children there are, the combined widow's and children's benefits are limited to 75 per cent of the husband's allowance. This bill provides for an increase in this limit from 75 per cent to 90 per cent of the husband's annuity in the normal case. This increase will be of most assistance through the insurance protection provided for the man who may die in his younger years leaving a widow and three or four young children. Similarly, the upper limit of orphans' allowances has been raised from 50 per cent to 80 per cent of the deceased father's annuity. Moreover, the $600 annual limit on each orphan's allowance has been removed as well as the $300 limit in the case of each child where the mother is still living.
At this stage I should mention the one type of benefit which is being dropped in the proposed act. Up to now an immediate allowance payable for life has been available on the abolition of office of a contributor. The existence of this form of benefit has been one of the main reasons for excluding


It is taken into account in establishing salary rates and other conditions of employment. It is, I think, wholly fitting that part of the remuneration of persons in the public service should take this form, because the security that a pension plan provides helps to ensure that independence and stability which is so important in the public service. To many of those in it, the public service cannot offer financial rewards on the scale that they *could secure in commercial, industrial or professional life; rather it offers that interest and satisfaction which arise from the nature of the work and the purposes to which it is directed. If we are to expect such employees to remain in and to enjoy their work in the public service we must, I think, provide them with reasonable security for their old age or disability so that they can, to a reasonable degree, discount the urge to seek more immediate financial gains.
As I said the other evening, Mr. Speaker, after the motion for second reading has been adopted I propose to move that this bill be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce for detailed consideration.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think there will be general agreement by all the members of the house with the statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in closing his remarks when he said that it is essential that we give to the civil servants that feeling of security and certainty of employment which in itself contributes greatly to the efficiency of their work by the state of mind that this feeling in itself produces.
I feel sure also that there will be general agreement with the step that is being taken to extend to those who have been working for the people of Canada, under the employment of the government which represents them, those provisions for superannuation which have been denied to so many employees because of their designation as temporary employees. It is true that the term "temporary employee" will disappear under the provisions of this act so far as superannuation is concerned; but it is my understanding that this term still remains as a designation of those employees who are under that category so far as other aspects of their employment and occupation are concerned. I have heard no suggestion to the contrary.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What we have referred to as casual employees; yes.


George Alexander Drew: Yes. This indicates a need for going still further than this bill goes. I think this is an appropriate time to mention this fact because the approach that is made to the bill itself, when it is in committee,

will of necessity be governed in some measure by the over-all situation to which this act applies.
There are certain detailed problems which have been referred to already in earlier discussion when the motion preceding the introduction of this bill was before us and these undoubtedly can be dealt with in still further detail when the bill is before the committee, as it has been stated it will be. There are, however, one or two points that I should like to mention.
The unfortunate situation in which those in some special categories of employment still find themselves has not been dealt with by the minister in his statement today. I think that one of the gratifying features of the earlier discussion on the motion was the fact that the comments which were made were divorced from any special point of view because of a member sitting in one part of this house or in another. That is as it should be. The civil servants, whatever their designation may be, are servants of the people of Canada. They are servants who continue to serve the people of Canada whatever government may be in power or whatever the party may be from which that government is drawn.
I am convinced that there is general agreement in regard to the principles which should apply to the employment of civil servants and to the desire to create in the minds of civil servants that sense of security which they should feel in work which is of the utmost importance but at the same time does not receive the remuneration which would be given for the same type of work in private occupation.
I must say that some of the views put forward in regard to those who were employed in the Department of Veterans Affairs were of concern to every one of us. Through special circumstances relating to the history of the department, those who had been employed for some time in that department now find themselves at a disadvantage which was pointed out when this subject was under discussion. There is no indication that this situation is to be covered by anything now before us. Nevertheless, I would hope that when this measure is before the committee there will be an opportunity to make recommendations in regard to amendments to apply to that relatively small, but still substantial, number of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs whose position has been prejudiced by events entirely beyond their control. I trust that this will be dealt with, and dealt with along the lines suggested in the discussion which has already taken place.
Public Service Superannuation Act
Consideration should also be given to the fact that the calculating of superannuation for appointees is on the basis of the last ten years of service. I do think there are reasons why this in itself does produce inequalities which have been pointed out, and which I am sure will be pointed out to the committee. Very strong arguments have been put forward that the basis of calculation should be the last five years. That view has been expressed by representatives of the civil servants themselves and by representatives of the veterans' organizations, and I hope it will be given due consideration when this committee is considering possible amendments to the proposed measure now before us. That and other related subjects, however, can be dealt with at that time.
The very fact that we are now expressing our general approval of a plan to bring under the provisions of the superannuation act those who have been described as temporary employees for so long emphasizes in itself the necessity for a general review of the situation, and the inclusion of all those employees affected by this act and similarly beneficial provisions under any legislation which would end any distinction of that kind.
An effort should be made to equalize, not only from the point of view of supervision, but from the point of view of status, security of employment and other provisions of that kind, all those who have worked for long years, and have long ago demonstrated by the length of their employment the fact that they were not temporary employees. To the extent that this measure brings to an end or, shall we say, reverses the tendency to increase the proportion of temporary employees in relation to permanent employees, it should be welcomed by everyone in this house as well as by those employed in that way.
In explaining the general provisions of the measure now placed before us for consideration, the Minister of Finance has spoken of the so-called permanent employees and the so-called temporary employees. That was a very apt term. The employees are only so-called temporary when they work as temporary employees for ten, twenty, thirty and forty years, as some of them have. There is however this fact which we must recognize. There has been a steady increase in the relationship of the number of temporary employees to permanent employees. In 1939 the temporary employees were a much smaller percentage of the total than they are today. In 1939 the number of temporary employees was 43 per cent of the number of permanent employees. Today the number of temporary employees is 126 per
3948	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act cent of the number of permanent employees. In fact the figures, as of December, 1952, which would presumably represent the general situation fairly accurately today, show that there were 56,936 permanent employees and 72,200 temporary employees.
The measure now before us provides for putting temporary employees who have at least one year's service on the same basis for pension purposes as permanent employees; but so far as I am able to interpret the statement made to us, or the bill now before us, it does nothing about those special problems relating to employment which are substantially affected by the difference in designation. It has a provision with respect to veterans, but it will still remain for the committee to make sure that those provisions are effective and deal adequately with the special problems of veterans in relation to civil service employment.
Without doing more than seeking to emphasize the considerations which should be before the committee which will have wide-open discretion to review the sections and consider proposed amendments, I would point out that when We start to discuss the question whether the basis of computation should be eight years, ten years or even five years, as recommended by the representatives of the civil servants and veterans' organizations, we realize how unreal the word "temporary" is in relation to a great deal of this employment.
This measure automatically brings some
60.000	of the temporary employees within the provisions of this act because of its coverage of those who have at least one year's employment. But there still is a very large number of temporary employees who are outside the provisions of this act. The figures which are before us show that to be the case, since the figures of the department show that there were 72,200 temporary employees as of December last.
This indicates that there are still over
12.000	temporary employees not affected by this measure. It is true that, as their employment might continue and they might meet the condition of a year's employment, they would find themselves under the provisions of this measure.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, would the
hon. member permit a question at this point?
I am wondering if he has taken into consideration in his argument at the moment the distinction between casual and temporary employees as it is now in common usage in the service?


George Alexander Drew: Oh, yes.


George James McIlraith: Because I am inclined to think that the difference to which he is referring is made up largely of the casual employees. There are really three designations for classes of employees now being used.


George Alexander Drew: No, this does not include casual employees. At the time there were 72,200 temporary employees, there were, according to the figures issued by the department, 11,758 casuals.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We should not have any
confusion in the matter of terminology. As soon as it is recognized that anyone is suitable for the public service, he or she will come under the act. That is the principle of the bill.


George Alexander Drew: I was not attempting to confuse the issue. I was simply explaining that the figure of 72,200 does not include the casuals. It embraces the number rated as temporary; and therefore there are still some 12,000 designated as temporary employees who are not embraced by this act. The minister has not left any doubt about the situation. He has indicated that as they reach that qualification of a year's employment-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Or even before.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, or even before-they then find themselves eligible for benefits. I am not raising this by way of criticism; I am simply pointing out that it still leaves a number of temporary employees, who may or may not be temporary employees in any way, depending upon the types of occupations for which they have been engaged.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If they stay in the public
service they will come under it.


George Alexander Drew: What I am emphasizing is that in dealing with this problem, which is a very real one, in a way which I am sure meets with general approval in the house, I urge that we recognize what this demonstrates. It demonstrates how unsatisfactory it is that there should be civil servants who have had many years of occupation but who are described as temporary. This still does not remove that difficulty, so far as other terms of employment are concerned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It removes that, completely.


George Alexander Drew: It removes that difficulty and
injustice so far as superannuation is concerned. This is in fact a step to render justice to those who have been designated improperly as temporary employees of the government of Canada. And when I use the word "improperly" I am not attributing any improper motive. But it is a practice that has grown up; and by the figures I have shown it has had the habit of extending itself.

I suggest that in dealing with this matter we should recognize that fact, and that we should adopt the attitude that this is the recognition of a principle which should be extended still further to the civil service of this country, and that we should end the unreality of the term "temporary" in relation to those who have had steady employment for some period of time.
I do not intend to deal with the sections one by one, because they will be discussed by the committee. Many of them carry out rather involved provisions in regard to the method of computation. There is one section however to which I should like to refer, one which I believe is very satisfactory, and that is section 28. This section provides for reciprocal agreements in respect of the transfer of employees. I believe that is a very satisfactory arrangement, and one which should be encouraged. It should be applied wherever possible in connection with the transfer of civil servants from one government to another. More and more there is an increasing field of joint activity between the dominion and the provincial governments. I am sure for that very reason it will be extremely advantageous to the public service of Canada generally if civil servants of the dominion and of the provincial governments may be transferred from one service to the other, without disrupting their continuity .of employment, or their continuity of contribution to superannuation. In fact, the more that there may be an even standard of civil service employment across Canada, the better it will be for the public service generally.
I am not suggesting for one moment that anything done by this government should encroach in any way upon the authority of provincial governments or legislatures. But the very fact that such agreements can be worked out will widen the opportunity for the exchange of civil servants in those branches of employment where it may be that a civil servant of the dominion government may perform a more useful service at some point in the administration of a provincial government or vice versa.
I support the general principle of the bill. And in discussing the points I have made I would ask not only that they be given consideration in committee, but that also we acknowledge this step as a recognition of a general principle which should apply to the whole service; and that the name "temporary" should cease to be used in respect of people who long since ceased to be temporary employees, as shown by their years of service.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we too welcome the
16, 1953
Public Service Superannuation Act introduction of this bill and, despite some shortcomings to which I shall refer in a few moments, let me say at the outset that speaking generally we regard this bill and its provisions as satisfactory.
As I said at the resolution stage, we are glad that the bill has been drafted in such a way as to widen greatly the extent of coverage provided by the act. We are glad that the name of the statute has been changed, to indicate that it does go beyond what are sometimes referred to as civil servants, and includes provisions for more than those-indeed, for those employed in the public service generally.
We are pleased with the way the minister puts it, when he says that pensions under this legislation will now be a matter of right rather than of grace. In point of fact, there may not be a great deal of difference in the actual awarding of individual pensions. But certainly the terminology and the idea behind that approach is all to the good.
We feel that the introduction of the legislation at this time is an indication of the growth of the idea that all those who render service to their day and age are entitled to the reward of a dignified and decent retirement allowance, when their years of service are over.
I have no intention of going beyond the bounds of the legislation before us; but I do think it is permissible for me to say that we welcome the legislation, not only because of the rights that it extends to public servants, but we welcome it as a part of a growing body of legislation that provides security for all our older people. We hope that that body of legislation will continue to grow, until we have adequate security for all. We will continue our efforts in that connection.
I said the other day, and I repeat now, that while we are glad to see the so-called temporary employees being brought under the act to the tune of including some 60,000, we feel that there are groups of prevailing-rate employees who have not yet been given the benefit of this legislation, and who should be included. I realize of course that further legislation to extend the benefits of this act to other prevailing-rate employees is not necessary. All that is necessary to take in further prevailing-rate employees is for the governor in council to designate such other groups as coming under the provisions of this legislation. I hope that it will not be long before some of these groups of prevailing-rate employees, and other groups such as employees of this House of Commons, who are now left out will be brought in and designated as coming under the provisions of the act by means of a regulation passed by

Public Service Superannuation Act the governor in council. As a matter of fact we all felt when we spoke on this matter the other day that the distinction between prevailing-rate employees and temporary employees is really just one of the basis on which their pay is arrived at, and it is hardly fair to deny pension rights on that basis.
There has been some discussion already by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) with respect to the question of the period of service on which a retiring public servant's annuity is to be based. If I understood the minister correctly, and if I read the bill correctly, a change has been made, in that from now on the basis will be not the last ten years but the best ten years so far as the employee is concerned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think perhaps the Leader
of the Opposition missed the slight change that is being made on that point.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend knows,
sometimes an older man may want to take a somewhat lower paid position. He may have had five or ten years of more highly paid service, and this provision will enable him to base his superannuation on his best ten years.


George Alexander Drew: For the purpose of keeping
the record clear, I was not unaware of the distinction drawn. I was recognizing that in the ordinary course of events the best years are the last years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As a rule that is quite right because of the rising pay level.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is certainly correct.
I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has made that clear.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was to take care of the
exceptional case where a man's best years would not be his last years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now we all know what we are talking about and we are all talking about the same thing. We now know that the government has improved the legislation slightly in that it has changed the provision from the last ten years to the best ten years. But we also know that the government has rejected the proposal of the advisory committee that it should be the best eight years. I am sorry that the government did not find it possible to accept that recommendation. I note, for example, that in the new pension plan of the Canadian National Railways the provision there is that the pension is based on the last ten or the last 

five years of the employee's service, whichever is to the benefit and advantage of the employee. After all, the Canadian National Railways is owned by the government of Canada and there is a case where, true by option but certainly at the option of the employee, a five-year period may be taken as the standard for determining the pension. Because a five-year period is considered in that case, I am sorry that the government has stuck to the ten-year period in this case. It seems to me that the recommendation made by the advisory committee for a period in between ten and five, namely, a period of eight years, was a very responsible one, and I hope that even yet that figure will be given consideration when the bill goes before the committee.
There are still other provisions that the minister has announced today which we think are all to the good. We feel that the provisions he has announced with respect to lump sum payments and the provisions for widows and children, where changes have been made, are all to the good, and I am sure that all who are interested in this measure will welcome them. I think it was also very fitting and timely that the minister should announce today that the pertinent provisions of this measure will be retroactive to December 31, 1952. He made the particular point that any employees who have retired since the first of this year will not lose the benefits which they otherwise would have gained if they had continued in the service up until the time the act is passed, given royal assent and put into force.
As I say, that is a welcome announcement for any who have retired since the first of January but it is tough news for any who retired in November or December of last year. I see that the minister is smiling. I know he will say that it is always the role of the opposition, even when something is good, to suggest that it might have been just a little better. Therefore we are not out of character in that respect, but in suggesting and asking as I do that the retroactive date be put back to an earlier point of time I have good reason for making that request. The minister knows that when the speech from the throne was read in February of 1952 opening the session before this one, it was announced that there would be amendments to the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and we expected that the bill that we now have before us would be introduced during the 1952 session of parliament.
As that session went on and it became apparent that the bill might not be brought in, there were some civil servants who were

fearful lest the government's delay in bringing the bill before parliament might cost them the rights they would have under the legislation. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, on June 23, 1952, I put this question to the Minister of Finance on the orders of the day, as recorded at page 3547 of Hansard, for that date:
May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? Would it be possible for the minister, before this session ends, to make a statement as to whether or not the amendments to the Civil Service Superannuation Act, which have been put off until the next session, will include a provision making the terms of those amendments retroactive to whatever date would have been the effective date had the bill been brought in at this session, as was indicated in the speech from the throne?
The minister replied as follows:
It would not be possible to do that, Mr. Speaker.
Then the next line of Hansard contains that little word that sometimes appears in Hansard in italics, the word "later" in brackets, which means that not right at the moment but a little later in the day, in fact I believe before questions on the orders of the day were concluded, the Minister of Finance thought better of the answer he had given me and stood up and said:
Perhaps I should supplement the answer I gave the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is possible that some of the changed provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act could be made retroactive, but I think it is unlikely that all of them could be.
As a matter of fact, though neither of us said it in that exchange, I am sure that both of us were thinking of this very problem, the problem of those who would retire before the benefits of the new legislation would become effective. In view of the fact that the government announced in the speech from the throne in February, 1952, that the amendments would be made at the 1952 session, and in view of the undertaking which the minister gave the house in reply to my question on June 23, 1952, I think that the question of the retroactive date should be reconsidered. If the bill had been brought in and passed in the 1952 session I do not know what its effective date would have been, but I am sure it would not have been December 31, 1952. It probably would have been December 31, 1951. At any rate, all the employees of the government who retired between the date that the announcement was made in the speech from the throne in February, 1952, and December 31, 1952, lost out. They get none of the benefits or improvements that are made available to those still in the service or to those whose retirement did not take place until after January 1, 1953.
16, 1953
Public Service Superannuation Act
I press that point on the minister as strongly as I can. I know that it will come up in the committee on banking and commerce to which this bill is to be referred, and it seems to me this is a case where those who will want that retroactive date put back from the point of view of time have everything on their side-that is everything except the minister and I hope they will get him on their side very soon.
I was very glad, Mr. Speaker, to note that the bill makes provision for war service to be counted in terms of pension rights whether that service was in Canada or overseas. As the minister will recall I raised, when we were at the resolution stage, the question of an apparent discrimination against exWrens. It seemed to involve this very matter and I looked into the bill hoping to find something that would cover their point. I take it that the bill covers that problem. The Wrens felt that they did not have equal rights with ex-women members of the army and air force, and the point had relation to a distinction as to overseas service. If the minister has abolished the distinction between overseas service and service in Canada, that will be taken care of.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. The complaint came from a wider field than the Wrens, and quite rightly. There were others who, through no fault of their own, did not serve overseas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Am I right in saying that the problem has been taken care of?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


George James McIlraith: All members of the armed forces.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are all pleased that it has been fixed. I wish that we could always get this help from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Mcllraith), the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lesage) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) himself. Now they are agreeing to help me-


George James McIlraith: It is not a matter of their helping you, it is a matter of your helping them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fine, and that is why I am prepared to help the hon. members to whom I have referred to get that retroactive date put back to an earlier date on the basis of what I feel were undertakings given in the session of 1952-and I am waiting for their agreement. I hope that their silence will not last.
Mr. Speaker, we also welcome the way in which the act is being changed so as to provide for greater mobility of employment as
3952	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act between various agencies of the government and the civil service proper; also as between the federal civil service and provincial civil service; and also as between service with the federal government and service with the international agencies and other such bodies. As the Leader of the Opposition said a few minutes ago, this is certainly all to the good and we welcome it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I hope that it will not take too long until we establish this principle on an even wider basis than just as between different types of government service. One of the characteristics of our society today, as we build up these pension plans, is that in many cases workers are frozen in a type of employment for fear of losing their pension rights or for fear of taking lesser pension rights than would otherwise be the case. It seems to me that there is definitely room for increasing mobility of employment by arranging for greater transferability between all pension rights-not only between different types of government service but between service with different private employers, and between private and public service. That is an ambitious program to take care of, but one way in which it can be facilitated is for the government, through the same minister we have before us now, to provide the proper kind of income tax deductibility for those pension plans in private industry which are funded in such a way as to provide mobility, or in other words to make it possible for employees to leave one employment for another employment, and yet take with them their pension rights.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that if this principle is desirable in terms of public service we feel that it is desirable generally. I feel, to the extent that society recognizes the right to dignified retirement in old age, the right to security in old age on the basis of service rendered, and makes sure that it is a reasonable amount, to that extent society is making progress.
I am also glad that the minister has announced the provision which seems to have the effect of re-opening to those who have lost it the right to elect to cover past service. He has put certain strings upon that right which I think are a bit severe and I hope that they will be considered in committee- but at any rate it is a move in the right direction. I take it from what the minister says that not only will it be possible from here on for persons to elect to cover past service, even after a year has elapsed, under the conditions that are spelled out in the act, but it will also be possible for persons who have already exceeded the year in respect of


the past now to have a chance to elect to cover that service. I see the minister nodding-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that's right-on the basis I have outlined.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the basis which the minister has indicated.


Mr. Fraser:: It is only fair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) say that it is only fair. Yes, it is only fair that they should have the right to reconsider. As the minister said when he was discussing this matter, conditions have changed in many cases. Civil servants who did not elect in the year given to them have now realized that they should have so elected. Conditions have changed to make it more necessary or conditions have changed to make it more possible for them to elect to cover past service. I think that there is no question but that the re-opening of that right to elect is all to the good.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are certain conditions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister interrupts to remind me of what I was aware, namely that there are certain conditions attached to that election after a year has elapsed. We have no objection to the idea of the medical examination and no objection to there being a penalty; but when the minister says that contributions in such cases for prior service must be on the basis of one's present rate of pay, it seems that he is imposing a pretty heavy penalty. A person who is now seeking to elect to cover service we will say in years prior to the war, who was in the service then and is in the service now, will find himself confronted with a pretty heavy bill. In fact, it amounts to paying 12 per cent on his current income if that basis is to obtain. I also raise the question of whether it is fair to say that not only must he pay for back service on the basis of today's pay, but that he must also pay on the basis of today's rate, which is 6 per cent, even though the rate might have been lower during the former period. Again, that is a detail that can be threshed out in committee. As I say, I think the idea of re-opening the right to elect is all to the good and I am sure that was what the hon. member for Peterborough West meant when he agreed with me. He was not agreeing to restrict the formula.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I was agreeing with you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope this can be gone into more fully by the committee.
There are one or two things which the minister seems to have forgotten. Well, he

has not forgotten them, but he has overlooked them and I regret to say that I feel that it has been deliberate on his part with respect to this bill. He heard the discussion the other day, when we were at the resolution stage, with respect to the employees in the old soldiers' civil re-establishment department who have not yet been given the right to transfer to part II of the Civil Service Superannuation Act. The minister will recall the discussion because just about every member who took part in the debate urged that a change be made. In response to that urging he made a rather lengthy statement which, of course, left the door open for further consideration; but it indicated that the minister did not feel that this change should be made at this time. Frankly, as I listened to his argument and tried to analyse it, it seemed to me that it was this in the main. To make this change in favour of these employees who are still in the service would be, so he said, to give them a right which many who have long since passed out of the service or passed on did not get. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, it is not a very good argument to say that because some others did not get something that was their right, those who are left behind should not have that right either. He might argue that it was not a right, but common sense does seem to suggest that those employees should have been given this right long ago. The mere fact that those who are not now in the service or those who have since died did not get it is, I suggest, no reason why it should not be extended to the few hundred who are still here and who have been discriminated against in this way. I have no doubt that if the committee will hear delegations on various points, there will be a delegation with respect to this matter. I trust that the committee will give it very earnest and sympathetic consideration.
I think we all approve of the suggestion made by the minister this morning with regard to the elimination of the obligation that public servants generally should retire at 65. Generally speaking, I think there is merit in his suggestion that pension rights, from that point on, would be frozen. I wonder, however, about the case-there will be some like it, I imagine-of a person who, at the age of 65, has not yet obtained many years of pensionable service? Will such persons be denied the right, if they are kept on in employment, to build up their years of service for pension purposes? The act places a limit of 35 years on pensionable service, and that seems to be a reasonable proposition. In other words, the top possible pension is 35/50ths of one's average salary for his best ten years or 70 per cent of that
Public Service Superannuation Act average salary. Since you already have that ceiling, why impose another ceiling on people who may have come into the public service late in life? There may be angles to that which can be gone into, but I hope it will be considered.
I have just one other observation to make, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this bill. I think after .all the fine things I have said about it the minister will not be surprised if my next comment is one of very severe condemnation. My guess is that he knows what is coming. I condemn the government very strongly for failing to include in this bill a provision for an increase in the pension of those already retired, particularly those in the lower brackets. The minister knows from repeated comments on this matter on the floor of the house, and repeated representations from those affected, how serious is the plight of those people. The figures are on Hansard. I have seen to it that they have been put on every year for a long time, but in this session they are shown at page 510 of Hansard for December 10, 1952. I shall not read them in detail, but I shall indicate that these figures show that out of 10,572 retired civil servants, 1,468 are on a pension of less than $60 a month. In fact, 312 are on a pension of less than $20 per month. The figures for widows of civil servants, who number 5,123, show that more than half, 2,766, are on a pension of less than $40 a month, and 942 are on a pension of less than $20 per month.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But some of those are people with very short service. Perhaps they acquired a pension somewhere else before they went into the public service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is always an explanation from the minister, either short service or they were employed in the days when Bennett was reducing salaries, but the point is that these pensions are too small to enable people to live on them. The minister tries to tell us every time this matter comes up that you cannot indulge in retroactive legislation of this kind. However, at least two provinces, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, have made some legislative provision for people who have retired on small pensions. The minister knows that on two or three occasions when the United Kingdom had legislation like this, they provided for an increase in the pensions of those already retired. Similarly, in the United States in 1948, an act of congress was passed which increased the pension of retired employees by 25 per cent or by $300 per year, whichever was the lesser figure.
3954	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act Then, in 1952 a further increase was granted by another act of congress. The result of these two pieces of legislation works out, for example, that a superannuitant who was receiving $1,000 per year was increased in 1948 to $1,250, and in 1952 to $1,565.50. This example, of course, is in a little higher bracket than is the case of the figures for Canada I gave a few minutes ago, but the principle involving a percentage increase is there, and that would be of at least some assistance to those in the lower brackets. For their sakes, however, I believe a better formula is possible. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the continued reluctance on the part of the government to deal with this matter is most reprehensible, and it is a source of bitter disappointment that when an otherwise good job-I say that without qualification despite the few points upon which I have criticized the bill-is being done, these people are left out in the cold.
On January 12 of this year, I asked one of my frequently recurring questions on this point, and it appears at page 891 of Hansard for that date, in the following form:
Has the government given consideration to the provision of a cost-of-living bonus or other increase m the pensions of federal civil servants already retired? If so, what is the result of such consideration?
The reply is as follows:


