1955-06-17

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on broadcasting.-Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf).
Sixth and seventh reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Fairey.
Sixteenth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch (Pictou).


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 483, to incorporate the Provident Assurance Company.-Mr. Eudes.
Bill No. 484, for the relief of Real Perras. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 485, for the relief of Izrael Szer. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 486, for the relief of Mary Madeleine Collings Bell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 487, for the relief of Joseph Flavien Denis Rheo Baillargeon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 488, for the relief of Susan Wald-man Ruttenberg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 489, for the relief of Andre La-breche.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 490, for the relief of Alfred Sevi-gny.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 491, for the relief of Beatrice Macdonald Stewart Pasmore.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 492, for the relief of Georges-Etienne Cartier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 493, for the relief of Kathleen Dallas White Barnes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 494, for the relief of John Tilga. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 495, for the relief of Edwin Albert Verge.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 496, for the relief of Aline Sauve Page.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 497, for the relief of Helen Margaret Robb Woods.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 498, for the relief of Jean Louis Larose.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 499, for the relief of Molly Wine-berg Fishman.-Mr. Hunter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he is in a position to advise the house as to whether a decision has yet been taken regarding an appeal in the Brent case.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I understand, sir, that an appeal has been entered. I am not quite sure because, of course, it would be taken by the Minister of Justice and not by me.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
10 PER CENT INCREASE
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of a Canadian Press story in this morning's newspapers. Can the minister say whether the board of transport commissioners are considering a 10 per cent increase in freight rates on certain grain shipments? If so, will the board of transport commissioners hear evidence in opposition from farm organizations and other affected parties?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I have no knowledge that the question is under consideration by the board of transport commissioners, Mr. Speaker. The only information I have had on the subject are the newspaper stories that appeared last night and again this morning about which the hon. member for Assiniboia and Moose Mountain have communicated with me. I can only say I am unaware of the matter and I shall have to make inquiries.
(Translation) :



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage). For the past year his department has been publishing an inter-

Inquiries of the Ministry esting periodical called Indian News. Would the minister tell me whether he intends to have it published in French?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter raised by my learned colleague.
[Later:!


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) may I call his attention to the fact that the publication to which he refers, Indian News, is issued by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
(Text):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: In the light of the answer given by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regarding his publication called Indian News. Is it the intention of the minister to have this published also in French?
(Translation) :


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: That is a good lesson. (Text):



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Can the Secretary of State inform the house as to the reason for the long delay in bringing down an order for return passed on March 10 regarding ministers' travelling expenses?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of Stale):: This return, Mr. Speaker, calls for more information than the hon. member may think. It is expected it will be tabled early next week.


William McLean Hamilton: That is why I asked for it.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


George Carlyle Marler: the third reading of Bill No. 351, respecting Canadian National Railways.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, there is no occasion on the third reading to repeat the legal arguments which have been made in regard to section 27 of this bill. It is sufficient to re-emphasize that there is a wide difference of opinion as to the effect of section 27.
Perhaps it is sufficient to say that legal experts, whose field is directly related to this subject, have expressed the opinion that section 27 has the effect of completely reversing the application of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, in so far as the Canadian National Railways would be concerned if this section passes. I have conceded already, and I concede now, that legal arguments in regard to the application of a section of this kind are ultimately determined only by the courts. I do recognize that the minister has himself accepted the proposition that it is never safe to say with complete finality that a section of any act produces one result or another. There are too many decisions in our own courts and in the privy council which have upset emphatic declarations of that kind for anyone to be completely confident that his own interpretation must be the final and correct one.
Nevertheless there has been uncertainty. My own opinion is