Mr. Lesage:: The government's policy in connection with the granting of a cost-of-living bonus to superannuated civil servants has been stated many times^ in the House of Commons and in answers to ouestions. A complete statement was given by the Minister of Finance on January 28, 1949 (see Hansard for that date, page 42).
I have looked back at that answer a good many times, of course, and all it says is no. What I think is most annoying to the people who are affected is that, for a few years, there seemed to be a growing willingness to consider the matter. Since that statement appeared on Hansard for January 28, 1949- it had been issued publicly a few days before -there has been no apparent reconsideration of this whole problem. This is the case despite the fact that I have before me letters from officials of organizations of retired civil servants in various parts of the country who get a certain amount of encouragement out of letters they receive from the minister, from other ministers and from members on the government side of the house, telling them that the matter will be considered.
As a matter of fact, on January 28 of this year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) apparently wrote to Mr. J. O. Belanger, the provincial secretary of this organization in Quebec city, assuring him that his representations would be considered when the superannuation act was under review. Well, it 

has certainly been under review because we have Bill No. 334 before us, a bill of some 43 pages. It seems to cover, satisfactorily or otherwise, all the points one might think of except the plight of these retired civil servants. Mr. Belanger tells me also that 12 other ministers have given his association the assurance that they will honour them with their best consideration on this matter. He tells me that 22 other members of parliament from Quebec have given an assurance in writing that they will give consideration to the matter. These people who write these letters are very cautious. They do not promise that something will be done, but they promise that consideration will be given.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member has probably written letters of that kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The difference between the kind of consideration I give and the kind of consideration the minister might give is


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member has no responsibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that having promised to fight through on a matter like this, I recognize my responsibility to keep up that fight; and the minister knows I am doing it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that the minister, his colleagues in the cabinet and all the members of parliament from the province of Quebec who promised this particular organization that they would give this matter consideration, have a greater obligation than just to sign their names to these letters and let it go at that. I feel strongly that this matter should be gone into by this committee.
I hope the government will not give the committee the notion that the door is closed.
I picked up the correspondence that I have from the gentleman to whom I have referred in the city of Quebec because it comes from the same province as does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott); but I have correspondence as well from my own province of Manitoba and I have a good deal from the province of British Columbia. In both of those provinces the people affected have been discouraged by the long delay but nevertheless they get some encouragement from these letters they get from all sides of the house promising that their plight will be given consideration. In the meantime some of these people have been on these low pensions for years. Time has gone on. The cost of living has gone up. Their plight has become worse.
I suggest that the absence of any reference

to this problem is a black mark on an otherwise good piece of legislation which the minister has brought before us at this time.
To come back to what I said at the beginning, we welcome this legislation. We welcome it because of what it does for civil servants in the light of what are their rights and we welcome it as part of the general attack on the problem of providing security in retiring years for those who have served their day and age. We are glad to see the improvements. There are changes in the act which perhaps should be made by the committee, but its main shortcoming is that it overlooks completely the problem of the retired civil servants, particularly those in the lower pension brackets whose plight I have drawn to the attention of the house once again.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take just a few moments to say what I think about the bill that is now before the house. My first words should be ones of commendation of the minister for bringing in this new bill to replace the old superannuation act and for the comprehensive changes for the good that have been incorporated into the bill.
When one is considering an act of this kind, it seems to me that it has to be considered against a certain well-defined background. In this case I think we ought to keep in mind that the background is this. As the minister has stated, the people of Canada are the ultimate employers of the civil servants, and the taxpayers of Canada therefore must be considered in every move that is made to improve the lot of the retired civil servants. They have a claim to consideration just as well, of course, as have the civil servants. If we are not careful, it is easy for us to weight our consideration on the side of one or the other, and I think that procedure would be unfair.
Another consideration the minister always has to keep in his mind is this. He has a fund to administer and he must keep that fund actuarially sound without having to come back to the House of Commons every now and again and ask for large contributions to make it actuarially sound when it has got out of balance. Against that background, Mr. Speaker, it looks to me as though some of the arguments that have already been advanced might be weighted slightly in favour of the civil servants and against both the minister and the taxpayers of Canada.
I hasten to say that with practically everything that my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said I can quite agree. For instance, there is the question of retroactivity which is an
Public Service Superannuation Act important consideration. I can well imagine that the minister is up against the necessity of drawing a line somewhere, and if he did not draw it at December 31, 1952, he would have to draw it somewhere else. No matter where he put the line, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that some of us would have a criticism that he did not put it farther back. Somebody is going to find himself aggrieved under any circumstances. There will be at least some who consider that they have been discriminated against. While I am quite prepared to go along with my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his claim that there might have been a certain undertaking that would justify setting the date at December-


An hon. Member:: Last session.


Solon Earl Low: -or back into the last session, anyway, on the other hand I can understand fairly well what the minister has been up against.
I want to commend the minister. He does not often get too much commendation. I think he has done a good job on this act. He has certainly incorporated into it a good many principles with which I find myself in agreement. I am not going over all of them;
I am not going to name them all. However,
I want to say just a word or two about some of them.
In the first place I want to mention something that has not been said thus far in the debate. I was glad to see that the new act is not so rigid with respect to compulsory retirement age. I hope that this is a forerunner or an indication of a general loosening up all the way along the line with respect to these rigid retirement dates. As a matter of fact, I think we have carried compulsory retirement too far not only in government but in industry throughout the whole country. I think we have been just a little bit foolish about it, but I am not going into the reasons why I think so. It is, however, a fact that there are in Canada a great many people, who have been retired just because they have reached the age of 65, of whose skill and abilities we ought to have availed ourselves for a good many years yet. There is no reason in the world why we should condemn them to retire before they are ready to retire physically, mentally and perhaps otherwise. There ought to be some election in the matter on the part of the person who is to be retired, if his health makes it possible for him to continue in that kind of active employment.
I therefore just express the hope that what the minister has included in this act is an indication that there will be a loosening up all the way along the line and that a little bit more attention will be paid to the right
3956	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act of the civil servant to elect whether he shall retire when he comes to the age of 65 or whether he shall continue in employment.
I should like to say just a word with respect to the retired civil servants, those for whom my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made such an eloquent appeal. He has made that appeal on numerous occasions, and I honour him for it. This is a group to whom further consideration must be given. I certainly am not convinced that the minister could give it under this act. In fact, the more I study the case, the more I am convinced that this is not the act under which it should be done. However, that consideration does not excuse the government for not bringing in something that would help those retired civil servants. I am not going to go into the matter at too great length, but, Mr. Speaker, by policies which we have laid down and slavishly followed we have actually condemned to spending the remaining portion of their lifetime in perpetual poverty a great many Canadian people who gave of their best while they are employed as civil servants. I do not believe that is the right thing. I am sure the minister would not want to do that. We simply cannot go on slavishly following policies that will condemn people to poverty.
Many of these people were not able to work after they were retired. Many of them have not been able to find any gainful employment since that time. Remember that the government is responsible in large measure, because of the policies it followed, for the decline in the purchasing value of the dollars that these poor people have been given. Since that responsibility must rest on the government, then I say that the government is obligated to do something for these people.
I am not saying in this act, but certainly in some other act they can bring in.
Let me impress upon the government this important point. They must know that this country is capable of producing sufficient goods and services to enable these old, retired civil servants, who are on a miserable pittance, to have a decent living. There is no doubt about that. What we have to do is to set our minds to the task of finding a way of getting these goods into the hands of the people who can use them to bring up their standard of living, so that we can at least hold our heads up and not have to go about hanging them in shame.
I say to the minister, we are prepared to help him find that way. I know as long as he follows the present financial policy it will be virtually impossible for him to find a way to help these retired civil servants whose purchasing power today is only half what 

it was in 1939. I say it is time we were looking for another act, and we should bring in a piece of legislation that would make it possible for us to get the goods we can produce into the hands of our own citizens who can use them. There is no sense in condemning them to a lifetime of poverty just because we have not yet had sense enough to discover and put into effect at least a decent policy.
But let me say this: I must congratulate the minister on all these fine changes that have already been mentioned-I do not intend to take up the time to go over them again in this house-which are contained in the bill. The introduction of this bill does mark a real step forward in our consideration for Canada's employees. It is certainly far beyond anything we have had in the past, and the minister certainly deserves commendation for it.
When the bill goes before the banking and commerce committee I hope it will be possible for the members of that committee to hear representation from the employees of the old soldiers' civil re-establishment department. Their case is a good one, and I appeal to the minister on this ground. It has already been said that there are only a comparatively few of these old employees. I do not think that anybody at any time in this country would criticize the minister for listening to these people and granting them some relief under this legislation. When that committee meets I for one would certainly be prepared to hear the representation from these people and see if it would not be possible to incorporate into the bill something that would help them out.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I
should like to make a few remarks on this bill. I regret that time has not permitted a proper study of it, but it is going to a committee quite competent to study its provisions.
I have no complaint to make on that except that there is a special section which deals with civil servants of Newfoundland. They have been given no opportunity up to the present time of making any representations. However, I hope they will have time before the bill is dealt with in committee.
Everybody has noticed some outstanding improvements in this bill over the present law. One of course is that it gives to civil servants a pension as a matter of right instead of as a matter of grace. The other is that it makes for 60,000 temporary employees a new status which entitles them to a pension.
I should like to say that the clause which bases the pension on the ten best successive years does not impress me very much. I do

not believe this is important to very many civil servants, but I should like to draw attention to the provision, in the English law and the law in Newfoundland before the union in 1949, which gave to civil servants in England the last three years, which in 99 per cent of the cases are the best three years. We had that same provision in the law in Newfoundland.
I should also like to pay tribute to the commission of government in Newfoundland before 1949 on drafting the civil service act and the regulations that were to be made under it. They furnished us with a copy of their draft and the regulations. They gave the civil service association an opportunity to study all the various provisions, and then they sat down with us and we debated the changes which we required.
It seems to me that that ten years is a very long period, and a man's salary may change considerably from the beginning of that period to the end. Therefore it may reduce his pension very considerably. Even though an advisory committee has recommended eight years, I think that is too high. I look at the estimates every year and I see the salaries going up. I can see that there is going to be a very marked difference between the beginning of the ten-year period and the eight, and therefore I condemn it. I do not think it is a just method for calculating the pension.
Before I sit down I should like to say another thing with reference to a remark made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about when this pension scheme should begin. He pointed out that it was mentioned in the speech from the throne last year and again this year and that January 1 seems to be a very near period to begin the pension system. Since this was mentioned in the speech from the throne in 1952 it seems to me that it would only be fair that it should go back to some time in 1952. I am sure that in the standing committee on banking and commerce that and other matters will receive the consideration they deserve.
I agree with the last speaker that the minister deserves a meed of praise for having brought in these improvements. I suppose we cannot expect all the improvements to take place at one time. I hope they will continue to occur just the same.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister closes the debate I hope he will make it clear that the standing committee on banking and commerce will be free to make whatever recommendations it sees fit without undue weight being brought to bear on the decisions by the government. We all know that the committees of the house are made up in approximately
16, 1953
Public Service Superannuation Act the same proportion as to members of each party as the house itself, and that the government, by reason of such plan, has a very firm hold on the actions of each committee. I do suggest that this is a case in which the committee should be given freedom to bring in its own decisions without taking into consideration government policy.
One reason I say that is that it would be very valuable if this committee were to remember what happened a year ago. At that time it was considering a bill to provide pensions for members of parliament. And while there are greatly improved pension plans in effect across Canada, I do not believe there is any plan more beneficial than the plan brought in for the members of the house. Here is an opportunity during this session to see that the pension plan of the civil servants of Canada, who after all carry the bulk of the responsibility for the administration of this country, is made equally modern and equally beneficial as the plan brought in for the members themselves.
I would hope that the minister, in addition to giving the committee freedom to express its opinions, would urge upon the chairman of the committee that arrangements be made to hear evidence from those branches of the service which are not satisfied with this measure. First of all, I believe it should be possible to have representations concerning the number of years upon which a pension is to be based. I believe that ten years is too long, in the light of changing conditions in the world today. In the last few years we have seen how the cost of living has gone up, and it is likely that there may be changes in the years ahead.
I believe the period should certainly be cut from ten years to eight years, as recommended by the advisory committee. In any event, representations should be heard on the point, because it is one of the key points in the measure.
Then there has been unanimous support from those in all parts of the house who have spoken on behalf of the claim put forward by those veterans of Canada who happened to be serving under what was formerly called the department of soldiers' civil re-establishment, after the first war. I was disappointed by the answer the minister made to my question during the debate on April 10. He seemed to think that these men did not have any better claim than several other groups. I doubt very much whether that is so.
In any event it is significant, as the minister is reported to have said at page 3736 of Hansard, that their own department went to the length of collecting these deductions from the veterans and forwarding them to the superannuation branch of the Department of
3958	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act Finance for a period of three years, believing that these men were entitled to this additional protection. The minister said:
The department, however, hoped until 1927 to have the position altered, and on its own deducted amounts equivalent to the contributions which those of its employees who might have become permanent would have made to the superannuation account.
That was a very unusual course for one branch of government to follow in its dealings with another. And that particular action, in itself, is an indication of the strength of the claim these men have to be put on a five-year rather than a ten-year basis.
Another point in that connection is that the minister argued that because there was a provision for the cases in which there was what he called an abolition of office allowance, because there was that provision these men therefore should not now be entitled to have a change in the number of years, when calculating pension. But I would point out now that the only ones who would benefit by a change at this time would be those who are still in the services. His argument about the abolition of office allowance does not apply.
Finally I should like to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with regard to retired civil servants. For a good many years he has been raising this point, and I believe I have supported him on each occasion. I do hope the committee will be asked to make a recommendation on this point. It is true that there is no provision in the bill for these retired civil servants. However, this question is of sufficient importance to warrant consideration and recommendation by the committee.
One of them wrote to me a few weeks ago, and put it clearly when he said that those who in the past served Canada had a very clear understanding that they would receive a stated percentage of their pay when they retired, which would be sufficient for them to maintain approximately the same standard of living they had reached when they retired.
That statement is true and yet, because of the increase in the cost of living, they are not receiving the treatment to which he referred. Something should be done about it at the present time. The United Kingdom, with all her troubles, has been able to provide for an increase in the pensions of her retired civil servants. I believe Canada has been remiss in failing to make a similar provision.
In conclusion I do urge again that the minister give the committee free rein to go into the merits and demerits of these proposals, so that it will not act merely as a group to run through the bill section by section, and then bring it back to the house in a day or two with all sections approved, and


no close or detailed work having been done in the matter. That often happens in committees, and I hope it will not happen this time.


Mr. Knight:: I can say all I have to say in a few moments; and-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Before the hon. member begins, I wonder if I might crave the indulgence of the house to sit a minute or two after one o'clock. I have an important appointment at three o'clock with some visitors from abroad, and I would hope that we might complete the debate.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the minister has said, perhaps we could take a minute each. I do not wish to repeat what my colleague has said, but would voice my support of what has been said concerning retired civil servants. I have received letters from these people regularly.
Let me say once again that, in terms of purchasing power, pensions have been cut by a half. Sometimes hon. members are accused of raising these points for political reasons. I can assure the house that no such accusation can be made at this time, because in my own province of Saskatchewan only 243 of these people are still living, and there are 102 widows of those who have died. A fraction of that number will, of course, be located in Saskatoon.
This, after all, is the government for which those people have worked. This is the government whose policies are at least partly responsible for the fact that their scanty dollars are now reduced to only 50 cents. In the case of the ordinary workers, the government would advance the argument that wages and salaries have advanced in proportion to the cost of living; but no such argument can be made in this instance.
I should like to add my plea to others that have been made on behalf of these people in order to bring about what I think is only common justice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker I shall take only a moment to say-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks he will close the debate.


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a moment to draw the minister's attention to section 39 of the terms of union, and to say that members from Newfoundland on both sides of the house have been receiving a considerable number of letters with respect to that section of the terms of union, as it applies to section 21 in the bill. I would ask the minister to keep

that point in mind, and to refer to a return to the house tabled in November of 1949, as well as correspondence with the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier).


Mr. Speaker:: I would repeat that when the minister speaks he will close the debate.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a moment, because I propose to deal with only one point that has been raised.
First, however, may I thank all hon. members who have taken part in what I think has been a helpful discussion this morning. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said, and quite properly, this is not a question on which we have party differences. It is the responsibility of parliament to see that the superannuation provisions for public employees are as fair and as just as possible, in the light of our responsibility to the other parties to the contract-that is, to the public and the taxpayers of Canada.
I do most sincerely thank hon. members who have referred in generous terms to the real improvements which are contained in the bill. I only want to touch on one point, the suggestion that the average number of years should be either eight or five instead of ten. I want to make it perfectly clear that the reason why the government felt it could not accede to this request is that we concluded that we could not defend to the people of Canada substantial improvements in the superannuation benefits which would further increase the already substantial actuarial deficit in the fund. It would be quite in order to make the period of time five years or eight years if we were prepared to increase the rate of contribution.
I pointed out in my statement this morning that improved benefits could be granted if the rate of contribution were increased. My information is that the great majority of civil servants are not in favour of increasing the rate of contribution from 6 per cent in the case of men and 5 per cent in the case of women to a higher figure. As I indicated in my statement this morning, after we have seen the operation of the act for another two or three years, have seen how these additional benefits work out and have seen whether or not the actuarial deficit of $189 million as it now stands is further increased, it may then be possible to make some further improvements in the benefits. But I think it is fair to say that the civil service superannuation plan is as good as any other plan, whether by government or by private industry, and very
Supply-National Defence much better than most. I conclude by thanking some other hon. members who I know had some intention of speaking on this matter but who have refrained from doing so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we might call the next order of business.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: We shall go into supply and continue consideration of the estimates of national defence.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Carter in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
241. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $324,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection 3 of that section, where equipment or supplies acquired by the Canadian forces after March 31, 1950, are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall, if the governor in council so directs, be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection 3, and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $3,994,895,578 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,971,926,275 will come due for payment in future years), $1,960,159,633.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, last evening when I attempted to deal as briefly as I could with this matter the minister was suggesting that I was more or less killing time. Actually, I was not killing time; I was trying to get out of the fog which the minister's statement plus the white paper plus the statement of the chief of the naval staff had put me in. I assume that the chief of the naval staff would not have written such an authoritative article unless he had the approval of the minister or unless the minister had told him to write it. After all, we had the acknowledgment by the minister during this week of the approval of another communication which was quite important, and I refer to the letter written
3960	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence by his deputy minister to Saturday Night. So, I assumed that the chief of the naval staff, in writing this article for the March issue of Canadian Shipping and Marine Engineering News, had the authorization of the minister. In the same issue was an article containing a picture, a very fine picture of the minister, and an article written by him as well.
With that as a preamble I want to draw the attention of the committee to some discrepancies. I began to do so last night at the time the minister was saying that I was actually killing time, and I will try to do it as briefly as possible. In the white paper at paragraph 130 this statement appears:
Of the fourteen minesweepers now under construction, six have been launched, with the remainder to be launched during 1953.
In the statement or in the article by the chief of the naval staff there is this citation:
Coastal minesweepers, wooden, . . .14, all under construction, eight have been launched.
At page 3920 of Hansard the minister says:
All fourteen of the coastal minesweepers have been launched . . .
Now there does appear to be a very great difference to say the least in those figures. The minister's white paper claims that six have been launched; the chief of the naval staff says that eight have been launched; and the minister corrects himself and says that all fourteen have been launched. Obviously somebody is launching ships the minister did not know about until yesterday.
I would like him to comment on that.
In paragraph 129 of the white paper we have this sentence:
A total of 52 new vessels are on order, including escort vessels, minesweepers, harbour craft, inner patrol vessels, clearing diving vessels, tugs, crane lighters, a northern patrol craft and auxiliary vessels.
In other words all the types of ships that are being built for the navy are enumerated in that section, and they total 52. In the article by the chief of the naval staff the figures are given under the same descriptions as appear in the minister's white paper, and they total 110. Now, again, somebody is fooling somebody but I do not know who it is. In paragraph 130 again, and I think I mentioned this last night, we have the statement:
Two escort vessels have now been launched and nine keels have been laid.
In the article by the vice-admiral, there appears this statement:
Anti-submarine escort vessels, 14-(nine under construction, three of them launched; . . .
That is just one more ship than is shown in the minister's white paper. This article


was published or at least put on sale on March 1 in Canadian Shipping and Marine Engineering News. Obviously it had to be compiled before that date and I understand that the usual time for compiling these articles for printing on the first of March would be not less than two or three weeks before publication. The minister tabled his white paper only the other day and he says the material was brought up to date. His last answer last evening, as it appears at page 3939 of Hansard, is:
The date in the white paper for ships and such matters is up to February 28 . . .
Obviously, whoever compiled this white paper for the minister must not have been aware of a ship being launched. After all, one of these anti-submarine escort ships is not by any means a small ship. I believe that the ship in question was H.M.C.S. Fraser launched at the Burrard docks. It would appear to be a little peculiar to say the least to say that such a ship could be launched within a matter of three or four days and the minister not know about it. As I say, the white paper was prepared on February 28 and this ship was launched some considerable time before that, because it appears in the article written by the chief of the naval staff.
The wording of paragraph 130 is a little gobbledygook to me. We are talking about 14 escort vessels and this is the way the 14 are made up, and I am reading from paragraph 130 of the white paper:
Two escort vessels have now been launched and nine keels have been laid.
I presume that adds up to eleven.
Five more will be launched and the remaining five keels will be laid down this year.
I presume that five and five are ten, and that ten and eleven are twenty-one-yet there are only fourteen altogether. Somebody has got to do a little correction in addition or else there are more ships being produced than the minister knows about-or maybe he is producing more ships than the chief of the naval staff knows about.
I think my next point was drawn to the attention of the minister last night by the hon. member for Nanaimo but I want to draw it to his attention as another discrepancy in his statement. In the article written or, I presume, ghost-written for the minister, entitled "The Navy's Progress" in Canadian Shipping and Marine Engineering News, this statement appears at page 93:
A prototype of Canada's new anti-submarine escort ships, the former destroyer HM.C.S. Algonquin, was commissioned in February, and the job of converting another destroyer, H.M.C.S. Crescent, into a similar deadly foe of the submarine, was taken in hand.

I just draw your attention to this wording:
A prototype of Canada's new anti-submarine escort ships, the former destroyer H.M.C.S. Algonquin-
At page 3920 of Hansard for April 15, 1953, there appears a statement by the minister to this effect:
The Algonquin is not the prototype of the new anti-submarine escort vessel.
Well, what is it? In one breath the minister says one thing, and in the next he denies it. What are we to believe, then, about this white paper? I have only referred to the one section dealing with the navy, but when we find such grave discrepancies in that, how are we to regard the rest of the contents of the particular white paper? Now that is all I had hoped to bring out last night when the minister said I was killing time.
I want to draw to the minister's attention again an article in the Montreal Gazette which was quoted last night by the hon. member for Kootenay West, which referred to statements made by the chief of the naval staff in a press conference in Ottawa. The article is dated Ottawa, December 17, and reads in part as follows:
The admiral, who this month took over command of the E.C.N. and who two years ago wrote the "Mainguy report" on the navy's internal problems, said at a conference in the parliamentary press gallery that he, as chief of the naval staff, is "against" any R.C.N. activity or development which does not have to do with anti-submarine work or the defence of harbours.
I believe that statement, or practically all of it, was quoted last night by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I am repeating it, Mr. Chairman, because I think it is very important. It strikes us in Newfoundland very forcibly. It must be recalled that during the last war we had enemy submarine activity brought right to our doors. In my own riding of St. John's East, at Bell island, the wharf of which has been discussed with the Minister of Public Works on several occasions-I sent him a picture of the wharf at Portugal Cove the other day, and I believe he perused it with great benefit to himself-there were three ships loading ore which were sunk by submarine torpedoes. We had submarine torpedoes discharged against the harbour of St. John's, which struck the rocks on each side of the harbour. We had the Caribou, which ran between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, sunk with a great loss of life. We had a lot of enemy submarine activity. So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is only right that this particular part of the defence of Canada be given the consideration which the chief of the naval staff says it deserves. I am sure my friends from the west coast of Canada will feel the same as we from Newfoundland feel about it, that too much stress
Supply-National Defence cannot be laid upon the part the submarine will play in any war that may come in the future.
As the chief of the naval staff said in this article which was quoted last night, Russia now has as many submarines as Germany had at the zenith of the last war, and she is building them even faster than Germany did. With this very real menace, then, 1 think Canada has to face up to the fact that the only way you can fight a submarine-I am merely quoting what I have heard those very much more competent than I say-is with planes and surface craft. The most forward eastern base in Canada is in Newfoundland. We do have United States forces in strength there, and I presume they will continue to increase if war appears imminent. It is not quite fair, however, to leave the defence of Canada to the United States, no matter how willing or able she might be to undertake it.
In that connection, we have a very fine airport at Gander, Newfoundland, which has been operating, as you all know, for many years. It was of great help during the last war in the patrolling of the seas in and about Newfoundland, and assisting in convoy work. The airport at Torbay was also of very great assistance, as was the airport operated by the United States navy at Argentia. At the present time there is no land communication between those three important airports, that is between the United States base at Pepperrell, which uses Torbay airport, the United States base at Argentia, and Gander airport, except the narrow gauge railroad operated by the Canadian National. There is no road connection of any kind. I understand the western provinces are now planning to make representations to the cabinet concerning the necessity for the construction of an all-weather defence road for the west coast. In my opinion the construction of a proper broad highway for defence purposes in Newfoundland is really of even greater importance. I suggest to the minister that he take into account the urgent necessity for communication between Gander airport, Torbay airport and the United States base at Argentia. I believe the matter has been discussed-I do not know whether or not it has been discussed at high levels- and the ranking officers of both forces, off the record, have said that they are in favour of the construction of such a road. The road is of equal importance to the United States and to Canada.
I believe that, given the proper approach, such a road could be constructed on a fifty-fifty basis between the United States and Canada. At the present time the United States forces have constructed or rather

Supply-National Defence have materially widened a road to their base at Argentia known as Salmonier road. They have put a lot of money into the rebuilding of that road, and the maintenance of it. I feel that, in so far as the defence of Canada is concerned, the convoy routes of the future are the great weakness of our defence on this side of the Atlantic. We have to depend upon surface vessels to supply our allies on the other side of the world in time of war, and they would have to cross that dangerous body of water, the north Atlantic. I urge upon the minister that consideration be given to the construction of such a road.
As the minister knows, the United States navy maintains quite a large and extensive base at Argentia. There is a very narrow neck of land between the bays known as Placentia bay and Trinity bay. If it were possible that a canal could be cut across the neck of land at present known as La Manche it would enable United States vessels to go from Placentia bay into Trinity bay. If war came it would be of great assistance with respect to the time saved. At the present time you have to steam from Placentia bay all the way around past St. John's and past Conception bay to get into that area. I think it would be well worth while to investigate the digging of a canal. Then of course the peninsula of Avalon would become an island. It might be quite expensive to carry out such a project but I think it is well worth while investigating.
The last matter to which I desire to refer is this. I do not wish to delay the committee unduly but I wish to draw to the minister's attention, and to get his views on, the question of an armoury at St. John's for the reserve units. As the minister knows, term 44 of the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada says this:
Canada will provide for the maintenance in the province of Newfoundland of appropriate reserve units of the Canadian defence forces, which will include the Newfoundland regiment.
I am quite certain that the minister will appreciate the fact that the word "maintenance" obviously means the providing of an armoury for a unit such as the Newfoundland regiment. There is no other way that we can get around that word. "Maintenance" definitely means what it says. After all, if you guarantee to provide for the maintenance of any person, it means that you must provide a house or some other building in which such person would be housed or kept. In this particular case, where Canada guarantees to provide for the maintenance of a regiment such as the Newfoundland regiment, I say it is part of the terms of union that an armoury should be provided for this

reserve unit. I hope I have not left the minister completely in a fog with regard to the matters I have discussed.
(Translation):


Mr. A. M. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Chairman, in the statement he made in the house last Tuesday afternoon, referring to the Royal Military College of Saint-Jean, Quebec, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) made the following remarks reported at page 3808 of Hansard:
The candidates of the two languages mix and work together, and virtually all of them now speak both languages. These men will constitute an important pool of officers of great value, particularly today when the nations of the world are intermingling more freely.
Further down the minister added:
So great has been the success of Saint-Jean, and so desirable is it that this operation in military training as well as in national unity should be extended, we are going to make provision for a total strength of 400 cadets.
I wish to say immediately to the minister that I readily agree with him. The question of national unity is very near to our hearts. Government members like to raise this question as often as possible and they will surely appeal to those sentiments on every possible occasion during the critical period which might very well be the political menopause before the snow flies, this year.
I hope that in making that statement of principle the Minister of National Defence was sincere and I am ready to grant him the benefit of a reasonable doubt. However, during the few remarks I intend to make this afternoon, I will afford him the opportunity of giving us concrete and practical proof of his sincerity. I simply intend to bring to his knowledge a condition which, unfortunately, prevails very close to this house, and to request him to remedy it, as it should be, if he really wishes to contribute by deeds and not only by words, to the strengthening of the bonds of true national unity across the country.
In taking part in this debate, this afternoon,
I will stray to some extent from the line which I have conscientiously tried to follow ever since I came to this house, that is not to take part in any debate on questions which I was unfamiliar with and which had little or no relation to the interests or economy of my constituency or my province. I might add right away that I know very little about military matters and I am quite ready to confess, Mr. Chairman, that I am no authority on militarization, and much less an adept of militarism. Nevertheless, if I make so bold as to rise to take part in this debate it is;

because, to my mind, there is a principle involved, and that is the recognition of the rights of French-Canadian airmen at the Rockcliffe air station as regards the teaching of religion and of the French language to their children, and more particularly to the children at the Woodfalle school.
Let us for a moment consider the situation from the school and educational point of view at the Rockcliffe air station. Then I shall point out briefly what certain responsible and independent newspapers think about this matter.
Well, the situation at the Rockcliffe air base, from the school and educational viewpoint, is simply awful. The real concept of education in the true sense of the word seems to have been forgotten and it seems as though it is being wilfully ignored. It seems that this concept which should include, first of all, the imprescriptible rights of the parents, then of the church and thirdly the suppletory rights-and they are only suppletory-of the state, is being wilfully ignored. The recognition of these rights is being ignored at Rockcliffe, especially the first two, that is the imprescriptible rights of the church and of the parents in matters of education, which are the most important. And it is the authorities of the Department of National Defence who are responsible for this situation.
The Rockcliffe school was built with the money of all Canadian taxpayers and I find, on page N-52 of the public accounts for 1952, that the sum of $514,704.99 was spent for the construction of an 18-room school at Rockcliffe. Now, from a pedagogical standpoint, the school at Woodfalle apparently follows the program of the province of Ontario while refusing to apply that section of the Ontario law which allows the establishment of separate schools where the teaching of the French language and of the Catholic faith could and should be given.
Mr. Chairman, if we compare Rockcliffe to any other area, we find that the treatment meted out to French-Canadian Catholics is worse than the treatment they endured under the famous regulation XVII. At Rockcliffe, national defence authorities are not satisfied with restricting French; they exclude it altogether, along with the teaching of religion. Whereas the school system of the province of Ontario recognizes both the public and separate schools, the national defence authorities have adopted at Rockcliffe the public school system while refusing to recognize the separate school system.
Supply-National Defence
Such is, in brief, the situation at Rockcliffe air base, as I see it from the school and educational viewpoint.
Now, to come to the second point I want to make, let us see what the independent and right-thinking newspapers of this area think of this situation and what they have to say about it.
Here is, first of all, an article published in Le Droit of January 26, 1953, under the title "A situation worse than under Regulation XVII". I quote:
But what has the Department of National Defence done at Rockcliffe airport? It has refused to provide accommodation so that the children of Catholic and French Canadian airmen may receive an education which would be French and Catholic in character, in accordance with their rights and the dictates of their conscience. If those airmen wish to send their children to school at Rockcliffe airport, they have to send them to the local public school, where teaching is done exclusively in English.
The Department of National Defence is worse than the Whitney government.
The writer mentions again the famous regulation XVII and he adds:
True, French Canadian and Catholic airmen can send their children to bilingual separate schools outside, but that changes nothing in the situation which prevails at Rockcliffe airport. Due to a decision taken by the Department of National Defence, there is only one school at that station, the public school, which is neutral and English.
On March 20, 1953, Le Devoir had an article entitled "The Rockcliffe Affair", of which I would like to quote a paragraph:
Rockcliffe is a suburb of Ottawa. An air base has been established at that place and it so happens there are children of school age.
A certain number of those children are Catholic. The authorities have forgotten to provide the necessary facilities to enable those children to receive, at the base proper, an education in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Lastly, I would like to quote a paragraph from another article, published in Le Droit of March 17, 1953, entitled: "The Conspiracy of silence, at Rockcliffe, must come to an end". I quote:
During the past several years, the army has made it a point to give greater importance to the French language and to count more and more on the cooperation of the French-speaking element. We do not know what the situation is with regard to the navy, but we seldom hear complaints. However, in the air force, it is rumoured that in several places, young French Canadian members of that military body do not always receive fair treatment. There are more than false rumours in that connection and specific cases have been stated. They don't appear to be general in scope. The responsibility for these unfortunate happenings has, so far, fallen upon officers of inferior rank and only in a few training centres. We cannot infer from these incidents that an anti-French Canadian policy prevails in the Canadian air force.
3964	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
However, at Rockcliffe, there is no school where Catholics of both languages may send their children. This is a condition absolutely contrary to a true national spirit, contrary also to the provincial statute, which regulates matters of education in military camps. It is very urgent that this question be straightened out: no question of economy nor any other minor consideration should intervene here. This is a matter of right and Catholics of both languages should take every means to defend that right.
Before bringing my remarks to a close, I wish to call the attention of this house to the steps I have been taking since last January 28 in order to obtain the following documents:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal government, or any department thereof, and any person or persons, in connection with the teaching of religion and French to the French-speaking pupils of Woodfalle school, Royal Canadian Air Force station, Rockcliffe, Ontario.
An order for return was passed by this house on January 28 but I am still awaiting the production of these documents. Three times I rose to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) about this matter. In the first two instances he answered that he would do everything he could to expedite this return. Last Monday the Minister of National Defence rose to tell me that his department was quite willing to provide me with these papers, but that permission ' was being requested from a provincial government, which, at my request, he admitted was the government of Ontario.
Will the Minister of National Defence allow me to tell him that his last excuse is very clumsy. Why should he insist on obtaining the agreement of the province concerned before producing these documents, since my question did not refer to any correspondence exchanged between his department and the province of Ontario or any other province.
I merely asked for the correspondence exchanged between the federal government or one of its departments and any other person or association concerned. Moreover,
I must say that the documents I asked for are not numerous and that a secretary could have prepared them in two hours at the most. However, I am still waiting.
Mr. Chairman, as Le Droit so rightly puts it:
The conspiracy of silence, at Rockcliffe, must come to an end.
We are not behind the iron curtain, but I note that there are certain curtains which should be ripped open. And I think that the curtain-be it made of velvet or some other cloth-which closes the opening of the tent under which the Minister of National Defence 

takes cover, and which will not admit our search into his department, should be the first to be thus ripped open.
Mr. Chairman, in closing 1 urge the Minister of National Defence to prove his sincerity by deeds and not by words; to remedy the unfortunate and iniquitous situation which exists in the school and educational field at Rockcliffe air base, only a few miles from our parliament. I would also ask him to produce at long last the papers which I asked for more than ten weeks ago.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. members of the House of Commons to excuse a young member, a newcomer, a backbencher who admitted being quite ignorant about military matters, for having been so bold as to stand up in order to stress the glaring injustice inflicted upon his fellow citizens at Rockcliffe. If I have done so, it is because I believed, and still believe, that it is my duty to defend the principle involved. Like the chief of the apostles, I could say, in the very words of Peter to the sanhedrin:
For we cannot but speak after what we have seen and heard.
(Text) :


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Chairman, I have been following the defence debate in the house rather carefully, as hon. members well know. It appears to me that the official opposition has given the debate a new twist. Something new has been added. In previous debates on the same subject their slogan was: Waste, extravagance and inefficiency. We on this side of the house said: "Point to the evidence. Where is the proof?" The opposition have now added a new twist to the slogan by adding: We have inadequate home defence. Thus a new plank is being added to their platform, and1 the new slogan will go something like this: The official opposition will be saying to the Canadian people: "You are spending five billions of dollars. You have inadequate home defence, because of waste, extravagance and inefficiency." That will be repeated on many platforms throughout the country. I think the place to say it is here, and I say it now- that that is the greatest hoax ever played on the Canadian people. It is a nice trick if you can do it; but you will not.
Let me for a moment examine this question of waste, extravagance and inefficiency. Let us take the normal case we all understand, of the possession of a refrigerator. A refrigerator in the home of a civilian worker is a normal requirement. When this government provides the same refrigerator, but at

a lower cost, in the serviceman's home, it immediately becomes waste.
Let us take the case of the landlord who plants a tree, sods his grounds, and keeps the place in good repair. We consider him a good Canadian citizen and also a good landlord. But when the government provides the same service to the serviceman, at once it becomes landscaping, and therefore an extravagance.
Then, wading pools, which are normally provided for children of civilians in parks throughout the country, when provided for servicemen's children under similar circumstances become frills and fancies.
The small carpet, when provided normally in a civilian's home, becomes, when it is provided for a serviceman, a rug. And when it is described on the hustings, it seems that the servicemen are walking knee deep in them, or perhaps, only ankle deep.
Let us take the case of the bed lamp found normally in most homes. When a bed lamp is provided for a serviceman it becomes a boudoir lamp, with all sorts of connotations.


Mr. Adamson:: That was the official name given in the committee.


David Arnold Croll: Then, when we ask where those luxurious camps are located1, when we ask about those houses with the gilded door knobs, the usual answer is: Wainwright. We are told there is a swimming pool at Wainwright. Well, Wainwright is in the middle of the prairies, and if there is any place in the country that needs a swimming pool, it is Wainwright. Isolated as it is, if we provide a bowling alley and a gymnasium, and a chapel, I do not think we are doing too much for our servicemen.
The official opposition has the advantage of hindsight which, of course, is a great advantage. They can say what should have been done, and act like the Monday-morning quarterback. However, I think that before they pursue that course any further-and I am of the opinion that they believe they have made about as much political capital as they can out of waste, extravagance and inefficiency, because they are not playing that record with as much vigour as they did on other occasions-they should listen well to what the Canadian public are thinking. I suggest that the editorial which I am about to read, and which appeared in the Canadian Military Journal, an independent defence forces review, reflects the views of the Canadian public. This is what appeared in the Easter issue under the heading "Unjust Criticism":
For many months past there have been many disparaging comments by Canadian newspapers and
Supply-National Defence news commentators about the pampering of the personnel of our armed forces.
Such critics have appeared to resent the fact that our National Defence Department has seen fit to spend money on furnishing our soldiers with bedside tables and lamps, with carpets, mirrors, bureaus and other such whatnots.
In our opinion such resentment and carping criticism are entirely unjustified. It should be remembered that the great majority of the well paid working men in Canada have all of these things in their homes. So, why should the men who work in our armed forces be deprived of them? These same harsh critics of reasonable comforts for sailors, soldiers and airmen, when off duty, are the first to belabour the Department of National Defence if it fails to secure the number of recruits necessary for our armed forces. The very fact that we are apparently now getting an adequate supply of recruits is, we think, in some measure due to the publicity that has been given in the press to the fact that, by joining the armed forces, a man will not be deprived of the amenities that he has become accustomed to as a civilian.
No! The days of old when it could be truthfully said that, "a soldier's life was one of extreme hardship, unremitting toil and damned poor pay" are over-and we are glad of it! But, even in peacetime, there are still lengthy periods of each year, the training season, when a soldier still has to undergo much more toil and hardship than a civilian,-but, if he is reasonably well paid, as he is now, he has no complaints.
We think that it is high time for the critics, above mentioned, to cease their misguided attempts to deprive the men of our armed forces from enjoying the same home comforts as the civilian workers. They may not have much longer to enjoy them. If they happily do, it will be because their strength, added to the strength of our allies, is forcing on Soviet Russia the necessity of continuing to postpone world war III.	[DOT]


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) has a vivid imagination and a good flow of language, and he has let them both have full swing in the last few minutes, when he has been setting up straw men and then proceeding to knock them down again.
He appeared to be trying to create the impression that those of us who have criticized the conduct of the defence affairs of this country have been thereby criticizing the airmen, soldiers and naval ratings in our armed forces. That has not been done, and there is no justification for trying to give an impression of that kind.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if the hon. member got that impression; I did not say it, and I did not intend to say it. I merely read an editorial.


Mr. Casselman:: Read your speech.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member was certainly trying to give the impression that those of us who have been criticizing waste and extravagance in the country's defence effort would deny to the members of our defence forces the minimum of comforts to which
3966	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence they are entitled. Of course that is absolutely wrong. It was quite evident that the hon. member was making a speech with that purpose in mind, hoping to convince the people throughout the country, and members of the forces, that that was what we in the opposition have been doing. I think he will find that he will fail in his efforts.
Then the hon. member for Spadina said that a new twist has been added to the criticism of the defence department, and that instead of placing that criticism on waste and extravagance, as has been done in the past, it is now being put on the fact that there is no defence of Canada itself. If the hon. member will cast his mind back or, if he fails in that respect, if he will look at the defence debates for the last four or five years, he will find that I placed the chief emphasis in my criticism of the defence department each year on the fact that we have had no effective defence for Canadian soil. That was the point made by myself, and by other hon. members associated with me on this side of the house.
So that his contention that we are giving a new twist is completely at variance with the facts. As I say, we have been emphasizing that feature for years. And that leads me to a comment I should like to make concerning the speech made last night by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) in connection with this very matter. The Minister of National Defence, in referring to the accomplishment of the first and third objectives of our defence effort-and I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the first objective is the defence of Canada itself- said that we are just on the way of getting there, in other words, of achieving the accomplishment of the first objective, the defence of Canada. I must say that the minister apparently takes a considerably more realistic view and speaks in a more realistic way now than he did three and four years ago, because when we brought up this matter three and four years ago and stated time after time that there were no effective defences for Canada in the event of a raid across the north or anything else of that sort which might be anticipated, and which the government said might be anticipated, when we insisted that there were no defences against that sort of thing which amounted to anything, the minister kept reiterating and reiterating in a most definite way that we had all the defence forces we needed to guard against any possible contingency. He said that over and over again.


Mr. Claxton:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have asked the hon. member on previous occasions to cite one single case


where I said that. I ask him again. He is distorting any words that I have ever used. I should like him to give a single instance where I have used language which would justify the words he is now trying to put into my mouth.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is very easy to look up the defence debates of three and four years ago and hon. members will find-


Some hon. Members:: Do it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -that the minister made these assertions time after time. It is very easy for the Liberal members to roar "Do it, do it", but they know quite well that when a man is on his feet in the house he cannot take several hours to look up defence debates which cover several hundred pages of Hansard.


Brooke Claxton: Then if the hon. member does not do it and does not choose to do it he should not make such assertions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will have the material looked up and produce it at a later time. It is quite apparent that I cannot produce it out of my hat at the moment.


An hon. Member:: You are too busy talking through it.


An hon. Member:: Nevertheless it is true.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly it is true. As a matter of fact there is no question as to what the minister said three and four years ago about our defence forces. He kept reiterating that we had all the defences-


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I have raised a point of order and the hon. member goes on putting words in my mouth which he cannot prove I said. He has had ample opportunity. This debate has gone on for three days, and I think this is the twentieth day on which defence has been discussed this session. He has had endless opportunities but he does not produce the evidence and continues to put words in my mouth which I did not use. Let him produce the evidence.


An hon. Member:: Put up or shut up.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Apparently the minister's recollection and mine differ, but I will produce what he had to say in these debates of past years in the course of time, as I said a minute ago.
The next point I should like to comment upon is that the minister said that we had plenty of C-119's and Dakotas to lift our airborne brigade or air defence troops, I think he calls them now. That is not in accord with my information with respect to the matter. The minister cited, as evidence of the fact that we have sufficient of these planes to lift

the airborne brigade, that various exercises had been held and these troops had been dropped. Unless the newspaper reports that I have read were incorrect, the largest number of airborne troops ever dropped in one of these exercises was a battalion. Generally it was less than a battalion, and when they did drop a battalion they were not all dropped at once. They had to be taken in two or three lifts in order to drop them. Therefore I do not think that the evidence that we have a sufficient number of these planes is very good.


Brooke Claxton: Once again, I wish the hon. member would stick to what I said. I never suggested for a second, yesterday or at any other time, that we had the airlift to drop an airborne brigade at one time. No words of mine can be distorted to mean that. What I said was quite different. What the hon. member is now suggesting is not in accordance with our plans at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This happens to be one thing that I believe is right in the speech which the minister made yesterday arid I can probably find it in about a minute.


An hon. Member:: Make it up.


The Chairman:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Bingo!


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not exactly remember just when the minister made this particular statement.


An hon. Member:: Neither do I.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not remember what part of his speech it was in but I know it is here.


An hon. Member:: Take your time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Here it is. At page 3921 of Hansard for yesterday the minister, replying to the criticism that had been made on this particular point, said:
What is more, we have the transport to enable that force to be used.
The reference is to the airborne force. The minister says that nothing he has said can be interpreted as meaning that we have sufficient transport to lift an airborne brigade. What other interpretation would any reasonable man take out of that statement?


Brooke Claxton: What is after the word "used"?


An hon. Member:: A period.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, there is a period there. The minister went on to say:
Hon. members have referred to the fact that hitherto we have only had Dakotas to use for this operation, and very good they were too. A good many countries in the world still only have Dakotas, 68108-25L|
Supply-National Defence
but to them we have added a number of C-119's. They are coming along at the rate of several per month. Therefore we believe that today we have an airlift sufficient to meet the kind of situation envisaged by the concept on which we are working. Exercises are held regularly.
I have already referred to that.


An hon. Member:: Keep on reading. It is better than your speech.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The only impression an ordinary citizen of Canada or someone who had perhaps paid some attention to these matters could get would be that we had sufficient of these aircraft to transport the airborne brigade. As I say, 1 am quite sure we have not got them, and in fact the minister has now admitted in What he has said that he never said we toad them. His statement in that regard is the same as many other statements he has made, and I have complained about them every year in the past and in the speech I made the other day. I complain again about the same sort of thing. He makes statements in a way which can only give a wrong impression to the people of Canada as to what our defence resources actually are.
The next matter with which I should like to deal has to do with ack-ack guns. The minister said we have ack-ack guns of the latest type and that others have been modified in some cases to the most modern standards at very great expense. I believe it is true that we have these guns and that some of them have been modified, but once more the general impression the people get from such a statement is not correct. I had quite a long discussion with the minister on this same subject last year at which time we went into the matter of guided missiles and so on. I think it was a useful discussion, and I brought the matter up at that time because the minister had made a somewhat similar statement on that occasion. The general impression the people got was that we had plenty of ack-ack guns in the country to defend important cities, industrial targets, etc. In actual fact that is not the case.
We have a certain number of guns, but where are they and who is manning them and who is prepared to man them? Unless my information is entirely incorrect, we have two or three regular force ack-ack batteries in Canada, and that is all we have. These are the only ack-ack defences which are manned. In addition, we have a considerable number of reserve batteries and reserve regiments. As was pointed out yesterday, the reserve batteries and reserve regiments are supplied with ack-ack guns on the basis of two per battery or four per battery or eight per regiment or twelve per regiment, something along
3968	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence that line. They have at the most possibly a quarter or a third of the guns they are supposed to have. In addition, in most cases they have not been able to secure sufficient personnel and to do sufficient training to be able to man even the guns they have effectively. So, in order to make any effective use of those ack-ack guns, as I say, you would have to have the batteries fully equipped and staffed with well trained men. To say that we have plenty of ack-ack guns merely creates a false impression for the people of Canada and lulls them into a false sense of security-something which the government has no right to do.


Brooke Claxton: I agree, if anyone said that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think the minister will deny that he said yesterday that we have ack-ack guns of the latest type, many of them modified to the most modern standards. He has been saying that for the last two or three years. It is not a new thing at all and it has been brought up here on many occasions, but he still insists on making these statements which I say give a wrong impression.


An hon. Member:: You are trying to give a wrong impression.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The next thing the minister said was that we have Vampires and Mustangs which would be pretty good defence against all the bombers known to be in the possession of the only enemy. I wonder if the minister has been completely asleep and is not really aware of what has been happening in the way of aircraft development in the last several years. I wonder if he has paid no attention to reports that have appeared in American magazines, reports before the Senate committee on defence in that country, and so on. There seems to be in the United States, and amongst people who should know, a very strong presumption at least-in fact it is a certainty-that the Russians have a considerable number of high altitude jet bombers. Against such bombers these Vampires and Mustangs are just useless.
The fact that the minister would make that statement indicates to me that he has no true realization of what the needs of modern defence are. Nobody with a realization of the needs of modern air defence and what the modern air situation is would make a statement of that sort. The minister went on to say, as he has said several times in the past, that the F-86E Sabre jet is the finest aircraft of its type in the world today. Maybe it is, and I am not disputing that it is-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But I would draw your attention to the fact that a very large number of


pilots who have been flying these Sabres in Korea have come back and complained bitterly that the Russian MIG was able to outfly them and outmanoeuvre them. One of the reasons for that is that the F-86E is a considerably heavier aircraft. It weighs more than the MIG and it would take a great deal more thrust, which it just has not got, to make it as manoeuvrable as the MIG. In that connection I would refer to a report appearing in the newspapers in which a fairly high technical ranking officer of the R.C.A.F. said that the trouble with the F-86E, and with other planes too, is that they have too many gadgets which slow them down and their performance is not nearly as good as it might otherwise be. He particularly referred to the double landing gear which this plane has and to other safety devices which, according to him, were designed to prevent training accidents. They were designed to protect in training the one man in ten who is perhaps slow or careless. But, as a result of these safety devices, the whole weight of the plane has been made too great and therefore its performance is not nearly as good as it should be. He says that we should get rid of these gadgets and cut down the weight of the plane. I do not know the technical details of these things well enough to be a judge, but that at least is the story, as reported in the newspapers, of one of the technical officers of the R.C.A.F., and it appears to me to be very sound reasoning.
The next matter was the construction of barracks and the minister said that he had not heard from anybody that the costs were too great. He said that anyone who thought that was the case should have said so, and that no one has said so. Well, I would refer the minister to the report of the committee on defence expenditure of last year. He also said that we had had all kinds of opportunity to go into this matter. But last year, as a matter of fact, we had one day in which to hear a long report on construction and there was only time for a short bit of questioning at the end. The minister says that nobody complained about excessive cost, but I point out to him that I did refer to the excessive cost of some barracks and asked why the costs were so great. The explanation was given that they were no greater than for comparable accommodation which has been built in recent years for college students. That did not seem to be a very reasonable explanation of the high cost of these barracks.
This year in the defence expenditure committee, to which I am really not supposed to refer, we put a considerable amount of time on construction; but I think the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Spadina,

will agree with me that we have not so far really gone into the cost of barracks.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The next thing which the minister protested against most vehemently concerned something which I have done myself on several occasions in the past, as has the hon. member for Moose Jaw. He did so only yesterday, I think, in this debate. I refer to making a comparison of the cost per man of our forces compared with the cost per man of the forces of the United States, Great Britain or any other country. The minister said that the comparison of cost per man was absolutely invalid and he took strong exception to any comparisons of that sort being made. He did not give any good reason why a comparison was invalid; he just said it was invalid and did not give any good reasons, except one. The one reason he did give was that construction costs in Canada have been a great deal more per man than they have in the United Kingdom or the United States. He said that we did not have any permanent barracks and things of that sort when we started on this program whereas they did in the United Kingdom and in the United States. Now, I will admit that we have had to spend more per man on construction in Canada than they have had to do in the United States or in Great Britain. However, if you throw out the entire cost of construction as far as Canada is concerned- throw it out altogether, but do not forget that the people in the United Kingdom and the United States have also been constructing things of various kinds such as airfields and barracks-and leave it in for the others, our costs are still a great deal more than they are in the United States and Great Britain per man. The argument by the minister that the cost per man has only risen because of construction costs flies right out the window.


An hon. Member:: They do not have below zero weather in Great Britain.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They certainly do in the United States, and particularly in the Alaska area. As a matter of fact, I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, what other yardstick we can use to compare costs here and in the United States or Great Britain or any other country. There is no other yardstick that you can use, and the cost per man is a good yardstick to compare the situation in this country with that in other countries-the cost now and what it cost four years ago or fourteen years ago. I think that a yardstick of that kind is extremely useful and one that can serve a useful purpose. I see no reason in the world for the minister to say that it is invalid.
Supply[DOT]-National Defence
In addition to that I would point out that, although our forces are costing so much more per man than those of Great Britain and so much more than those of the United States, those countries are providing extremely heavy and expensive items of equipment. They are providing large ships, submarines, heavy bombers and things of that kind which are most expensive. We are not providing any of those things, so their costs really should be higher than ours because they are buying more of the expensive items.
Now, the minister made what I thought was a very unworthy attempt, and one which was in bad taste, to write down Wing Commander Rohmer because of the statement he made. Why the minister should say that he was so far down on the promotion list, and what relationship that had to this debate, I do not know. As I say, I think it was a very unworthy attempt to try to write down a man who was doing his duty, and who had given considerable service to this country, not only in the air force but also by putting forward his views as to what was needed for the defence of this country. In other words, this man acted as a good citizen, and the minister more or less tried to write him down. The minister also said, of course, that we had seized upon what Wing Commander Rohmer said about the lack of defence in this country, and were now trying to make a great deal of it. As I have already pointed out, what Wing Commander Rohmer said is confirmation of what we have been saying here for several years. We have been insisting that the defence of Canada itself was neglected, that we did not have the defences that we need. This statement by this gentleman was confirmation of that, and proof that it is true.
In speaking here the other day I said something about overblown staffs. The minister said that the only proof of this that I gave was the number of men in the deputy minister's office. He spoke about the number of people that were there and what they were doing, and why the number had been increased. This was not the only proof I gave, but that was the only point to which he gave attention. There are many more that could be mentioned. One of the other things I mentioned, and I mention it again now because I think we should have some explanation of it later on, is the tremendous growth that has taken place in the civilian personnel in the administrative headquarters of national defence.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps the hon. member could wait until the general policy discussion is over, or is it agreeable to hon. members that we now start on the question and

Supply*-National Defence answer period? If not, I would rather that hon. members pursue the policy discussion. Perhaps the hon. member wants to include this one question in his remarks?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not going into detailed discussion. I am merely citing this as proof that what the minister said was not correct. The minister said I gave only one instance of overblown staffs, and I say I gave two other specific instances. I am referring to one that I gave. Civilian personnel in administrative headquarters, as shown in the estimates for this year, has increased from 2,512 to 3,599, an increase of nearly 1,100. Last year the increase was from 1,200 to 2,500; it more than doubled the year before, so that in two years we have more than a 200 per cent increase in the number of civilian personnel here at Ottawa.
Then, of course, I also mentioned the increase which had taken place throughout the services, the navy, the army, the air force and so on. I mentioned particularly the large increase which had taken place in the number of stenographers, typists and so forth, and the way in which, apparently, the paper war was being stepped up. Another thing that I mentioned was the great burgeoning of staff that there had been in the training and staff duties branch of the army. I shall not go into the details of that again. If anyone wants to see some examples of it, all he has to do is to get one of the officials sitting in the gallery to supply him with a telephone directory for national defence headquarters. He will see there the great multiplication of staffs that exists, particularly if compared with what the situation was during the war and before the war.
The minister had something to say in answer to the Leader of the Opposition and me in regard to the lack of equipment in the reserve forces. The minister did not really deal with this lack of equipment, but mentioned particularly carriers and jeeps. He said that if the units were losing carriers, they had been taken away for repair, I think it was, and the jeeps had been taken away but were being replaced by some kind of general service truck. That may be, but I know that I have been getting these complaints that units have lost their jeeps, and I certainly do not hear that they have been replaced by anything comparable. The minister did not go into some of the more important complaints, such as the lack of directors in the artillery and other technical equipment of that sort; the lack of guns themselves, and so on. He did say something about breech rings. These guns were being sent back to have the breech rings changed as a safety measure, although the guns have been in use for years and years. However, it may be
[The Chairman.]

necessary to do that, but I certainly do not think you needed to take away all the guns from the unit at one time in order to do that. The removal of the guns could have been staggered so that a unit could have continued training. There was no necessity to interrupt or destroy unit training in order to change the breech rings. The lack of directors and other technical equipment was not dealt with.
The minister said something which really discouraged me. He said the units were trying to get down to the amount of equipment that they need so that they could carry on more efficiently. I would ask him if any of the units were trying to get rid of their directors; have they been trying to get rid of their jeeps or their guns? It is complete nonsense to say anything of that sort. The units have been complaining very strongly about the way in which equipment has been taken away from them. The minister says it was taken away to please them. It is really not a very sensible statement.
So far as equipment generally in the reserve forces is concerned, I do not think there is any question at all but that there was no need for any of the units to suffer in their training or in their morale as a result of the removal of material from them. It could have been removed in shifts if it were being taken away to be repaired, and then returned. If it was being taken away to be sent overseas, it should have been left with the unit until the new equipment had arrived to be put into their hands. In this way the unit would not have been left without anything.
In that connection, one of the particular complaints concerns the anti-tank regiment, with which I happen to be personally familiar. Some two or three years ago the anti-tank regiments lost their guns. In some places those anti-tank guns were replaced by 25-pounders, and the units were told to train on them. Since that time none of these units have known what their situation is. They do not know whether or not they are anti-tank regiments. The generally expressed opinion is that the anti-tank branch of the artillery is being eliminated, and that the job is being taken over by the armoured corps. It may be a good thing to do that. Certainly a reserve force unit which is designated in a certain way, and left to train in a certain way, should not be left up in the air that way, with their regular normal equipment taken away and replaced by different sorts of things, and more or less in a position where they do not know where they are at. I think perhaps the time has come for the minister, during this debate, to make a definite statement as to what is to be the fate of the anti-tank artillery, whether they are to continue with that or whether

they are going to be converted into something else; and if so what it is and when this will take place, so that these units will have something definite to strive toward in the future.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Mr. Chairman, I have endeavoured to follow this whole debate as carefully and as steadily as possible, with the exception of a while I missed on Monday night, and it seems to me that now we are on the second time around, so I should like to say a few words about it. We have apparently reached the stage where the same speeches are being made by the same opposition members, as I say, for the second time around.
There is one thing that I think must impress itself upon every member in the chamber as a result of this debate and that is that quite obviously the true worth of the Minister of National Defence and of the Department of National Defence is recognized, if not admitted, by the members of the opposition. That is quite obvious from the ineffectual and ineffective nature of the criticisms which so far they have attempted to bring against the minister and his department.
In this debate there was one matter only of major importance which caused me considerable worry, and that was the suggestion of belittling the theory that the defence of Canada should be carried out as far away from Canadian shores as possible. In the whole world picture, including such projects as the stopping of aggression in Korea and the building up of an army in Europe, I understand that we on the North American continent have been perhaps a little bit selfish but that it has been our idea and our intention that the only potential enemy which we can see shall be stopped at the other side of either the Atlantic or the Pacific ocean. If, at this stage of world affairs, that is a wrong premise, on which to build Canadian defence policies, then I think perhaps we have definitely failed. The statement was made by the hon. member for Nanaimo, as reported at page 3819 of Hansard of April 14:
We are told that we should defend Canada as far away from Canada as possible. That is a delightful dream, . . .
He continues a little bit further down the page:
The long and the short of this matter seems to me to be that we have left our front door wide open while we have sallied out through the back door.
If the members of the 25th brigade and the 27th brigade have sallied out through the back door and are now holding potential aggression at bay in Asia and in Europe, I should like to know which is the front door that we have left open.
Supply-National Defence
Mr. Chairman, you were gracious enough to permit the hon. member for Greenwood to make rather extensive references to parts of the Currie report. At that time the hon. member for Greenwood was permitted to place upon the record extracts from a radio speech by a Liberal and which referred to the Currie report. I like the hon. member for Greenwood so much that I should like to have the privilege of returning the compliment, and for his benefit I should like to place on the record a quotation from a speech on the Currie report made by a Conservative, one who was frankly introduced on "This Nation's Business" program as a Progressive Conservative candidate in the forthcoming federal election. But before coming to that matter, I would remind the committee that, as reported at page 3934 of Hansard, the hon. member for Greenwood said with great emphasis:
-there has not been a dent made in the Currie report.
I think that most likely he is correct. But while the Currie report may at the present time remain undented, Mr. Chairman, it has been rather severely twisted. On the program "This Nation's Business" on March 31, 1953, one Sybil Bennett-quite frankly I do not know whether to say Mrs. or Miss-


An hon. Member:: Miss.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am told it is Miss. Referring to the report she said this:
The general answer-
That is to the inefficiencies of this government.
-is the elimination of waste and extravagance and wild spending which it appears runs into hundreds of millions of dollars. As Mr. Currie pointed out in his report "nobody knows how many millions are being wasted''.
There is no way of knowing because the government refuses to investigate or to allow anybody to investigate this spending.
I would draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that what I have in my hand is supposed to be a copy of the official text filed with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the words attributed to the Currie report, "nobody knows how many millions are being wasted" are in quotation marks. Heaven knows that by this time I should know the Currie report almost by heart, and those words are not in the Currie report. Let us see what Mr. Currie did say. He was investigating losses at Petawawa. He was referring to Petawawa and here are his exact words:
No reliable estimate of the total loss can be prepared. It does, however, appear probable that the total loss resulting from misappropriation and irregularities by military personnel at Petawawa was not large.

Supply-National Defence
Incidentally he praises the personnel at other depots he investigated for not having the same losses and "praise" is the word he used.


Mr. Fulton:: Would the hon. member read the next sentence?


An hon. Member:: Make your own speech.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I have no doubt whatever that the hon. member for Kamloops will place on the record anything which he considers to be pertinent. Perhaps he will afford me the courtesy of allowing me to make my own speech.
In connection with that item I would point out that it has been variously estimated, so far as I can learn, that these losses run somewhere between $35,000 and $85,000. Let us take the bigger figure. There is a large difference between $85,000 and many millions.
Mr. Chairman, this political business is never too pleasant. I think all of us enjoy a good, honest opponent. I for one-and I pick two names out of the hat-appreciate the type of speech which will be made by such members as the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Eglin-ton. But when certain individuals find it necessary to coin non-existing quotations in order to-


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege. Does the hon. member not mean the hon. member for Ottawa East instead of the hon. member for Vancouver East?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: No; I said Vancouver East.


William Scottie Bryce: I cannot understand why he should blame the hon. member for Vancouver East.


David Arnold Croll: He is praising him.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am not blaming him; on the contrary. I am afraid that my hon. friend was not doing me the courtesy of listening to me as closely as I should like to be listened to.


William Scottie Bryce: We cannot hear you over here for the chorus.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I had said that the hon. member for Vancouver East is an outstanding example of a good, honest political fighter, a comment which I regret I cannot apply to the author of this particular speech. So much for the efforts being made to twist the Currie report, which perhaps still remains undented.
There is a natural, legitimate and praiseworthy unanimity in this chamber in honouring the qualities, the efficiency and the activities of the members of the 25th brigade and the 27th brigade.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with other hon. members who have taken part in the discussion of the first item in the estimates of the Department of National Defence, and in doing so I shall deal with a matter vitally connected with the community in which I live, and one which has been close to my heart through many years. I refer to the plants of A. V. Roe Canada Limited at Malton, Ontario, where aircraft and the Orenda engine are produced. This subject has been debated in the house on former occasions. Perhaps the background of the Malton plant should be described, because up to this time that phase has not been mentioned by the minister or others.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps it has not been mentioned by the minister because it might be discussed more properly under the estimates of the Department of Defence Production. If I am inaccurate in that I should like to be enlightened. It seems to me, however, that there is nothing in these estimates that has anything to do with the Malton plant.


Gordon Graydon: I think there is, Mr. Chairman. It will be realized as I go along that the Malton plant plays a very important part in these estimates, and that a considerable amount of the money to be voted will go to the production of aircraft at that plant.
In the late thirties Malton airport site was chosen. Since 1936 the airport located there has developed until it has become the greatest in Canada. Alongside it grew up, first of all, the plant of what was known as the National Steel Car Company. Then Victory Aircraft was established. And now, after the close of the second world war, we have located there A. V. Roe Canada [Mr. Applewhaite.l

Limited. All three of these organizations manufactured aircraft.
At the present time A. V. Roe Canada Limited employs in its two plants-the original one and the new Orenda engine plant-over 13,000 men and women. The company is one of the largest employers of labour in the whole metropolitan area of Toronto and, I suppose, one of the largest employers anywhere in Canada.
It has been a matter of considerable pride to me, as the member of that constituency and living close to the plant-because I suppose I live closer to it than any other member, and for that reason have been able to see it more often-that we have at that point in Canada such a magnificent industry, which not only has made a good record up to the present time under almost impossible circumstances, but which also is giving to Malton the distinction of being the centre of the Canadian aviation industry, both in peace and in war.
I am one who has always championed and supported the industry at Malton. It has not always been popular to take that position because, as most hon. members know, there have been criticisms. These have not been confined to parliament or to any political party, but have been made because people have not always understood the gigantic difficulties and obstacles those three companies, including A. V. Roe, have faced from time to time; difficulties which are being overcome today by A. V. Roe Canada Limited in connection with the production of the Orenda engine and the CF-100 with its various marks which are now being designed and will be produced later on.
I have always felt that if there be criticism it should not be directed against the management or the employees of the plant, but rather against the departments of government. It can be said, in simple language, that in an aircraft manufacturing policy there are, speaking roughly, three alternatives that could be followed. First of all, the plant could build large numbers of obsolete aircraft on a high-speed production line, and show to the public a tremendous record of numbers produced. But when they were produced it would not necessarily follow that such aircraft would have any major value in our defence program.
A second alternative would be to do no designing and no original research work at the plant, but rather to obtain licences from someone, or from some other country, that has originated designs. Then those models could be put on the production line and,

again, a great showing could be made as to the number of aircraft coming off the assembly line.
Those alternatives, however, have not been followed at Malton. I am one who believes that the alternative chosen has been the proper one. In the plant, since the close of the last war, with a large amount of government assistance the A. V. Roe plant has succeeded in setting up a research, designing and developing team which has now reached the point where there are few better such teams to be found anywhere in the world. They have produced in their plant what we believe, and I think the government believes, is the best jet airplane engine, and the best aircraft of its type in the form of the various marks of the CF-100.
Having chosen that alternative, one cannot expect the same amount of production, or the same quantity off the assembly line, as if the other alternatives had been followed. After all, the very last word in production, design and manufacture of both engines and aircraft is coming off the assembly line in the Malton plant.
That brings up another aspect which is of very great importance to that area. We feel that the designing, research and development team ought to be kept intact so that when the current international tension and impasse have subsided there will be a great peacetime centre of the civilian aviation industry there which will of course be of great importance to Canada in the days that lie ahead. That is the reason I think the proper course has been followed, and I hope the government will not change its policy in that respect but will pursue it despite the fact that there has been considerable criticism from time to time of the number of planes that have come off the assembly line at Malton.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and that is the untold difficulties and almost impossible obstacles that have faced the management and employees of the plant during the last few years. It is hard enough to produce aircraft and engines in a pioneering atmosphere such as we have had at Malton, but one of the greatest problems arises from the fact that just when the design is ready to go on the assembly line for manufacture the Royal Canadian Air Force or some department at Ottawa asks for some minor, or sometimes major, change in the design which again stops production for weeks and sometimes months. It is a pretty discouraging situation to find that from time to time such changes, which seem to occur more often perhaps than is necessary, are holding up production on the Malton assembly line.
68108-252J
Supply-National Defence
I think the minister should consider having a somewhat closer liaison between those who are experts at the plant in these matters and the Royal Canadian Air Force and his own department, so that consultations may be held and agreement reached to bring about fewer of these minor and sometimes major changes in the structure of the plane itself, thus allowing the plant to proceed more rapidly with its manufacture. If that were done I am quite sure there is a possibility of the planes and engines coming off the assembly line much more quickly than they have in the past.
I make that constructive suggestion to the minister because I am anxious, just as he is, to see to it that the position of A. V. Roe Canada Limited is brought to as high a position in Canadian estimation as it is possible to achieve. It does seem to me that perhaps the Malton plant is now, to use the language of the street, over the hump, and I am satisfied that the plant has a management team and group of employees who are capable of doing an extremely efficient and effective job for Canada and our forces generally. I think it can be said that those in the present set-up at Malton know where they are going and how to get there. I think that sizes up the situation the department will now find in the plant. I believe the plant deserves an opportunity to show what it can do, and I should like to see it get that chance with as few obstacles as possible placed in its way by those who are directing or giving orders with respect to the requirements of the air force.
If this is done I am convinced that the plant will turn out in satisfactory numbers the kinds of planes and engines that are expected of it by the people of Canada. I can remember quite well when the little village of Malton was not a very important point on the old Grand Trunk line and later on the Canadian National system running west from Toronto. It has grown since 1937 until it is now a major centre in industrial Canada. I believe that the plants there now, together with the airport, will be responsible in the days that lie ahead for Malton not merely being a village or a town but one of the great industrial cities of Canada and the central point of our aviation industry in Canada, and perhaps even in a broader sphere.
I wanted to make that point clear because the question of Malton's success is a matter affecting a great many people in my constituency. I am not sure how many people in the county of Peel work there, but there must be somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000. Generally speaking working conditions are good, and I think the employees are, in the main, satisfied with conditions. I am anxious, however, that there shall be full co-operation

Supply-National Defence between management, employees, the research, designing and development team and the department so they may all go forward together in a co-operative enterprise and demonstrate that today there is no better or more effective plant for manufacturing engines and aeroplanes anywhere among the NATO nations than the plant at Malton.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to go over the same course twice, as was suggested by the hon. member for Skeena, but unfortunately the Minister of National Defence in making his reply yesterday omitted to answer two of the questions that I raised and rather brushed me aside on the third one. Therefore I must return to the attack.
I was endeavouring to find out in the first part of my remarks yesterday, which dealt very briefly with casualties, the exact figure of our casualties to date. I pointed out to the minister that in response to a question I had raised in the house in the first week of February I received a reply to the effect that our casualties as of the 31st of January numbered 1,335. Today's paper contains casualty list No. 172, which gives the total as 1,304. In his remarks yesterday the minister mentioned a figure of 1,300. Why can we not have the exact number? I asked for a correct statement in so far as casualties are concerned.
The second point I dealt with was the problem of ammunition, and I have been dealing with this ever since the last week of November. Not for the first time did the minister suggest that to discuss this problem would have a bad effect on morale. Yesterday he said, as appears at page 3927 of Hansard:
I suggest that this is a matter on which hon. members should exercise the usual caution which should be applied to matters affecting the morale and welfare of the troops.
A similar remark was made by the minister in December. I would suggest to the Minister of National Defence that questioning in the House of Commons concerning the ammunition situation on the field of battle is all to the good, that the morale of the troops who are actually engaged in battle and the morale of the troops about to go to the field of conflict will be heightened by their knowledge that the House of Commons is intensely interested in their equipment and supplies, and particularly with regard to the amount of ammunition on hand. Their morale will be heightened because the House of Commons is eager to see that no pains are spared to ensure that a full supply of ammunition is available. That will raise their morale, and not lower it. I think the worst thing for men serving overseas in any type of war is to feel that they are forgotten and that their interests are being
[Mr. Graydon.l

neglected. There is nothing in what we have said here in the House of Commons that would tend to do other than raise the morale of the troops overseas. It shows that we are not forgetting them and that we know what is going on.
My regret is that the minister yesterday and the day before did not give us a full account of the situation in Korea. For example, I asked him if we were employing Korean soldiers in conjunction with our troops. I had a question on the order paper some time ago asking for that information and the answer I received was no. One week later there was a press report to the effect that Korean troops were going to be used within our Korean battalions. Well, we are left in the air again.
Yesterday I asked the minister whether we were making use of the protective clothing that has been devised, clothing which has some armoured component in it. The minister did not comment on it, but I think it is an important matter and that we should know about it. The thing which disturbs me so much about the matter of defence is that a veil of secrecy is drawn over things that need not be secret, and we are depending so much on press reports. We are not getting information here in the House of Commons. I think a great deal of credit is due the people who furnish us with so much of this information, but I think it would be better if we received that information directly in the House of Commons.
With respect to the ammunition problem that I have raised, the minister considered that my argument was dismissed by certain quotations which he made from a debate in the House of Commons at Westminster and from a newspaper report of what President Eisenhower had said. The minister, at page 3927 of Hansard, quotes from a reply by the British prime minister to Mr. Shinwell as follows:
I am informed that the ammunition supply in Korea has always been sufficient to meet the operational requirements of the United Nations forces, and shortages of ammunition have not restricted the planning of operations.
I would draw the attention of the house to the fact that Mr. Winston Churchill has admitted in his statement that there have been shortages of ammunition. Why we cannot get the same admission in the House of Commons here, I do not know; but on March 9, when I asked a question of the Associate Minister of National Defence with regard to ammunition supply the answer was given, as it appears on page 3726 of Hansard, in these words:
-there is no shortage of ammunition in respect of actual operations.

Then the Minister of National Defence quoted from a press report concerning what President Eisenhower had said, and I shall just repeat four lines which appear on page 3927 of Hansard:
President Eisenhower said yesterday there is sufficient ammunition in Korea for present scale operations and then described the supply situation as perfectly sound under current circumstances.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that these statements do not stand up under analysis. Mr. Winston Churchill's statement admits that there has been a shortage of ammunition. He says that shortages of ammunition have not restricted the planning of operations. Well, of course not; they never do. You can always plan if you have one round or a thousand rounds. If you have a thousand rounds you may attack, but if you have one round you plan to sit tight or perhaps retreat. You can plan under any circumstances, having regard to the amount of ammunition you have available. General Van Fleet pointed out exactly the same thing in his testimony. Of course, you keep your planning going; but during the last several months it has not been possible to plan for anything more in Korea than to sit tight and take it, and 1 think that is what our troops have been doing. They have been sitting tight and have been shelled unmercifully by the Chinese. I think we have not had sufficient ammunition for counter-battery work to knock out enemy guns.
We have President Eisenhower's statement that there is sufficient ammunition in Korea for present scale operations. Of course there is sufficient for present scale operations. If you are not doing anything, if you are not going to fire any ammunition, if you are not going to make an advance, perhaps you do not need any.
I will recall to the minister's attention the situation that prevailed on the western front in 1915 of which he is aware, either from firsthand knowledge or from reading about it. There was a shortage of ammunition in those days and operations were planned continually; but the operations were cut short, as I pointed out in an early speech in this house, on instructions from the high command that the operations should come to a conclusion. The reason? No ammunition. That is why I have been raising the question of ammunition in the house, hoping to get a reply along somewhat different lines than I have received.
We have the admission from the minister that whereas in December we were on the American supply line, now, for certain types of materials, we are on the British supply line. That is useful information and perhaps
Supply-National Defence we are better off on the British and Canadian supply lines for ammunition for the 25-pounder gun, a type which is not American and which is used in the commonwealth division. I understand that our supply of ammunition for those guns has been reasonably adequate.
Will the Minister of National Defence, who should have the information, say whether we are on the American supply line for other things which General Van Fleet said were in short supply, such as mortar shells and grenades? I do not know, and who does know? Unless the Minister of National Defence can supply the information we are left in the dark. The suspicion is that there is a shortage of mortar shells and grenades.
The average Canadian who understands the productive capacity of this country fails to see why we cannot come forward and offer to assist. Are we supplying ammunition from Canadian sources, and, if so, why can we not be told? I have seen press reports since this disturbance in the United States with regard to ammunition shortage indicating that Canadian sources were being tapped to supply ammunition. That is all to the good, but why cannot we be so informed?
As the situation stands at the moment I think my queries with regard to ammunition have been rather brushed aside and we are left in the uncertain position of not knowing whether our troops in the field have a full and complete supply of ammunition, not only to sit in the trenches and be shelled until casualties occur every day, but ammunition sufficient to knock out enemy guns. Also I asked a question about our ammunition supply in Europe, which press reports say is below the required amount. No answer was given to that.
My third point yesterday had to do with the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, and I emphasized the fact that it was being neglected under the present circumstances. To my regret the minister failed to heed that particular section of my speech yesterday, for I thought he would make some comment on it. He did say one or two things with regard to armour. We have been suggesting from this side of the house that more armour should be made available. We have suggested an armoured brigade for Europe. My statement on that is in Hansard on more than one occasion.
I have noticed, Mr. Chairman, that you can have a first-class argument if those who are participating do not talk about the same thing. It might even develop into a row. For purposes of this debate, however, I think we should discuss the same thing, and I suggest to the minister we should discuss the
3978	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence same thing. The point I was discussing was an armoured brigade, and according to page 3921 of Hansard for April 15, 1953, he transforms that into an armoured brigade group.
Here are his words:
We have the type of unit we were asked to provide and which fits into the scheme of things on the other side.
I would be inclined to ask for more explanation with regard to that particular sentence, but I shall pass on to the next.
It enables us to train and operate independently as a unit, but an independent armoured brigade group working in isolation from a division or a group, as I have said before, is a military monstrosity. We have never heard of such an organization, and it could not operate.
Then farther down he says:
-in order to create the unit that has been suggested, as we understand it, we would require larger forces than the present ones.
Let us talk about the same thing. Let us talk about an armoured brigade, and let us not talk about an armoured brigade group. I have never mentioned an armoured brigade group. I am talking about an armoured brigade. I say that if we maintained an armoured brigade in Europe and an armoured brigade at home, we could then train the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps as it should be trained and deserves to be trained. We would maintain a proper balance in the army.


Brooke Claxton: Perhaps we can find out if we are talking about the same thing. May I ask the hon. member if that would mean an armoured brigade in addition to the present infantry brigade or in substitution for it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggested yesterday it would be in substitution for it. I suggested an armoured brigade in Europe and one at home, and an infantry brigade in Korea and one at home. You would then have replacements. There would be an infantry brigade in Korea and an infantry brigade at home.


Brooke Claxton: And an armoured brigade in Europe?


Gordon Minto Churchill: And an armoured brigade in Europe, as well as an armoured brigade at home. The situation now is that we have an infantry brigade in Korea, one in Europe, and what have we here? There is one at home. There is one on its way to Korea and one on its way back; that is about the way it works out. There is a parachute brigade, and then the one in Europe.
If we are talking about the same thing, an armoured brigade would use about 510 fewer men than an infantry brigade. You would have increased fire power and effectiveness through mobility with an armoured brigade as compared with what you have in


an infantry brigade. I am speaking now of the situation in Europe. With about 510 fewer men, you would have 144 heavy guns in the tanks which would exceed the artillery component now attached to the brigade over there.
I wish to draw that to the attention of the minister, because I felt we were certainly discussing things which were not normally comparable. He was able to brush aside this suggestion of an armoured brigade for Europe because he said we were talking about something which was a military monstrosity. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be possible to devise formations that are not necessarily in accordance with war establishments as to the last man or the last gun that is required. During the course of the war that was done frequently. All sorts of formations were organized which might be called, by some people, military monstrosities. They turned out to be very effective. I suppose some people would suggest that Wingate's forces which were used in Burma were a military monstrosity, or that the desert patrol which operated in North Africa was a military monstrosity, or the special service battalion, and so on. I have not been discussing anything of that nature. I have been discussing simply the well-known armoured brigade.
In the last war we had the first and second armoured brigades. The British had several of them. The eighth British armoured brigade was very well known, and its strength was effectively used in conjunction with infantry formations. Why could that not be done now? The infantry formations supplied by other nations in Europe could be supported" by the Canadian armoured brigade. That is what I am suggesting to the minister. I think this neglect of armour in the Canadian army is a very serious matter indeed, and could be corrected if steps were taken along the lines I have proposed.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, two or three points remain on which hon. members have asked for information and on which I shall be glad to do my best to give them that information.
With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester relative to the school at Rockcliffe, we were in the position where we had a considerable number of married quarters, and no school accommodation was provided by the local school authorities. In accordance with the practice we have followed right through the Department of National Defence wherever that condition exists, we established a school at Rockcliffe. It was established in accordance with the laws of Ontario. We follow that practice in each case where we have to establish a school.

The school was set up, the teachers were appointed, the curriculum was established and it was operated in accordance with provincial practice.
Then the school was later taken over by the city of Ottawa. The area surrounding it became part of the area of the city of Ottawa. It has continued in operation in accordance with the provincial law. If anyone has a suggestion to make that it should be divided or dealt with in some other way, I suggest that is a matter to be dealt with in accordance with the law of Ontario, and in accordance with arrangements made between the city of Ottawa, the province of Ontario and the Department of National Defence. We are complying with the provincial law.


Mr. Gagnon:: Does that mean that the Department of National Defence has nothing to do with the school at Rockcliffe?


Brooke Claxton: Oh, yes; we operate the school in the same way that we operate every other school we have. We have about 40 schools for the children of serving personnel. We have them in nine out of the ten provinces in Canada. In each case we operate the school in accordance with the law of the province. We make arrangements with the board of education, under which a school board or similar body is set up to operate the school. In Ontario, we have schools at Barriefield, Borden, Rockcliffe and a number of other places as well. All are operated in accordance with arrangements made with the province.
The most usual arrangement is that we contribute the capital cost of the school, just as the local school corporation would ordinarily contribute the capital cost, and then the province contributes whatever proportion it would contribute to a school of that size and in that locality. Usually it is 50 per cent of the cost of maintenance. The province approves the selection of teachers, who must meet provincial requirements.
Academic standards, textbooks, inspection and the like are all according to provincial standards. The school operates in the same way as does an ordinary school operating under the provincial system, the only difference being that instead of having a school corporation there is the Department of National Defence which usually appoints the commanding officer at the station and the required number of others to constitute the school board or committee. In the case of Ottawa, however, because of the fact that the school is in the area which has been taken over by the city of Ottawa, we are now working under arrangement with the city of Ottawa.
Supply-National Defence
With regard to casualties, I overlooked the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had queried the number. The number he gave was apparently picked out of the Canadian Press report which was arrived at by totalling the figures of casualty lists as they are issued without making subsequent adjustments. The number, as at April 15, 1953, is 1,322 battle casualties and 77 deaths from ordinary causes, making a total of 1,399.
The hon. member for Nanaimo called my attention to an error I certainly made, but which I might explain by saying that when we refer to a destroyer escort vessel or ship we think of a new modern type, none of which has yet been commissioned. The article in question referred to destroyer escort ships and in that more general category were included the modified destroyers which he had in mind. The hon. member for St. John's East also made some remarks with regard to the statistics relative to ships, and in order to make this matter perfectly clear perhaps I had better go over the facts again.
On April 14, 1953, at page 3810 of Hansard, I was reported as saying that we have in active operations 56 ships. That is not correct. If Hansard correctly reported me, then I was speaking without notes at the time and I did not make the full statement that appeared in the white paper as I intended to do, because in the white paper I stated that we expected to have 56 naval vessels in commission during 1953-54 and, in addition, a number of other auxiliary vessels.
With regard to naval vessels under construction, we have actually placed orders for 53 naval vessels, including auxiliary vessels, and are preparing to let contracts for 18 others, making a total of 71. Of these, 26 naval vessels and 10 auxiliary vessels are as of this date actually under construction.
This all relates to orders placed in Canadian shipyards. In addition there is H.M.C.S. Bonaventure which is being pressed on to completion at the shipyards in Belfast on the other side.
With regard to the observations of the hon. member for St. John's East with regard to discrepancies, between the article In Canadian Shipping by the chief of the naval staff and other statements, I would like to say again that these deal with different time periods. At page 25, paragraph 129 the white paper shows a total of 52 new vessels on order.
The article by the chief of the naval staff, at page 82 of the March issue of Canadian Shipping, shows the total number of ships in the approved program as 72. This latter
3980	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence figure includes 18 ships the construction of which had been approved but for which contracts had not been let at the time the white paper was drafted. It so happens that the white paper and this article were prepared at a time when considerable changes were occurring in the figures. This article also includes five Gate vessels which, as is noted in the table on page 82 of the article, were completed but not under construction.
The white paper, in paragraph 130, states that six of the fourteen minesweepers hav6 been launched and the article refers to eight having been launched. Two were launched during the period between the dates used in the white paper and in the article.
In my statement at page 3920 of Hansard for April 15 I said that all these minesweepers had been launched. By this I meant that I was informed that all had reached or passed a state when launching would have been practicable; but as hon. members know, in certain shipyards-for example, in Saint John, New Brunswick-construction is continued on the ways while in other shipyards the hull is ordinarily placed in the water while the ship is being completed.
Then the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred to the question of body armour. I must say that I had not known of his inquiry at the time. We are using the lightweight body armour that has been developed in the United States. It is on issue to units of the commonwealth brigade in the proportion we agree on. We also have developed in Canada and have under further investigation a material which is comparable in stopping power to that at present in use. It shows promise of improvement in some other characteristics.
With regard to mutual aid, on checking over my notes I find that I did not answer a question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo as to the shortfall. There it appears that, on the best figures so far available for the fiscal year 1952-53, there will be a shortfall of approximately $90 million. This is made up as follows; direct production, $9 million; air crew training, $7 million; equipment from the second world war, $32 million; a change in the method of charging for F-86's on mutual aid account, $9 million, although in the latter we are 40 per cent over our target on deliveries; equipment, $6 million. That makes a total of approximately $93 million. On other accounts we have delivered $2 million more than is estimated, arriving at a net shortfall of about $90 million.
With regard to the question of ammunition, raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the objection I take to his remarks-and I hope he will not mind my


repeating it because it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable objection or comment when one is responsible for raising troops-is in the use of such phrases, if I have noted the words correctly, as "shelled unmercifully because of lack of counter-battery activity." I think that was the phrase the hon. member used.
We have no evidence or report, and there is nothing in the record anywhere to indicate any basis whatever in fact for that assertion or suggestion. It is on that account-and I hope the hon. member will excuse me-that I say that on such matters one must speak with a great sense of responsibility. I described the situation with regard to ammunition before proceeding to the last meeting of the North Atlantic council, as we understood it, and I supplemented that description yesterday.
We are in this position in the Korean war. We are part of the commonwealth division and as such, with respect to most items, we are on the commonwealth supply line which largely comes from British sources. Sometimes we put articles of equipment into that supply line, but do not ship them direct to the Canadian brigade. In this way we sent at one stage 200,000 25-pounder shells to the commonwealth supply line. They were used by all the forces of the commonwealth, all of which are equipped with 25-pounders. But for other types of equipment Canada, unlike the other commonwealth countries, is relying on the United States supply line and that applies to other guns, our Sherman tanks and some other weapons. It would be totally uneconomic and impossible, I think, for us to set up a separate supply line of our own. And we work in close co-operation with the other countries.
The situation regarding ammunition was as described in the statements of Mr. Churchill and President Eisenhower, but I will go on, if the hon. member wishes, and read from the testimony of General Van Fleet when speaking before the Senate armed services committee on April 1:
Senator Kefauver: I believe you testified in previous testimony that all of the troops in Korea, from whatever nation they came-except perhaps the English and Canadian troops-were supplied with American ammunition. Is that correct?
General Van Fleet: No, sir. The British supply their own ammunition.
Senator Kefauver: I say all except the British are supplied with ammunition from this country.
General Van Fleet: Yes.
Senator Kefauver: Do the Canadians supply their own ammunition, or do we supply them?
General Van Fleet: We supplied them. They were equipped with our -105 Howitzer initially; but as I understand that today, they are using the British -25 calibre.

We were never equipped with the -105.
I continue:
Senator Kefauver: So we are probably supplying some of the Canadian units, and the English are supplying some of the Canadian units.
General Van Fleet: No, sir. I think it is all British today. The British division has organic artillery entirely of British make.
Senator Kefauver: How did your ammunition supply for our troops and for those that we were supplying compare with the reserves and the use by the British division that is in Korea?
General Van Fleet: I have never heard of a shortage of British ammunition.
Senator Kefauver: Do you know whether they had a larger proportionate supply than we did?
General Van Fleet: Their commanders stated they had a good supply.
Senator Kefauver: You do not know the details about that?
General Van Fleet: Yes, sir, I know the quantity they mentioned to me, which was greater than our quantity. I think that quantity is confidential. I will tell it to you in executive session.
I suggest that these statements taken together indicate that for the purpose of operations we have had the ammunition we needed. Now it is perfectly clear to anyone who has had any experience in battle that nobody has ever had, or ever will have, all the	ammunition	they	want.	General
Bradley made an amusing reference to that in his own evidence in answer to a Republican congressman, Dewey Short, General Bradley said:
No artillery man ever had enough ammunition to shoot, any more than any preacher ever had a large enough congregation.
That is well known to all of us. Therefore in times of relative inactivity like the present the troops are rationed in the use of ammunition-they are often rationed during battles, as everyone knows-they are not rationed and they are not short when they need the ammunition for purposes of fighting, on occasions of great danger; and that is the position as I understand it today. But I think the fact is that despite all this talk about the shortage of ammunition, the United Nations forces have been firing ammunition at a rate which is ten times that of the forces who oppose them, and very much greater than all but the most extreme rates of either the second or the first world wars.
The hon. gentleman suggested that it would be better if he got this kind of information in the house rather than from press sources and press releases. Well, if the house spent its time getting this kind of information or that on aeroplanes, as suggested by the hon. member for Brandon, it would not have time to do anything else. This requires full-time operation by very large staffs of people to look after it, and to provide the house with up to the minute information on changes and developments in aircraft, ammunition, guns,
Supply-National Defence equipment and the like, would very soon weary the house and prevent it from doing anything else. We also assume that hon. members have available to them the ordinary information that appears in the press or in magazine articles.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Calgary East to the F-86E aircraft, in which he questioned the statements that had been made about the superiority of this aircraft. The fact is, as I understand it, the new F-86E aircraft have earned a combat ratio of nine to one over the MIG-15 in Korea. That is quoted in the white paper, from the actual words of the report of the Hon. Robert Lovett, former secretary of defence in the United States.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre again referred to our playing down the armoured corps. There is no intention of doing that and there is no indication of that being done. Everyone appreciates the great importance of armour and its proper place in any fighting team. What we have said is that it would not be in accordance with Canadian practice and would not meet the wishes of the Canadian people to have a Canadian armoured brigade which was not capable of operating independently. A brigade group which would be capable of operating independently would be a very large and much more costly team than what we have.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What does the minister mean by saying that an armoured brigade cannot operate independently? Under what circumstances would he expect it to operate independently? Armoured brigades normally co-operate with infantry formations. Could not Canadian armoured brigades co-operate with British divisions in this way?


Brooke Claxton: Yes; but in peacetime in Germany, in order to have it exist, it would be necessary to integrate it very closely indeed with British units, British formations, so that it would have the services of supply, R.C.E.M.E., signals, army medical corps, hospital, post office and all the other services that our brigade groups have in order to permit them to operate independently. If you added all this to an armoured brigade so as to make it what I understand an armoured brigade group to be it still could not operate independently; it would operate always in conjunction with one or two infantry divisions, whereas our brigade group is in effect a small division with armour, with artillery, with signals, with engineers, capable of operating independently, and until recently it actually has been so set up as part of the army reserves.
3982	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence Finally the hon. member for Calgary East referred again to some of the remarks that have been made about the equipment of the reserve forces. This has been gone over time and time again and I have no intention of going over the ground at length. But I must say this. We at national defence headquarters-and when I say "we" I mean the officers advising me, the chief of the general staff, the adjutant general, the quartermaster general-know of no shortage of equipment such as those referred to by the hon. member. They had not been called to my attention before except in the article in the Calgary Herald. What is extraordinary is that they had not been called to our attention in the meetings of the reserve association.
The meeting of the artillery reserve association took place in October after these changes had been promulgated. I have their resolutions here. Not one of them refers to any shortage of equipment for training. We met the officers of the association, and exchanged views in the freest possible way, as is the practice, and this was never raised. Then, later, the conference of defence associations met in a three-day session at Ottawa, and raised every conceivable question they could, bearing on the work and the good relations of the reserve forces. No question of this kind was raised by them.
What was done was that, in order to permit artillery regiments to make the best possible use of equipment that could be supplied to them for training purposes, the general officers commanding were given a pool of guns on the basis of entitlement of four 25-pounders per unit, where a regiment was located in one spot. That was done so as to reduce the amount of equipment on charge, to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the need for storage space. There is no shortage of 25-pounders. We have been giving them away to our European allies and we still have ample left to meet all our needs until such time as they are replaced by 105's out of our own production.
With regard to tractors the entitlement was precisely the same, that is, four per regiment. Again there is no shortage. It is entirely up to the discretion of the general officer commanding. If one of the regiments has three instead of four, then no doubt it has been due to the exercise of discretion by the general officer commanding, or to the fact that one was being repaired, or for some other reason.
In respect of jeeps, we have decided to replace service jeeps for operational training with more modern types. That was done by putting in the hands of general officers commanding pools of jeeps to be used for this 

purpose. That was begun simultaneously with the beginning of their withdrawal, to renovate them and send them abroad. However, to replace jeeps at regimental headquarters used for administrative purposes, vehicles of commercial types have been issued. That issue is 80 per cent complete, and should be completed within the next month.
I hope I have answered all the questions, but if I have not perhaps we could deal with them when we are discussing the details.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What about anti-tank regiments?


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry; I had forgotten to mention that. It is a difficult question; but the role of anti-tank regiments is a matter being considered by the British, the Americans and ourselves in close conjunction. It has not yet been decided, so far as Canada is concerned, whether this role will be carried out by armour or by artillery. However, it looks to me as if the old self-propelled antitank gun will be replaced right across the board by armour-that is, by tanks. As hon. members know, there has been very little difference between the two. The tanks we are getting have heavier and more powerful guns. However, so far as we can judge, the units will be the same, and will occupy the same roles, but will simply change their names.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the minister mean that likely they will be transformed from artillery units to armoured corps units?


Brooke Claxton: That point is still receiving consideration. I said it was likely. However, I do not like to anticipate military decisions that have not yet been made, and the matter is still receiving consideration.


Mr. Pearkes:: As reported at page 3822 of Hansard I asked a question regarding the plan being followed in the construction of permanent and non-permanent buildings. I asked as to where these were being built, and the number of troops that were to be employed permanently in Canada, for which quarters were being provided. Perhaps the minister would answer that question either now or when we reach the detailed part of the estimates.


Brooke Claxton: I would have to get the figures for the hon. member. However, when I dealt with the matter yesterday I referred him to those places in the report of the proceedings of the defence expenditure committee where that matter had been discussed.
I referred specifically to June 12, 1952 and March 17 and 24, 1953. If the hon. member wishes to have additional information, or would like to have it in some other form, I shall be pleased to get it for him.

It looks as if the minimum number of troops we would have for Canada would be upwards of 104,000. Of that number 43 per cent are married. The proportion living in would depend of course upon our commitments in Korea and in Europe, as well as the number at sea, engaged in exercises and the like. However, it has been found necessary, as hon. members know, to build a very large number of barracks across Canada to accommodate the men actually there. We have not yet finished that operation. For example, on Sunday I visited Clinton air school. Most of the men there are doubled up, in order to take care of the peak load of those engaged in radar and wireless training. We expect that condition will continue in several of the air stations until we have passed the peak.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Do I understand the general discussion has been completed?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have one further question to ask. In the committee we were told we would have to ask the minister for a statement of policy. Do I understand it is the policy to provide permanent quarters for
104,000	troops, of all arms, whom the minister visualizes as being stationed in Canada in the future?


Brooke Claxton: Oh, no, sir. I was saying that the numbers we have reached are 104,000. However, 43 per cent are married. A very considerable number of those live either in married quarters, of which we now have about 20,000 units, or in privately-owned houses. Then we would have to subtract those who are serving abroad, so long as the Korean and North Atlantic treaty commitments continue. Then we have those serving in training schools in isolated units. What we aim to do is provide accommodation in our barracks for the balance, the steady population.


George Randolph Pearkes: What is the steady population for which the minister is building permanent accommodation?


Brooke Claxton: I can get that figure for the hon. member.


George Randolph Pearkes: I can understand the provision of temporary quarters to meet the Korean situation, which may not go on at the same scale for an indefinite length of time. But I would like to know the permanent population for whom the minister is making this provision.


Brooke Claxton: I shall get the figure for my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask a further question before the conclusion of the general
Supply-National Defence discussion. My question arises from a statement made last night by the minister when he was discussing the present staff establishment of the deputy minister. The general explanation the minister gave for the fact that at the present time the staff of the deputy minister exceeds the total of the three staffs of the three deputy ministers for the navy, the army and the air force during the war years was that a number of functions formerly discharged by the strictly civil administration are now assumed by the deputy minister's office.
Perhaps I have not put it quite accurately; but the point I had in mind was that, as the minister said, while the three services were formerly responsible for the preparation of their own estimates, that is now done by the deputy minister's office. As I followed the minister giving the figures of the differences that would be accounted for by changes in function, I came to a total of approximately 50 which would be accounted for by increase in function within the office of the deputy minister, which would mean that at the present time, comparing the size of the staffs to the staff of the three deputies during the second world war, there would be 64 people in the office of the deputy minister now doing the same sort of jobs that were done during the war by 98, which was the maximum on the staffs of the three deputies. I know that a straight mathematical calculation does not always give rise to a valid comparison, but the discrepancy is still so large that I would ask the minister to give some further explanation.
If you take 64 on the staff of the deputy minister doing the same jobs that were previously done by 98 and then bear in mind the size of the forces today as being approximately 100,000, you get a ratio of about 1 to 1,500, whereas if you take 98 on the staffs of the three during wartime and divide them into the number in the services during the active stages of the war, being approximately 900,000, you get approximately 1 to 9,000. Therefore your ratio is 1 to 1,500 as against 1 to 9,000. It is a sufficiently impressive difference that I think we should ask the minister for some further explanation as to whether in fact there is not a tendency to increased staff which is not warranted by the size of the operations being undertaken.
Last night the minister, in starting that portion of his remarks dealing with the problem, gave the following explanation in partial justification for the tendency to increase staff. He said, as reported at page 3925 of Hansard:
Hon. members have referred a great deal to the Currie report, and some hon. members have heard
3984	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence that report discussed before the special committee on defence expenditures. They will find from the evidence that the statement I made in the house on January 13 was completely confirmed, that is, that a major factor in the lack of control which gave rise to my appointing Mr. Currie and the making of his report was the lack of sufficient staff to do the job. Actually we are understaffed today in the Department of National Defence.
That is the minister's statement, which must be read in the light of the fact that there is this disparity in the ratio of the deputy minister's staff to men on strength as between now and wartime of 1 to 1,500 as against 1 to 9,000. This also makes me ask the minister for a further explanation when I read that statement which I have just quoted in the light of what the minister was saying back in 1948 as to the basis on which Canada's defence forces were then being organized. In 1948, I might point out, we were appropriating approximately $250 million for defence purposes, which was a very large figure up to that time for peacetime establishments. The minister, in outlining Canada's defence objectives and programs and the reason why that amount was being asked for, made the following statements as reported at pages 5784 and 5785 of Hansard for June 24, 1948:
Against this background it is now possible to set down Canada's present defence aims and objectives. They are: ... (2) to provide the operational and administrative staffs, equipment, training personnel and reserve organization which would be capable of expansion as rapidly as necessary to meet any need.
Then at page 5785 he said:
Our plans are being made now for up to five and even ten years ahead, with changes provided for to meet expected developments.
Then a little later he said, "Our plans are flexible." Finally, at the bottom of the first column on that page there is the following: Secondly, the active army is to provide the administrative and training staff-the cadre of officers, N.C.O.'s and tradesmen-to train the reserve army and with it form the nucleus for as large a force as Canada may need.
With reference to the first quotation from 1948, namely to provide the operational and administrative staffs, equipment, training personnel and reserve organization which would be capable of expansion as rapidly as necessary to meet any need, I realize of course that this must be read and taken in the light of the fact that it was pre-Korea, and that the staff then actually in being had to deal with personnel numbering in the neighbourhood of perhaps 35,000. But it must obviously be-and I think this is surely a correct statement-in the contemplation of any minister or department of national defence and their planning staffs that their eventual job in the final analysis is to meet what may happen but which we hope will 

not happen, the eventuality of war. Therefore when the minister said "would be capable of expansion as rapidly as necessary to meet any need" I think we must take it that ultimate eventuality was in mind.
We are left confronted with the situation that two years prior to Korea the minister said that plans were being made then to provide the staff and administrative organization capable of expansion as rapidly as necessary to meet the need and form the nucleus for as large a force as Canada might need. One can understand that in 1950, on the outbreak of the Korean war, there would necessarily be a considerable period when expansion of the organization lagged behind the immediate requirements. That would be inevitable and necessary and not open to criticism; nevertheless the possibility of a shooting war must have been foreseen, although not in the exact form it has taken, and it seems to me that we require an explanation as to why in 1953, three years after Korea, the minister is still saying that "actually we are understaffed today in the Department of National Defence".
Two years before Korea, five years ago, we were told that Canada's defence program then provided for a staff capable of expansion as rapidly as necessary to meet any need. The need arose in 1950, two years after that statement; but now, three years after the eventuality which occurred in 1950, we are still told that we are understaffed.
I put. these considerations before the committee and the minister because, while I know we cannot be dogmatic in these matters and cannot be unfair, it does seem to me that the situation, with all the serious consequences of a breakdown as revealed in the Currie report-a breakdown which might not have exposed the department to criticism had it been confined to the first year following the outbreak in Korea-does raise very serious considerations when we find it still continuing three years after the outbreak in Korea, especially in the light of what the minister said two years before that outbreak.
It seems to me that it also requires quite a lot of reconciliation of the circumstance that we find at the present time in one part of defence headquarters, the staff of the deputy minister, numbers of staff giving us a ratio of 1 to 1,500 men in the forces against a ratio of only 1 to 9,000 during the period of active war. I would ask the minister to please enlarge on the difficulties and give us some explanation of why it is that he is compelled to say, three years after Korea, that they are still understaffed in the Department of National Defence.


Brooke Claxton: I would be very glad to, Mr. Chairman. The reason is that the operations, measured in terms of construction and acquisition of equipment-that is, measured in terms of material or money-have been much larger since Korea than they were at any comparable period of the second world war. They consequently have required and should have required a larger staff. Unfortunately we have not had that larger staff and, as Mr. Currie said, there was a breakdown of the accounting, not in the department but in a single branch, the army works services. That was something we knew before. Mr. Currie did not tell us that because it had been reported on before and we were seeking to get staff to remedy the situation. We are still short of staff and having difficulty in getting it.
With regard to the size of the deputy minister's staff, ratios are very interesting indeed; but with an operation of the size and nature we have with the navy, army and air force totalling 104,000, located in six different countries, carrying on all the operations of training and fighting and doing those in peacetime, then I suggest that you have a situation which is far more complex in character, though not nearly as large in size, than anything that existed in the first or second world wars.
The office of the deputy minister of national defence today in its burdens, in its day to day grind, in the volume of work that he has to see to and also in the number of conferences with other countries and other departments at which he must be represented, I venture to say is at least as great as the sum of that of his three predecessors in the department. When we co-operate with the United States and Great Britain so closely it may take only one man to represent Canada for any one purpose, but it does take one. Because Canada has one-fifteenth of the effort of the United States, or whatever the fraction is, it does not mean that we can send one-fifteenth of a man to a conference. We still have to be represented by one man, and that is the reason ratios are not so relevant in this regard.
With regard to the build-up, we have always had these objectives. In 1948 the objective was to get staff to do the job. The staff was just good enough and just big enough to enable us to get into the Korean business without too great dislocation. What we are doing today is representative of about 25 per cent of the war effort. It is about 25 per cent, measured in terms of men, money and materials, of our wartime activity.
Having raised the Korean force we were immediately faced with the consequences of having done the job pretty quickly and then,
Supply

National Defence at once, we were landed with the job of raising the 27th brigade and the units for Germany and Europe. While they were very much smaller in size they were just as complicated in the arrangements that were required, as would have been the case in sending abroad a force ten times larger. But once again, when you come to measure the thing in terms of construction and equipment, materials and money, the development during this period has been greater than that in any corresponding period during the second world war. That was the only relevance of the figures I gave, comparing the defence activities with the figures I gave yesterday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: From the first part of the minister's answer do I understand him to say that what has happened in the sense of construction, accommodation and other installations of that sort, post-Korea, is of a nature and scale not envisaged at the time his statement was made in 1948? That was the indication I took from the minister's answer.


Brooke Claxton: It was envisaged, but that did not affect the staff in 1948. The plans in 1948 provided for a build-up of staff to do a major job, but we did not get the build-up of staff in the time we wanted although we still had to do the job. The same situation exists today. If we were to be landed with a third world war overnight we of course have very full plans for mobilizing the effort of the nation and getting the thing going so that all our resources would be used to the fullest possible extent in the shortest possible time. That very operation would involve taking into headquarters here and across the country in the commands officers and civilians whose names we have set opposite their places.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do I take it-and the minister will appreciate that the question is not intended in any personal sense-that three years after the outbreak in Korea, in the light of the statement he made in 1948, it is still logical and satisfactory that he is still understaffed in the headquarters of national defence? Is the minister satisfied first that he is actually understaffed and second, that it is unavoidable that three years after the outbreak in Korea he should still be understaffed?


Brooke Claxton: The minister is never satisfied with anything; but I do take the view of the chief auditor, Mr. Currie, and the deputy minister that we are understaffed in respect of services having to do with financial control.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Only in that respect?


Brooke Claxton: Although I am speaking from memory I think there are between 1,500 and
2,000	civilian vacancies in the establishments that have been created by the civil service
3986	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence commission and approved by the treasury board and the Department of National Defence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was the figure given with respect to the army works services, as I recall the discussion on the Currie report. Do I understand the minister to use the word "understaffed" now and last night in the sense only of accounting control personnel, or to apply it generally to all activities of the defence department?


Brooke Claxton: It would be necessary to look up the schedule. The shortage of staff does not apply only to the army works services, although it does not apply right across the board.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. It would appear that the general discussion has terminated and I might remind hon. members that it was agreed on Tuesday that following the termination of the general discussion we would proceed to call items in the blue book, commencing on page 295, subhead by subhead. Therefore if it is the wish of the committee I shall proceed in that manner.
Departmental administration, including inspection services.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I spoke in the general debate in connection with the large increase that had taken place in the number of personnel under this heading and also under similar headings for each of the other services. The minister has not yet given any explanation of why it was necessary to increase civilian staff under "departmental administration" in Ottawa from 1,200 odd in 1951-52 to 2,512 in 1952-53 and then to 3,599 for this current year. That seems a very large increase, and I think we should have some explanation of why an increase of 200 per cent in two years is necessary.


Brooke Claxton: A single item accounts for much more than half of the increase, and it is the size of the inspection service. That is due to the increased load we have to carry for the acquisition of equipment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, it seems that the acquisition of equipment could hardly account for this 200 per cent increase, because we were acquiring a considerable amount of equipment in 1951-52. As a matter of fact, that was the equipment we acquired over the period we were looking into last year in the defence expenditure committee; and very large amounts were involved. Since that time we have had this 200 per cent increase, and it seems to me that either there are other explanations or there are too many people there.


Brooke Claxton: The increase is, as I said, almost entirely due to the increase in the size of the inspection service. The number of positions in 1952-53, as set up, was 2,512. The increase since is 1,087, for a total of 3,599. Of these, 1,833 were in the inspection service in 1952-53, an increase of 953 for a total of 2,786. In other words, out of a total increase of 1,087, 953 are in the inspection service. That is accounted for by the increase in the amount spent on equipment. You will see that going up year by year. In 1950-51, it was $144 million; in 1951-52, $486 million; 1952-53, $692 million; 1953-54, $923 million.
Just to complete the picture I should add that we do the inspection work for the United States armed forces, and additional inspection officers have to be taken on to cover this part of the operation. We now supply the United States with a considerable amount of equipment.


Mr. Nickle:: I was interested in the minister's explanation of the increase in civilian staff in the administration of the Department of National Defence. If I may, I should like to ask the minister some general questions concerning the total number of civilians employed by the Department of National Defence both in the administration and in the three services. I notice that the total amount in the new estimates set aside as civilian payroll for the defence department amounts to about $87,999,000, which is an increase of $18 million over last year and represents an increase of about 26 per cent. This includes, of course, the classified employees plus the casual and prevailing rate help.
In terms of numbers, the classified establishment of civilian staff presents some rather interesting increases. These estimates show a total of 25,090 civilian staff plus, according to the white paper, approximately 19,800 currently engaged as casuals and prevailing rate help. The total classified civilian staff for the current year represents an increase of about 22 per cent over the past year, an increase in numbers of about 4,460 people. I notice that as between the past fiscal year and the year prior to that there was an increase of 30 per cent, again an increase in the total number of civilian personnel of 4,835. The minister has given an explanation as to why the civilian personnel engaged in administration increased so sharply. It was mainly due to an increase in the inspection staff. However, in the total number of civilians employed in the Department of National Defence, we have some rather remarkable increases in what you might call the junior classifications.

I notice that in the matter of typists we have an increase as between last year and the current year of 518, the total being 1,861. This figure corresponds roughly, I believe, to about one civilian typist for every man we have engaging the enemy in Korea. Percentagewise the number of typists has increased 39 per cent compared with last year.
I might add, however, that there has been a decrease in one type of civilian help which, while I am glad to see it, may perhaps not be for the best in the light of the large increase in the number of typists. I refer to the number of civilian typewriter inspectors and repair men employed. In this category we have a 25 per cent decrease compared with last year. The number dropped from a total of 12 to a total of 9. In view of the fact we apparently have such a large increase in the number of typists engaged, and thus in the number of typewriters used, the minister might give some consideration to ensuring that an adequate staff of typewriter inspectors and repair men is engaged to service this large increase in typewriters engaged in the paper war.
In another classification we have stenographers. During the current year the total number of stenographers engaged by the department in the civilian establishment is 1,345, which is an increase of 253 compared to last year. Percentagewise it is an increase of 25 per cent in that particular class. In the classification of clerk we have an increase over last year of 931 the present total being 4,471. This represents a percentage increase of about 27 per cent in that category. According to the white paper the members ot the active force currently engaged in our commitments under NATO, for Korea and for the defence of Canada number about 43,200, whereas we have in the classification of administration just over 25,000 civilian employees, something like 6,000 service personnel engaged in commands and administration, and of course an additional 19,800 civilian employees in the category of casual and prevailing rate. This makes a total of 50,800 civilians or military personnel who may be said to be engaged in administration. This figure of 50,800 exceeds by a very substantial degree the total number of active service personnel, 43,200, who are actually engaged under NATO, for our Korean commitments or in the defence of Canada. I wonder if the minister could give us some explanation for this sharp increase in the number of civilian personnel this year as compared with last.
Can we assume that these increases, ranging from 20 per cent to over 30 per cent in the various classifications of civilian
Supply-National Defence employees, are going to be reflected in any comparable increase percentagewise this year in the number of men actually engaged in the active forces of our country?


Brooke Claxton: Well, sir, the activities of the men engaged in Korea have, as the hon. member knows, no relationship to the number of stenographers, and vice versa. I do not need to press that point. The fact is that we have tried to get just as big a proportion of the job of national defence done by civilians as possible, for reasons which I have made clear on a number of occasions. Upon comparison I find that we have just about the same proportion of service to civilian personnel as they have in the United Kingdom and in the United States; that is about 1 to 2.5, one civilian to 2.5 service personnel. Since we believe the number of operational troops is comparable, that would seem to be, on any basis of comparison, a fair result.
With regard to the various categories which the hon. member mentioned, as he knows the establishments are set up only after an examination by the civil service commission. We have working in the commission a team consisting of service personnel, representatives of the deputy minister, of the treasury board and of the civil service commission itself. They look and see whether or not it is necessary to have an additional employee in any spot. Before an additional employee is appointed the establishment has to be created. I can assure the hon. member that there are far more refusals to create an establishment than there are approvals. This can be turned down at probably 15 to 20 stopping places before it gets approved. However, in the last result, if it does pass the civil service commission it then has to be approved by the treasury board, which has its own officers right in our department checking up to ensure the greatest possible efficiency. Therefore if a civilian establishment is created it is because a job needs to be done and it is usually created about six to nine months after it is first requested.
With regard to typewriter repairs, they are done to the greatest possible extent under contract. We hope to get out of the typewriter repair business ourselves as much as we can. These typewriter inspectors are able to service typewriter machines. We try to replace civilians by civilians in continuing non-combatant jobs, and we also try to replace service personnel by civilians in continuing non-combatant jobs. In the work of ordnance depots and other similar activities, we should like to see the depots run or managed by civilians with as few service personnel as possible in order to secure continuity and a professional attitude
3988	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence on the part of our civilian service. We are endeavouring to acquire more civilians of a higher quality or grade in order to bring that situation about. I can assure the hon. member that this matter receives the most continuous attention not only from the department but from the civil service commission and the treasury board.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In view of what the
minister has just told us about replacing military personnel with civilian personnel at national defence headquarters here and at other places, can he give us the comparable numbers of military personnel employed here at national defence headquarters for the years 1951-52, 1952-53 and an estimate for 1953-54, something like the figures we have shown on page 297 of the estimates, for 1952-53 and 1953-54.


Brooke Claxton: March 31, 1950, 2,207; March 31,	1951, 2,229; October 31, 1951, 2,310;
January 31, 1952, 2,362; April 30, 1952, 2,425; January 31, 1953, 2,447.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall we pass on?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I take it from these figures that the policy of replacing military personnel by civilian personnel at the headquarters, although a large number of civilian personnel have been added, has not succeeded in reducing the number of military personnel. The number of military personnel has continued to mount.


Brooke Claxton: In just a year we have had
an increase of 22 in a total of 2,425; that is 1 per cent. During the year the operations have increased more than that extent in complexity.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The general point I was
making was that it appears from the various figures the minister gave as at the end of March, 1950, 1951 and 1952 and so on, that there has been an increase in the number of personnel, so it would appear that the policy of replacing military personnel has not been unduly successful; at least it has not been successful to the extent of reducing the numbers of military personnel at headquarters.


Brooke Claxton: I think that is correct.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall we pass on?


Agar Rodney Adamson: No. I want to ask the
minister a question as to the three officers mentioned here, the co-ordinator of works and accommodation, the director of bureau of current affairs and the director of public relations. I should like to know what are the functions of those three officers.


Brooke Claxton: The co-ordinator of works and accommodation has charge of the acquisition of real estate, the handling of real estate matters, the settlement of claims and the like. For example, recently his time had been almost fully occupied in connection with the acquisition of an area of 440 square miles at Gagetown. The director of the bureau of current affairs is in charge of the information services supplied to the officers and men of the armed forces, including the publication of Current Affairs, the supply of wall maps, movies, news and so on to the troops at home and abroad, courses that are given to officers in instruction and group leadership and so on-the kind of thing that was mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Breton South a few days ago.
The director of public relations handles releases of information with regard to casualties, promotions 'and other matters of general news, and generally facilitating the flow of news to the press and other agencies for the dissemination of information.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Has the minister any estimate of the cost of these two officers, the directors of public relations and the bureau of current affairs? What is the over-all cost in the current year of the operation of these branches? Just the salaries are given here.


Brooke Claxton: The directorate of public relations has salaries, $52,360; travelling and removal expenses, $30,000; freight, express and cartage, $500; telephone and telegraph, $3,000; maps, engravings, information material, $40,000; office equipment and supplies, $37,000-that is largely photographic supplies; and sundries, $5,000;. or a total of $167,860. The bureau of current affairs has salaries of $112,290; travelling and removal expenses, $20,000; printing and publications, $100,000; office equipment and supplies, $5,000; sundries, $40,000; or a total of $277,290.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall we pass on?


Agar Rodney Adamson: No. It is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Agar Rodney Adamson: I have one question I should like to ask the minister. I have been trying to get an answer to it for a number of years. I notice that this administration service covers a great number of people. At the camps I have had-as I think most men who have visited the army establishments have had- some criticism from the training administra-

tive and also general staff officers about the excess work they have had to do on the housekeeping level. I refer particularly to looking after the accounts for such things as the grocery store, the general stores and the other stores that are set up to look after married quarters.
In these major camps there has to be some sort of place where the groceries, food and other things can be bought. At Petawawa, for instance, the turnover is in the nature of many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. While it is not public funds, the auditing and the administration of those stores is a matter for which staff officers have to take a certain amount of responsibility. It takes a great deal of their time which could normally be devoted to training, to organization, or, as we used to say, to getting on with the war.
It seems to me a very strong case could be made for the establishment under our military set-up here of an organization similar to the NAAFI in the United Kingdom. I have had a number of officers in the permanent camps complain to me that they had to spend so many hours per month auditing the books or answering complaints of soldiers' wives about goods they had bought in the grocery store. That is something which should be taken away from the military side and put on the civilian side, or put on some sort of permanent basis. The training officers, the responsible officers in these camps should not have to be bothered with the organization of these grocery stores and other stores that serve the civilian personnel. Can the minister say whether that is under consideration, or whether anything is likely to be done about it?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, it is under consideration. We have a great number of establishments in the navy, army and air force. We try to keep them on about the same lines in so far as their functions are the same. At isolated centres they have to operate stores. These stores are usually operated by regimental institutes, or the like. We have given a great deal of consideration to the introduction into Canada of a system like NAAFI. We were going to call it CAAFI in Canada, but we have decided not to do it at once but to look further into the possibility of introducing this type of civilian organization to operate service stores and establishments. Of course this is all outside government moneys.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, I realize that.


Brooke Claxton: And they are profitable
institutions. The question is how they are to be operated. Who is to operate them and who is to get the profit from them? And of
Supply-National Defence . course who is to control them? Well, the navy and the air force are quite content with their service set-up. The army would prefer to have something corresponding to NAAFI, and these differences relate quite a lot to the difference in function of the three services. The navy has ships which do not quite fit into the ordinary NAAFI pattern. The air force does things very well in its permanent stations. The army feels it would be desirable to have these stores operated by a civilian agency.
We have given a great deal of thought to that; we have had a great deal of experience on it in the post-war period in the three services in Germany, in France and in England, as well as in the Far East. I can say that the matter has been given very close consideration indeed. The great thing must be to secure effective control of an efficient operation. So far we believe that we have both the effective control and the .efficient operation; but it might be more effective and more efficient as regards the army at least if it were put more in civilian hands.


Agar Rodney Adamson: My point in raising the question was the amount of time that has to be spent by the executive headquarters staff at a camp like Petawawa or Borden in looking after these stores. I am glad to know that something is being done, because I know it will relieve the officers of a great deal of responsibility, since very considerable sums are involved.
I should like to ask the minister a question about the messenger service. I see listed here a senior messenger and confidential messengers, and another item with the general heading "messengers". I assume that this service is rendered at headquarters. I cannot say whether or not it covers the commands. I note that about $100,000 or more is involved. What is the sum spent on messengers and how many of them are at national defence headquarters? How many vehicles are there under the director of supply and transport that are doing a job connected with the messenger service?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member has indicated the total amount in all these pages spent on the messenger service?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes.


Brooke Claxton: I do not find in any item a total figure such as the one he mentioned. It would be necessary to go through these items and get the information he has requested.


Agar Rodney Adamson: How many motor vehicles are there at national defence headquarters doing the jobs of messengers? What does the minister do when he wants to send a

Supply-National Defence messenger from the House of Commons to his office at national defence headquarters? Does he have his own confidential messenger with a car?


Brooke Claxton: Cars would be made available from the Canadian army service corps garage on Catherine street to meet those requirements. Then there is always one attached to the Prime Minister's office in the east block, and one attached to the minister's office in the Department of National Defence. They are kept pretty busy going back and forth. Apart from that, no cars are earmarked for messenger service.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Then may we pass on to the next group of items?
Royal Canadian Navy-Active force and general.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I see here five items for gardeners totalling about $50,000. Why does the navy have to spend that amount of money on gardeners? Are they attending marine gardens? It does seem unusual, particularly in the navy.


Brooke Claxton: Hon. members know that the navy derived some of its best support during the second world war from the wheat farmers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Perhaps some of the so-called gardeners are there. This relates to the work of keeping in order the grounds at Esquimalt on the west coast-which are quite considerable, I might say, but still inadequate-as well as those at Halifax in the east, and at Dartmouth across the harbour. Then there are 22 naval reserve divisions, all of which have grounds to be kept in order. Altogether there are more than 40 major divisions of the navy ashore, all of which have grounds around them which must be kept up.


Agar Rodney Adamson: So far as I can see the other services do not have expenditures for gardeners. It is somewhat incongruous to find the navy, which is supposed to operate at sea, with this expenditure for gardeners.


Brooke Claxton: I find at page 304 of the details several items for gardeners in that part of the estimates concerning the army.


Agar Rodney Adamson: In my day in the army the defaulters used to do that sort of work.


Brooke Claxton: We do not have enough defaulters.


George Randolph Pearkes: When I spoke the day before yesterday I referred to the conversion of the former destroyer Algonquin to an escort vessel, and pointed out that the work of changing her from her former role was carried out by Yarrows at Esquimalt. According to a statement made at one time by

the minister the Algonquin was to be the prototype of other vessels which were to play a similar role. Then the next vessel to be converted from a destroyer to that of an escort vessel, namely the Crescent, had her conversion carried out at the dockyard at Esquimalt.
It seems to me the experience gained at Yarrows in connection with the original conversion, and in drawing up the prototype plans, was lost when the second vessel was taken to H.M.C. dockyard at Esquimalt for conversion. Surely it would have been more profitable to have the same work carried out at the same shipyard, instead of going to a competitor in the form of a government-sponsored dockyard. If the information I have received is correct, the original contract for Crescent was given to Yarrows, but after the work had been started it was switched to the dockyard. Surely that type of operation not only discourages the civilian shipyards but also means delays in production. There must have been delays in the converting of the second vessel. Would the minister tell me why the switch was made from Yarrows to the dockyard?


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be permitted to deal with the hon. member's question. The conversion of the Algonquin, as he states, was done at Yarrows, and reconversion of the Crescent at the naval dockyard is following the same pattern. It is my understanding that when a lead yard -and we try to keep a number of them fully occupied-does a job such as was done on the Algonquin the plans and specifications and all the details of what has been done become the property of the navy and may be used in any other yard.
That is the first point. The second point is that the maritime commission keeps under surveillance all the different lead yards in Canada, and the disposition is to see that they are all occupied as far as is reasonably possible. With respect to reconversion of the Crescent, whatever yard might do the work would, as I have said, have the advantage of all the work that was done at Yarrows because all plans and specifications accrue to the crown. The disposition of these ships made by the maritime commission is such that they go to different yards at different times for different purposes in order that all lead yards may be reasonably utilized.


George Randolph Pearkes: I presume the minister
realizes that Yarrows shipyards are a private concern whereas the dockyard is government-owned and in this case is in direct competition in shipbuilding with the civilian shipyard located in the same city. I should

think that the original purpose of the dockyard was to repair government ships, and it is hardly its role to enter into the shipbuilding business and undertake work which is normally performed by private shipyards, I think the minister will agree with me that the job done by Yarrows on the Algonquin was excellent, and there would seem to be very little encouragement for the civilian shipyard on the west coast where there are not too many orders, I can assure you. Men have been laid off by Yarrows because of these switches of contracts, according to the information I have received from these yards.
I feel that very little encouragement is offered to the civilian shipyard to go into naval construction if, after having had all the difficulties of producing the prototype vessel, the next vessel, in connection with which they could have utilized the experience gained by their draftsmen and technicians in producing the first vessel, which would make it easier for the shipyard to produce the second, is taken away from them and given to a government dockyard. I hope the minister will bear in mind that it is most essential that we keep shipyards on the west coast alive, and I think some restraint must be exercised in giving orders to the government dockyard in preference to the private enterprise shipyards.
I do not know that I can say any more about it. I do feel that is a consideration which should be borne in mind. Does the Minister of Defence Production wish to say something?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend suggests that the lead yard should do all the work in the type of vessel in which it leads. Of course that is not the idea of preparing Canada for war. We try to give several shipyards experience in the type. For instance, Vickers is the lead yard in the new type of escort destroyer and perhaps could turn them out like sausages, but instead of that we have several yards working on the escort destroyer, including two yards on the west coast. The purpose is to build up an industry that has the technique to meet a war situation. That explains the Algonquin and why the sister ship, the Crescent, was put in another yard. My hon. friend says we should always use private industry in preference to government industry.


George Randolph Pearkes: I did not say that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure him that we have civilians working in both, and they all have to be kept employed. As a matter of fact, about a third of our war contracts for ships are placed on the west coast, which is about
Supply-National Defence the proportion that should be placed there. 1 think the yards on the west coast engaged in purely naval work are employed to the full extent of any yards in the east. Of course some of the eastern yards supplement such construction by commercial work which they find through their own initiative, but I doubt very much if an analysis of purely naval work would show any lack of attention to the west coast.


George Randolph Pearkes: Of course I did not say that all the work should be given to civilian shipyards. The minister put words in my mouth which I never used, and the record will show that. All I am saying is that a fair share of the work should be given to the civilian shipyards, and I question very much whether there was any advantage in this particular case in placing the second vessel in the government dockyard rather than giving it to one of the civilian shipyards. There are two shipyards in Victoria, but instead of giving the second vessel to one or other of them it was given to the dockyard.
However, the explanation has been given and the contract has been let. We cannot take it back. I can only express my regret that some consideration was not given to the civilian shipyards, and I can only hope that in future the civilian shipyards, as opposed to the government dockyard, will be given their full share of shipbuilding construction. If we are in a hurry, and if we are anxious to get these vessels built by the target date, we Shall have to take full advantage of the experience that has been gained.
The second point I want to discuss is the question of the removal of the magazine from Colwood to Rocky Point. According to information I have, which information has been given in the house and in the press, the Colwood magazine is being removed to Rocky Point. I think Rocky Point is somewhere between 15 and 20 miles to the west of Esquimalt. Colwood magazine is located on the western side of Esquimalt harbour.
Can the minister say when Colwood magazine was completed and how much its construction cost? My recollection is that it was only built in recent years at very considerable expense. It is not a storage but an expenditure magazine. It is not for the purpose of storing reserves of ammunition but merely to have sufficient ammunition on hand to replenish the supplies carried on vessels which may be expended during training or operation. The main reserve magazine is at Kamloops, and in the past the reserves have been railed to the expenditure stores at Colwood.
According to our information the magazine is being moved to Rocky Point, which is an
3992	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence exposed promontory of pretty flat ground. As it is outside the inner defences of Esquimalt harbour, ships that come into Esquimalt harbour will be required to move around to Rocky Point where additional jetties will have to be built, and where there will be very limited if any opportunities for concealing ammunition stores. If this ammunition was going to be placed back in the hills farther inland and concealed I could understand the advantage of moving it from Colwood; but they are placing these buildings on an exposed and very conspicuous promontory of land.
The expenditure, we have been told, is to be somewhere between $5 and $6 million, which is a pretty considerable expenditure of money. I do not know whether that will cover all the construction work. I would like to know when the Colwood magazine was completed, and the real reasons which are behind the move of this magazine from Colwood to Rocky Point.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, may I make a few observations with regard to the hon. member's question regarding shipyards on the west coast. I am reasonably familiar with the situation, I think, and the principal shipyards are being constantly surveyed by the maritime commission and are all being kept busy. I happened to be in Vancouver last week when they took the hull of one of the new destroyer escorts from the Burrard shipyard at Vancouver to Yarrows at Esquimalt for completion there. I think careful investigation by the hon. member would show that all the principal yards are kept busy.
The reconstruction of the Algonquin was not reconstruction as a ship but rather reconversion in many respects including the electronic side. The naval dockyard has the capacity to do that type of work. The desire generally is to keep all shipyards reasonably busy for the reasons which the Minister of Defence Production has mentioned. I think that is being done on the west coast and probably on the east coast as well.
With regard to the Rocky Point magazine, my information is that there were three major reasons for the establishment of this magazine. It is a large project, admittedly, but it is located in a district where there is not now and where there is not likely to be any housing development or expansion of the rapidly growing city and its environs, and therefore there is a large safety belt around the magazine. That is important. Also a study of the terrain, according to the experts, has shown that it is suitable to the type of construction envisaged. Lastly, the magazine is close to Esquimalt, which facilitates transportation of ammunition from ships coming


in for overhaul or maintenance. They take all the ammunition off, I understand, when a ship goes into the yards for refit, and pick it up later. The new magazine will be a permanent installation of some magnitude to serve Esquimalt in the future.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is some considerable distance from Esquimalt, as I have already pointed out, and it will mean that the vessels which have been in to Esquimalt will have to go out again.
There is another point in connection with it, and that is that the area of Rocky Point has been served in the past by country roads which have not been constructed in any way to meet heavy traffic such as is bound to occur during the construction of this magazine and when the ammunition is being put into the stores. That is what is known as an unorganized area. There is no municipality there. The roads are country roads with country bridges, and there is a prosperous farming area lying between the city of Victoria and Rocky Point known as the Metchosin district. The residents in that area are not in a position to maintain their roads, bridges and so forth in order to carry the heavy traffic which is inevitable when the construction period starts.
I hope that in the $5 million to $6 million being set aside for the construction of the storehouse, the roads within the area, the jetties, the administrative buildings and so on, provision is also made to assist the district in maintaining the roads leading from Esquimalt or Victoria into that area even though the approaches are outside of the actual property which the department has bought; because I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that it is quite beyond the capabilities of that rural district to develop roads in order to carry the heavy traffic and then to maintain them when all that heavy military traffic is being carried. Has a sum of money been included in the estimates in order to maintain the approaches to that magazine?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We have not arrived at the stage of allocating various amounts of money for specific purposes, but I can assure the hon. member that his representations in regard to that question will certainly receive attention.


George Randolph Pearkes: Thank you. That will be very much appreciated because I know it is a real need.
The only other question I have to ask under this item is in respect of the hours of work of certain classes of civilian employees in the dockyard and at Naden. Can the minister tell me whether the majority of the employees in the dockyard and the civilian employees at

Naden are on the 40-hour week, and whether the firemen employed in those establishments are also on the 40-hour week? I have had numerous letters sent to me complaining of the hours which the firemen are expected to work in the dockyard or at Naden, and that they exceed the 40-hour week which I believe is generally in vogue in so far as employees on the Pacific coast are concerned. I believe that it applies to the majority of other classes employed in the dockyard and at Naden, but can the minister tell me?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, as I think the hon. member knows, in establishments in which the Department of National Defence employs civilians, the kind of worker who works in a civilian occupation, the rates are fixed by the Department of Labour on the basis of rates and conditions of service prevailing in the community. Hence we have the description "prevailing rates employees". The Department of National Defence conforms to the general pattern of government policy as determined by the regulations, and the Department of Labour is asked to advise the Department of National Defence, and then the treasury board, whether the conditions of work including the hours of labour and rates of pay are correct. In that respect we follow whatever is the pattern of civilian employment in the community.


George Randolph Pearkes: I realize that, but from the information I have received, and I might say petitions which I have received from the employees, they feel that they are not receiving the same privileges that are granted to civilian firemen in the area; and the prevailing hours of work are not applied to the firemen at Naden and the dockyard. The hours of work which they are asked to carry out are governed more by the hours of work carried out on the Atlantic coast, and they do not conform to the prevailing hours of work and rates of pay on the Pacific coast. I would ask the minister to look into that matter and see that the prevailing rates, as they exist on the Pacific coast, are applied to the firemen in the naval establishments on the west coast.


Brooke Claxton: I would be very glad indeed to look into that further.


Mr. McLure:: I only have a couple of questions to ask, and before the minister arrived I was going to ask them of the associate minister. I am glad to see him getting into harness, and I want to congratulate him on the new position he occupies. I should like to bring to the attention of the associate minister, as well as the minister, the fact that we have been promised a naval barracks for some time. I see a large amount in the estimates for buildings, and 1 was wondering whether or not our naval barracks would be
Supply-National Dejence included for erection this season. I understand that a site has been selected by the minister himself. I should like him to say whether or not this deal has gone through, and whether the naval barracks will be erected this season.
At the same time I should like him to say whether or not we are to get the new armouries we are expecting. I am not pleading with the minister that he is spending too much money. I see there is a large amount in the estimates for this purpose, and I thought we might as well get what justly belongs to us on this occasion. Our naval men should have a good barracks for their training, and I am sure our soldiers deserve the very best building that can be provided. I thought this was the proper place to mention these things, and I would ask either the minister or his associate to reply.


Brooke Claxton: On the question of the location of the naval reserve division of Charlottetown, I can assure the hon. member that the premier of Prince Edward Island, the member before him and quite a few others have brought me around to the site. I have looked it over and I regard it as a very desirable site indeed. The only trouble is that it would cost much more than we have to put the site in condition so we could erect a barracks for the naval division there. The site is superb but the wharf around is broken away, and there has been a certain amount of silt-age in the passage in front of it. In addition to that most of the ground is fill, so that all the heavy construction would have to be put on piles. This would lead to considerable expense.
I recognize the need for a new site for our naval reserve division in Charlottetown. As I say, I have been there a good many times and I have seen it. I am familiar with every inch of the ground. But so far, having regard to other priorities, we have not seen fit to put an amount in the estimates to proceed with that work. I hope that some day we will have money for an expenditure of that kind. At the present time the naval reserve division is well housed in a building belonging to the provincial government. That government would like to get it back, but so far we have held on to it. I can assure the hon. member that the matter is receiving continuous consideration.
With regard to the army barracks, I may say that is one of the oldest in Canada. On the other hand it has been well maintained. It is well located, and we have a good many other places in Canada which need a barracks more than Charlottetown. Having served alongside the artillery that came from there in the first world war, and having met them

Supply-National Defence in the second, I can appreciate that this is a good place to put a new barracks some time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the minister a question that comes under the general discussion of the navy, but a similar question could be asked when we get to the section dealing with the army and another when we come to the air force. I can throw them all into one. At the end of the items dealing with the navy we come to a gross total, and then appears this entry:
Less the estimated amount to be paid from the special account and the estimated credits from transfers of equipment charged to mutual aid, $44,700,000.
That is on page 303. Similarly over on page 310, at the end of the section dealing with the army, there is the same entry only it amounts to $94,077,000. Likewise on page 316, at the end of the section dealing with the air force, there is the same entry, only in that instance the amount is $108,195,000. Those three entries, which in each case are subtracted from the gross total, add up to $246,972,000. By a little more simple arithmetic I find that the grand total of these major items we have been discussing is $1,960,159,633, which does not include those amounts that have been subtracted. In other words it appears to me that if it were not for these credits at these three points the actual total of this item would be not $1,960,159,633, but $2,207,131,633.
Will the minister comment on whether or not that is a correct analysis as to the total amount that is actually [DOT] being spent for the items included in this general item, and also would he explain what is involved and what the reason is for these subtractions by reference to a special account?


Brooke Claxton: Well, Mr. Chairman, there has been a change proposed in these estimates with regard to the handling of the mutual aid account. This is described on page 30 of the white paper. I shall not weary hon. members by reading it, but I think the point made by the hon. member is covered by paragraph 167 on page 30, which reads as follows: Consequently, in the 1953-54 estimates, the detailed amounts in the service votes and the mutual aid vote together exceed the estimated appropriation requested by some $247 millions which is made up of $84 millions to be expended from the special accounts and the estimated transfers of equipment as mutual aid from stocks acquired by the services since April 1, 1950, amounting to $163 millions.


Mr. Gillis:: I should like to ask the minister about an item that appears on page 301 of the estimates, the 11th line from the bottom of the page, "Professional and special services, corps of commissionaires". Mr. Chairman, I think the time has arrived when that organization should be brought under

some department of government. Members of the corps of commissionaires work for all departments of government. In addition they are employed in many cities around theatres, as doormen around hospitals and so on.
The corps of commissionaires are a group of old soldiers, the older fellows who have reached the days when they are no longer productive in industry; and they are taken then, in most of the provinces, by a private employment agency. Some smart fellow organizes that corps on a provincial scale, and he farms out their labour to any organization that desires watchmen. I notice that the Department of National Defence has an item of over $1 million in the naval section. They are employed around the airports and around public buildings under all departments of government.
I think the method employed of having these men work for private employment agencies who farm them out and make money off their labour should come to an end. I think the corps is sufficiently large at the present time that its members should be brought under some department of government, preferably the Department of Labour, so their duties could be made more uniform, their wages fixed at a more reasonable rate, and some uniformity brought into the question of remuneration as far as that corps is concerned. The organization at the present time leaves much to be desired, and it is badly confused because its members are working for different rates of wages in different provinces, and are working in the same provinces and in the same communities for different organizations.
I am not making any criticism of the item that appears here in the estimates. I am merely raising that general question for the benefit of the members of the cabinet. In my opinion the time has come when these people should be brought under some department of government and when some regulation should be brought about with regard to their employment and remuneration; and I say the proper department to handle that corps of commissionaires is the Department of Labour.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief.
I wanted to comment on an article dealing with comments made by Vice-Admiral Mainguy and appearing in the Gazette of December 18. I obtained it from the C.C.F. library, of all places, from the hon. member for Kootenay West. The reason I am using this article is that it would appear that not only is the naval program long delayed but, as to one item, it has cost about three times

what it was estimated to cost. The article reads in part:
Reviewing the navy's needs and plans for 1952, the admiral said:
And I quote paragraph 3.
3. Shipbuilding programs started in previous years will bring fruit, with four more of the new antisub escort vessels being launched-
He says four more. The minister's white paper says two. Last night the minister said three. In 1951 the admiral said four. The article continues:
-and the coastal minesweeper program of 14 vessels being completed.
The admiral's statement in this book that I quoted before, namely Canadian Shipping of March of this year, said eight were launched. The minister's white paper stated that six had been launched; and last night I believe the minister said all had been launched. The last part of that paragraph in the Gazette of December 18, 1951 reads as follows:
In addition, the navy's arctic patrol vessel, H.M.C.S. Labrador, will be completed.
In the white paper this sentence appears:
The northern patrol vessel, H.M.C.S. Labrador, originally scheduled for 1952, will be completed before the end of 1953.
The minesweepers were estimated to cost $950,000 each, 1 understand, and they have actually cost somewhere about $3 million. Is that correct or is it not?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I made a fairly full statement following the hon. member's speech this afternoon.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I did not mention this item.


Brooke Claxton: I thought I had dealt with it. I must apologize for not being here when he spoke, but I was away with Field Marshal Montgomery and I was in the chamber before the hon. member concluded his remarks. But I thought I had dealt with the question of the numbers of ships and the like at that time.
With regard to costs of ships, contracts are let by the Department of Defence Production. The allocation of contracts is done in accordance with recommendations of the maritime commission. I do not quite gather what additional point the hon. member wishes to make.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The point I am asking the minister about is this. First of all, does he agree that the building of the ships was unduly delayed? The chief of the naval staff stated in 1951 that all these ships would be completed by 1952, whereas they are not completed yet and the best we can hope for
Supply-National Defence is completion by the end of this year. Moreover, the cost of the minesweepers has gone from $950,000 to $3 million each, I only ask whether that is correct.


Brooke Claxton: I shall have to look into that matter, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Gibson:: I wonder whether this is the time, while we are discussing naval estimates, when the Minister of National Defence would like to make a comment on the possibility that he might forward his training program in the navy by some kind of co-ordination between the naval program and the coastguard service which has been mooted many times in Canada as a desirable feature on both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. It has always occurred to me, particularly with vessels of the smaller type that we are speaking of, such as minesweepers, that perhaps the finest training we could give our younger sailors in naval tactics might be in co-ordinating the services of the navy and those of the coastguard. I should be grateful for a comment from the Minister of National Defence in regard to that suggestion, which I am sure has been made to him before.


Brooke Claxton: Generally speaking I think it has been found in all navies that it is a good thing to have the young naval personnel receive their first training at sea in a naval vessel; and for that purpose we have training ships. Quite a large number of those in commission for the Royal Canadian Navy are specially earmarked as training ships. After that training period it might be desirable to work them in on other types of training including coastguard or the like if that exists; but that would have to be worked out.
With regard to the provision of coastguard service-and that is the question the hon. member really raises-that is a matter which concerns much more the Department of Transport, the Department of Justice through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other departments of government. At the present time the job of search and rescue, which is an important operation, is co-ordinated in Canada through the R.C.A.F., and it has the closest possible tie-in with the Royal Canadian Navy, the merchant marine and civilian enterprises of all kinds. So far, my colleagues who have been concerned with that aspect of the problem felt that the co-ordination of search and rescue under ICAO should be left with the Royal Canadian Air Force, and the other questions should be dealt with as they arise.


Douglas Scott Harkness: By some method which was not quite discernible we seem to have become concerned chiefly with naval matters. However, my understanding is that we are still

Supply-National Defence really on departmental administration. I have two or three questions under that heading which I should like to ask.


Louis-René Beaudoin: No; the understanding is that we go from one heading to the other. I asked if the committee was ready to pass on to the heading "navy".


Douglas Scott Harkness: When was that?


Louis-René Beaudoin: That was some time ago. The hon. member for York West was the first to rise, and then the hon. member for Nanaimo; and all the questions have pertained to this heading "navy" ever since that time, I would say about half an hour ago.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I did not hear you say that. I still thought we were on departmental administration. However, I can ask these questions just as well under navy as I can under departmental administration. It really makes no difference. What I wanted to get at was the thing which we really did not get to, namely the total number of civilian employees in the navy, army, air force and throughout. We have a figure of around 26,000 civil servants, I believe, and in the report of the Department of National Defence' for 1952 at page 91 the figures are given up to March 31, 1951 and up to March 31, 1952, for the skilled and unskilled classes of labour. At March 31, 1952, they numbered 19,369. Can the minister give the figure for March 31, 1953, which would then give us the total of all civilian employees?


Brooke Claxton: The closest estimate of that is in the white paper. It is 25,200 classified civilian employees and 19,800 non-classified.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then we come to the amount of money for travelling and removal expenses, which is quite a large item. In so far as the navy is concerned we find it was $3,098,000 last year. This year it is $3,950,000. Rather than take it up under navy, army and air force and so on, perhaps we can deal with it as one item. The total amount is $34,691,000. These travelling and removal expenses have been constantly increasing as a result of the increase in the number of service personnel; and as a result of the increase in the number of such personnel naturally one would expect-


Brooke Claxton: We really must have some order about this. You yourself, Mr. Chairman, announced on three occasions that after we had got through with the general discussion we would proceed item by item, and for at least three-quarters of an hour we have been on navy. Now the hon. gentleman wants us to reverse that process and get back

to general administration. I suggest we should move on.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not asking it to be reversed at all. I started out to deal with travelling and removal expenses for the navy. I said I thought it would save time if, instead of taking it up under navy, army and air force, reserve force and so forth, we took it up as one group item, and I said the total amounts to $34,691,000.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Can the hon. member
inform me where he sees travelling and removal expenses?


Douglas Scott Harkness: On page 301.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is under navy?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Louis-René Beaudoin: And there is a similar item under air force, I understand.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And army.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member can ask his question under the various headings, a separate question for each.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am quite prepared to ask it under each. I suggested it would save a considerable amount of time if we could deal with them together, and the question I wanted to ask particularly, as far as the travelling and removal expenses are concerned, is this. What means are taken within the department to ensure that the amount of this travelling is kept down to a minimum? As I say, these expenses mount year after year. Some assurance should be given to the committee that every effort is made to keep these expenses, which have now reached such a large sum, to the minimum consistent with carrying out the duties of the services in an appropriate manner?


Brooke Claxton: I can assure the hon. gentleman that the utmost is done to reduce travel to the minimum; but with one-half of the navy that is operational on the west coast and one-half that is operational on the east coast, with the necessity for posting every now and then, in addition to filling in the complement of crews and taking courses, travel continues to be a very big item. You have also to take into account the fact that if a service person is posted for more than a year to a post in Canada or abroad he is entitled to have his wife and family and furniture moved at the government's expense. Consequently we reduce to the minimum possible the amount of posting but in a time of active service, where we have ships on each coast doing various duties, where we want to avoid inflicting on any serviceman more than the minimum term of duty abroad and where

also we have to fit in his service abroad with his posting to take courses for promotion, the transportation expenses are apt to be high.
I am afraid that is an inevitable result of the geography of our country. But I can assure the hon. member that the rates allowed are so low that most personnel say they lose on every single movement, whether it be for meals on a short trip, or on hotel bills on a trip to Washington to confer with opposite numbers, or on a long trip to London. I have yet to hear of a service person who has received what he regards as a fair recompense for his travel. That is regrettable, but it indicates that we are tough about it. We would like to be more generous.


Gordon Francis Higgins: At the risk of repetition, I did not quite gather the minister's answer to my question about the fourteen minesweepers. I said the cost had been estimated at $950,000 and that they cost $3 million each. Is that correct, or not?


Brooke Claxton: I told the hon. member I would look into it. It sounds quite impossible. It is a matter really for the Minister of Defence Production, but we will look into it. I did not recognize the figures as likely to be correct.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Does the minister recognize the original cost as being correct?


Brooke Claxton: I do not know.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What was the original cost?


Brooke Claxton: I would have to look that up. The contract is placed not by the Department of National Defence but by the Department of Defence Production.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Three were actually completed and launched. Does the minister know what was the cost of these?


Brooke Claxton: That would be available in the Department of Defence Production. We shall get that for you.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The matter of the cost of recruits applies not only to the navy, but to the army and to the air force as well. If the minister wants to answer for the three services at one time, that is fine as far as I am concerned. If he wants to answer for each of the three services individually, that will also be agreeable. A certain amount of publicity has been given to the amount spent for advertising in the general cost of recruiting. I wonder if the minister could give us what the figures were in connection with advertising, and also any other costs in connection with getting recruits last year. Would he give the amount per recruit. If he can give it for each of the services, well and good; however, if he has only a bulk figure that will still be satisfactory.
Supply

National Defence


Brooke Claxton: The cost per recruit as related to the active force intake in 1952 was $70 per man. But much of the recruiting advertising was related to other purposes, including recruiting for the reserve forces; and if we include the cost per addition to the armed forces of Canada, both active and reserve, the average cost is $43 per man. The advertising also had to do with bringing home to young Canadians the opportunities of service in the Canadian services colleges and the like. All this is included in the average cost per intake I have given.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is that $70 entirely for advertising? If not, what is the breakdown? How much is for advertising and how much for other costs?


Brooke Claxton: All of it is for advertising.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If that is entirely for advertising, would the minister let us have the other recruiting costs, such as those for maintaining recruiting stations, staff and so on.


Brooke Claxton: There are no figures on that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then as I understand it the minister's department does not know what it costs to recruit a man. The cost for advertising alone is $70, to which must be added other general costs of recruiting. Last year the amount spent in advertising for recruits in Alberta was $87,213, according to a return tabled in the name of the hon. member for Assiniboia. The cost in British Columbia amounted to $138,821. Can the minister explain how these advertising sums are allocated as between the different provinces? Is there any policy in this connection? There seems to be some disparity so far as other provinces are concerned. Is there any policy, or on what basis is the allocation of advertising for recruiting carried out?


Brooke Claxton: Recruiting advertising is
handled by a number of agencies appointed by the government. They confer with the joint service recruiting committee and the joint service advertising committee, representing the three services. They report to the personnel members' committee which consists of the adjutant general of the army, the chief of naval personnel, and the air member for personnel of the air force. They put up a plan to the deputy minister. In turn he places it before me, and we have a session- sometimes lasting several days-to go over the program.
When that is agreed upon the agencies spend the money in accordance with the plan, so as to produce the best possible results. That plan is related to the possibilities in each part of the country, and in the result

Supply-National Defence has proved very successful. The fact that some amount of money should be reported as having been spent in Saskatchewan or British Columbia indicates that in those two cases that was the payment made for the services rendered through the advertising agencies.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know that the minister has answered my question as to what policy is followed in regard to advertising.
I have mentioned only two provinces. I might point out that for Quebec the amount is $836,900 and for Ontario $639,000.


Brooke Claxton: I thought I had answered that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But the minister did not give any explanation to how these various amounts are allocated, or the policy followed. He said it was decided by this committee to which he referred, in conjunction with the advertising agencies. Has any compilation been kept as to the efficiency of this advertising? Did they get more recruits where they spent more money on advertising, or did they get fewer?


Brooke Claxton: Every possible computation and every possible test has been made. We have had tests made of the recruits coming into the three services: "Why did you join? Why did you choose this service in particular?" Then after the recruit has been in for a time, these questions: "How are you getting along? How do you like it?" This is all related to the job of getting the ultimate number of men we need in the armed forces of Canada. That has been a pretty difficult job in the last three years, because of the numbers involved.
I can assure the committee the amount spent is exceedingly low having regard to the job that has been done and the intake we have had. There were 29,000 last year for the active force and 21,000 for the reserve force. Those are very big figures, indeed, for Ca.nada. And if we compare the figures spent on advertising in Canada with those of the United States, where they have another system, one would be surprised at the results we have obtained.
Everything is checked up, and everything is related to the job of placing before the young men of Canada the idea of the opportunity of rendering a service to their country, meeting a need, and having, a career in the public service.


Mr. Nowlan:: In replying to the hon. member- for Calgary East the minister made reference to travel and removal expenses, and said that the dependents of those who had been transferred away for a, year would have their expenses paid to their places of

origin. Is there any difference in the three departments on that score? I have received letters from some dependents who claim that in one of'the armed services a family in a service house is permitted to remain there, while in one of the other services they are required to vacate. Is there any difference in the regulations in this connection as they apply to the three services?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member would have to bring my attention to individual cases. We have 60 or 70 service communities across Canada for the navy, the army and the air force. I could not speak from memory or generalize as to what the rules are right across the board.


George Clyde Nowlan: What I had in mind particularly was the statement that in the army, for instance, dependents who are living in a service house at an army base would be permitted to remain there after the service member had been posted to Europe, whereas if he were serving in the air force the dependents would be required to vacate within a certain number of days. Complaints have been received from dependents indicating that there is a different policy entirely in these two branches of the service. I know we are now dealing with the navy, but I was wondering if the procedure was uniform for all three branches.


Brooke Claxton: We began by having a 90-day vacation period because of the shortage of married quarters, but since then we have added to the married quarters and we now have about 20,000 married quarters either constructed or in process of construction. Our object would be to enable every service person who is posted abroad to leave his family in a service home until he returns, but that is most difficult in some localities such as Shilo, or other places, where a whole unit may move out. What is going to happen to the wives of the members Of the unit who are left? It is a very difficult problem. I could not generalize on it, but I can assure the hon. member that it is receiving the most serious attention. My own view would be that we need very much more accommodation for dependents of servicemen than is now available.


George Clyde Nowlan: Then there is no distinction between the three services with respect to the treatment?


Brooke Claxton: No, I think it relates to the particular situation.


George Clyde Nowlan: We have an item here of $23 million for the construction of buildings and physical assets. I was- wondering if the expenditures for the seaward defence project at Halifax are included in. that amount and

if the minister can give us a breakdown of the amount which has been expended and tell us where the matter stands at the moment.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member is quite right in suggesting that the item for seaward defence at Halifax is included. I would not like to give a breakdown at this stage, if he would permit me not to do so.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not asking for information in great detail, but can the minister tell us where the matter stands at the moment, approximately how much has been spent and how much will have to be spent before the project is concluded?


Brooke Claxton: I was in Halifax on October 17 last, and a very successful exercise had just been held in which they closed half of the harbour on fairly short notice. The project is moving on and it is getting to the point where it is a pretty good seaward defence.


George Clyde Nowlan: Can the minister tell us something of the cost?


Brooke Claxton: We expect to spend $800,000 there this year.


George Clyde Nowlan: How much has been spent altogether so far?


Brooke Claxton: I have not got it.


George Clyde Nowlan: Can the minister get us that information?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: On page 3 of the white paper I find the following with respect to the air force:
In accordance with joint Canadian-U.S. plans for aerial defence, a number of the stations in Canada which are of primary usefulness in the defence of the United States will be manned by U.S.A.F. personnel-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Did I understand the hon. member to say that he was dealing with the air force?


William Joseph Browne: No, I am
only referring to this and then I am going to ask a question about the navy. On page 3 it says that there is a certain policy of co-ordination and co-operation existing between the United States air force and the Royal Canadian Air Force. Does that policy of co-ordination and co-operation exist with respect to the use of naval facilities, naval installations and.seaward defences?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At page 302 of the details, under "materials apd supplies", there is an item of $2,100,000 for fuel for heating, cookr ing &pd-power-generating; units. Last year 68108-253i
16, 1953	3999
Supply-National Defence the amount was $1,300,000. In other words it is nearly double this year. Can the minister explain why so much more fuel for heating and cooking is needed?


Brooke Claxton: It has been found that the estimates for 1952-53 were below requirements. Other contributing factors are higher costs and the provision being made for several more establishments.


Mr. Thomas:: When I spoke the other day I asked the minister if he would comment on whether or not the government had considered making use of light convoy escort aircraft carriers of the same type as the converted merchant escort carriers we had during the war. Does he think that is practical?


Brooke Claxton: That matter has been looked into and nothing satisfactory has been found. I am afraid the trend is entirely in the opposite direction. More and more escort carriers are going into operation with flight decks capable of handling jets, and they involve much more expense, difficulty and complexity for us all. We have not found anything along the line he has suggested.


Ray Thomas: I might point out that those we had during the war were quite cheaply converted from merchant ships and used an obsolescent type of aircraft. The aircraft were also cheap. They certainly did a wonderful job, and without them I do not think we could possibly have held back the U-boat attacks during the latter part of the war.


Brooke Claxton: I agree.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I want to ask a question which comes under the item with the heading "Professional fees-architects, engineers, land valuation and legal", and also with respect to the item headed "Medical and dental consultants and special services", and the item headed "Fees for special' courses". If your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is that I should confine myself entirely to the navy, well and good, but it seems to me that it would save time if I could deal with the matter generally. I assume I must deal with the navy.
First of all I want some information about the staff of engineers and architects. I draw attention to the amount to be spent for architects and engineers for the navy, $800,000, the amount of $250,000 to be spent for medical and dental consultants for the navy, and the amount of $500,000 to be spent for fees for special courses for the navy. I want to know What staff we have, what staff is. in the minister'? own department and also what is available, in the allied departments of defence production and so on. , Then I want to know
t. *.&' *[DOT]* Od'J-D)	*[DOT]' i
4000	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence the amounts that have been paid to architectural firms and others in some considerable detail. My first question is, what professional staff have we, dealing for the moment only with architects, engineers, etc.?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member has asked what professional staffs we have in the navy, army and air force, as I understand it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Whichever way you rule, Mr. Chairman.


Brooke Claxton: I do not mind. That is the kind of question that could be put on the order paper and answered very easily.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Probably not as quickly as the minister can answer it.


An hon. Member:: It might be quicker.


Brooke Claxton: I will have a shot at it from memory. I would say that the navy has about eight architects, the army about fifteen and the air force about ten. I would say they are totally inadequate in number to do the job. Also we have employed two or three hundred architectural firms across the country in connection with the construction program. We have been engaged in the build-up of construction necessary for the armed forces, navy, army and air force.
I had no notice of the hon. gentleman's question so I cannot speak except subject to correction, but I would say that we have completed something in the nature of about 40 standard plans for standard buildings of a permanent character, each one involving navy, army or air force architects, and sometimes all three, and each one involving as well the hiring of outside architects. I would say that we have probably completed standard designs or plans for something of the magnitude of 30 emergency buildings involving the services of the same people. After all, you cannot administer $358 million worth of orders for construction and place 1,048 major contracts without hiring architects. As far as is possible we hire just as few and just as good ones as we can. I would like to have heard of any easier way of doing this job before because we took longer than we wanted. There were not enough architects and there were not enough engineers in the services to do the job. Consequently we are a bit behind in our construction program to cover the period 1951 to 1954, which will amount to a total of $655 million.
The number of contracts handled by architects, construction firms and professional engineers would have to be worked out, but it certainly runs into many hundreds. I have said that there were 1,048 major contracts placed last year, in addition to other work. We have been continuously short of architects
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1

and professional engineers on our inspection staff, and have had to hire a great number of outsiders.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I realize that I cannot fairly expect the minister to give a detailed answer to what I asked, but what he has said has certainly interested me and makes me feel that I want to know a great deal more about this. Apparently I have to plead guilty to being quite wrongly informed when I spoke on the budget because at that time, after making what inquiries I could, I thought I had discovered that there were 15 architects in the three services. Adding up what the minister has given me now I find there are 33, and he has referred to the employment on the work of two or three hundred firms.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry, but if the hon. member will excuse me I have the figures available for him now. The number of architects employed as civil servants is precisely 15-navy 5, army 7 and R.C.A.F. 3.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: After all that difference is not too important.


Brooke Claxton: They are far too few.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But I was
surprised at the figure of two or three hundred architectural firms employed.


Brooke Claxton: Far more than that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to know a little more about that, and perhaps the minister would give me a statement in some detail when the committee discusses this next. For example, the minister spoke about 1,048 major projects, as I understand it, which were placed last year. Are we talking about the calendar year or the fiscal year?


Brooke Claxton: The fiscal year 1952-53.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister explain a little further what he means by a major project? If I understood him, he also spoke about 30 emergency buildings.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I come back to the 1,048 major projects. It would be very important to know to what extent those were standard buildings. If they were 1,048 individual major projects requiring full architectural preparatory work and all the development which goes with individual buildings, then it was a rather tremendous job. It comes to me as a surprise, and there is no point in my expressing any opinion about it. All I can do is ask a further question, and if the minister wishes to answer

now so much the better. When he says 1,048 major projects, what does he mean? Will he explain that further? Perhaps they can be divided into classes. I take it the figure is for the three services?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps they can be divided into classes and perhaps the minister can give us illustrations so we might understand better what is meant by the very imposing phrase "1,048 major projects". Let me repeat that I do not want to be asking questions which it is unfair to expect the minister to answer off the cuff, and if he prefers to give me that information when the committee sits again that will be perfectly satisfactory to me. It is just as he wishes.


Brooke Claxton: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was not too far out in my recollection of the figures. We prepared 39 standard designs for permanent construction for the three services. Out of those 39 designs which were prepared, some before Korea and some since, 35 have so far been used. We have 28 designs for emergency buildings, and so far we have used 10 of those, all at Wainwright. It is quite easy to put on the record the places, the details of the type of construction and so on in each case, but my information is that this has been gone into before the committee on defence expenditure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We are not
allowed to talk about that.


Brooke Claxton: I am told that not only were you allowed to talk about it, but that you insisted on talking about it, and it was gone into at great length. However, if there is any item of information which the hon. member would like, we will certainly have it available for him.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister about what appears to me to be the penultimate item under departmental administration and navy, "additional positions to be established". As far as the navy item is concerned it is $625,000, increased from $435,000. For the general administration item it is a very much larger figure, $2,256,704. For general administration there was an increase of 294 in these unclassified persons and for the navy an increase of 100.
The thing which is interesting and on which I would like some comment is that under general administration if you divide 294, the number of unclassified persons to be added, into the figure given you find that the average cost or average salary works out
Supply-National Defence at about $5,640, but in the same category for the navy the average salary works out at $1,860. First of all I should like to ask what are these additional positions to be established. Are they of considerable number and do they go right through the schedule, or are they one single item?


Brooke Claxton: The positions relate to inland stores depot, Montreal, for handling, packing, maintenance and inventory of the main R.C.N. stores depot, 425; maintenance of ships in inactive reserve at Sydney, Nova Scotia, including security and fire protection and servicing of dehumidifying plant, 80; at naval stores headquarters, Ottawa, an increase in office workers to provide necessary assistance for the administration of the expanding navy, 125; on the east coast in the dockyard, stores, depots, armament depots and magazines to meet the increased requirements of the fleet and to provide for the installation and maintenance of new equipment from current production, 460; on the west coast in the dockyard, stores, depots, armament depots and magazines to meet the increased requirements of the fleet and to provide for the installation and maintenance of new equipment from current production, 410.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Well, that is for the navy. I just added this up and there seems to be some discrepancy in the salaries. You have an increase in general administration of approximately half a million, and then for this item you get $425,625. Why is there such a discrepancy in the rates of pay, or are my calculations correct?


Louis-René Beaudoin: While the minister is looking up the answer to this question, perhaps I might ask hon. members if I may have their co-operation. I do not want to appear to be restricting discussion nor to be disagreeable, but if we are to follow the agreed procedure I should like hon. members to avoid referring to items which have already been discussed. Two years ago we studied these details at the end of the book line by line. Last year it was suggested that we proceed heading by heading. Yesterday I asked hon. members if that procedure would be agreeable this year. I asked for comments upon that, and there were none. Hon. members agreed. We have discussed the first heading, which was departmental administration, including inspection service. Then I asked, shall we pass on to navy? The hon. member for York West was the first member to ask a question relating to navy. We have been carrying on discussing the details under the heading "navy".
I know there are some questions of a general character which hon. members may like to ask, but I hope they will confine those

Supply-National Defence questions to the pertinent heading. If we carry on with questions under the details for half an hour and then have a wide-open question, and then return to restrictive questions, we shall never finish. It makes it a much more difficult task for those who have to prepare the answers for the minister. Hon. members will realize that. I do ask hon. members for their co-operation.


Brooke Claxton: In answer to the hon. member for York West, I might say that the difference is due largely to the proportion of technical staff on the side that he mentioned.


Carl Olof Nickle: A question has come up in the study of the white paper and the estimates, and it is this. Is our navy of such a nature that it requires far more administration than either of the other two services, the; army or the air force, both from the point qf jview of service personnel and civilian employees? In checking the figures presented by the minister, I find that in dealing with personnel of the active forces only, out of a total active force of 15,400 in the navy, 1,400 are listed under command and administration. Qf course there are additional numbers of men in training staffs and trainees, but I have not included them under administration.. On,,this basis of 1,400 in administration within the service, one . out of every eleven men in the navy is, engaged in command or administration.	.	. *	,*	, , ,,
In so far as the army is concerned, referring again to the figures on manpower presented in the white paper, one in every seventeen men is engaged , in administration. In the aiE force, only one in twenty-twp men is engaged in administration. In other words the air force requires half as much administration in terms of personnel. as the, navy.
Turning now to the classified establishments for civilian employees, I find that there is one civilian employed by the navy for every 2-3 members in the active forces; in the army there is only one civilian for every 5 -1 members, and the air force is almost three times as good as the navy and 50 per cent better than the army because they have only one civilian employed for every 7 * 4 members of the active air force. Can the minister explain the reasons for the very wide variation in the percentage of the total personnel, service and civilian, required for the handling of the administration in the three services?


Brooke Claxton: I am not ready to admit the computations the hon. member has made, but quite apart from that the navy have traditionally employed a very high percentage of civilian employees in their dockyards and similar activities. This is true of the Royal
Navy, the United States Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy. A very high degree of skill is required there, and that skill is usually related to some previous service in the navy, then service ashore in a civilian occupation of that kind. The navy very largely has these dockyard employees do the job of dealing with their ships, armaments, electronics and so on.


Carl Olof Nickle: The minister referred to the prevailing rate employees and dockyard workers for the navy. In the .figures, I presented a moment ago, I included only those civilians in the classified establishments, and did not . include any of the 3,600 civilian employees in the Department of National Defence administration and inspection service, nor did I include any of the 19,800 casual prevailing rate employees of the Department of National Defence.


Brooke Claxton: The navy has a very high proportion of people who ip ordinary, industry would be prevailing rate employees, but who in the dockyards are leading hands and the like, timekeepers and so on, who are classified * civil servants.


Douglas Scott Harkness: One of the larger items under navy is that for ammunition and bombs, which is $28,461,000 this year, and was $7,402,000 last year. I should like to ask: the minister if that large increase is due to the fact that this year there has been what you might call stockpiling of ammunition for navy or mobilization stores, and does that represent the major portion of the $28-5 million?


Brooke Claxton: I am afraid we have not reached quite that point yet. We have been firing a great deal of ammunition in Korea, but in addition we have been endeavouring to build up stocks of ammunition in Canada. While we have some stockpile, it is not such that I should like to regard it with equanimity yet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: From what the minister says I take it that most of this is for current use in Korea and for what you might call' normal consumption in ships and so forth.


Brooke Claxton: A lot of it, yes.


William Joseph Browne: I notice that the plant formerly operated by the Canadian navy at Bay Bulls, Newfoundland, has-been repurchased. Is it to be put in operation this year, and will it be similar to what it was before?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. I have visited the place myself. I think perhaps this was taken over when I was there. Bays Bulls was disposed of. Then after Korea it was felt that this was an important place so we got our hands on it again, and it has been held that way.
[The Chairman.]


William Joseph Browne: You are not
doing any work there at the present time?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What will you do with your R.D. stations on the road? I refer to your R.D. stations on the road to Bay Bulls.


Brooke Claxton: Army?


Gordon Francis Higgins: No. R.D. stations, navy.


Brooke Claxton: Nothing more has been done about that at the present time.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You are building a new station out there for ammunition. Is that right?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Another of the large items of equipment under the navy is "Armament and equipment, $25 million" this year. Does this represent chiefly the armament for new ships which have been laid down this year, such as 3-inch 50-calibre naval guns?


Brooke Claxton: That is right; not only the armament of the new ships but the refitting of the old.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Will this item include all the armament to modernize the 56 vessels, I think it is, which we now have in service? I think the minister said the number was 56.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, that will cover the 56.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does it cover any of those which are under construction?


Brooke Claxton: Partly.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to bring one little item to the attention of the minister. What I have to say is not in the form of a question, but I might not get an opportunity again to mention the matter. Last fall a young soldier was being returned from'Korea to Charlottetown owing' to sickness. He landed with other soldiers in the United States and died in the hospital there.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed with this matter at the moment. We have had a general discussion which lasted for some time. During that discussion there was ample opportunity for him to raise a matter of this sort. We are now proceeding to the study of the details. I therefore think the hon. member should reserve what he has to say for another occasion.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Chairman, it would take only a minute or so.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member will realize that it is not a question of how long it will take. If I allow him to proceed in this fashion I shall have to allow other
16, 1953	4003
Supply-National Defence members to do so as well. If they each have a little question like this which may take only one minute, we might lose about two hours. Shall we pass on to the army?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. There are one or two other questions I wish to ask. There is an item here, "All other expenditures, $945,000." Last year it was $813,000. Last year we took some objection-and in fact I think in every previous year we did so-to these more or less omnibus items and requested that, as far as possible, the expenditures covered by them should be listed under these numerous other headings instead of being put down as "sundries" or "all other expenditures" and things of that sort. I would ask again that that practice, as far as possible, be followed and that items of this sort be reduced to the smallest, sums possible. Can the minister give us any indication of what these "other expenditures" of nearly $1 million consist of?


Brooke Claxton: We conform to the system of allocation of expenditures as fixed by the comptroller:.of the treasury. As hon. members will notice, the allocation of expenditures for defence is the same as that for other goverpr ,ment departments. We are extremely anxious indeed to follow, the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary East, and reduce these omnibus clauses to the minimum. The largest single item here is customs duties-we. pay customs duties-of $400,000.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall we pass on to the army?	.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. There is one? other item to which I wish to refer, namely the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve. I was surprised to see that the estimated expenditure for pay and allowances for the naval reserve is reduced this year. As a matter of fact the entire expenditures for- the Canadian naval reserve are reduced. The number of civil servants employed there is down; the whole thing is down. That would seem to indicate that the department thinks the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve will be smaller in numbers this year than it was last year. If that is the case I think it is a great pity, and I should like the minister to explain the reason for this reduction.


Brooke Claxton: No. There was too large an estimate last year. The estimate for this year is an actual increase on our experience of last year, and we expect that we shall spend the whole sum. Therefore the naval reserve will be up.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the minister if he thinks it is a sensible thing for the staff of his department and that of another department to be spending their
4004	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence time in working out how much money is to be paid for customs duties by the Department of National Defence to the Department of National Revenue? It seems to me that it is a prize waste of time. What I rose to ask was this. If the minister will inquire further about the matters that we are not allowed to discuss, I think he will find that his idea is wrong when he intimates that the information I was asking for has been given already. I hope he will find that.
I do not want to get involved in a whole lot of reports which are going to waste everybody's time, but I want further light on one or two questions. The minister has spoken about 1,048 major projects. I want to know -perhaps not tonight but at some time- what a major project is. Is it defined just by the cost? Then I should like to have the major projects grouped, if possible. I suppose there would be so many barrack blocks; so many messing halls and so many such and such. That procedure might reduce this matter to manageable proportions.
The minister spoke about working out standard buildings. I want to know how many of these would conform to standard and, for that reason, I presume would require a minimum of architectural assistance. Those are the questions that I wish to raise. If the information can be available when we meet again, then it would take that much less time.


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to give that information tomorrow.


Agar Rodney Adamson: May I ask the minister this question. Do you pay sales tax as well as customs duties?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Mr. McCann:: Of course.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is a prize waste of money.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Do I understand that the discussion on the navy is terminated?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman; I have another question or two as a result of some returns I have. I could quite readily take them up under the army but you might then rule me out of order. For that reason I think I should prefer to leave this navy item open.


Brooke Claxton: Could we pass to the army on the understanding that you will have that opportunity?


Douglas Scott Harkness: So I may be sure that I will not be ruled out of order, I should like the navy item to be held open.


Brooke Claxton: Could the hon. member ask his questions now so we could look at them?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It would take me some five minutes, perhaps, to explain just what I want.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall consider Bill No. 338, respecting co-operative credit associations. After second reading this bill will be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce. Then we shall take up estimates of national defence, trade and commerce, citizenship and immigration.


Mr. Fleming:: In that order?


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 17, 1953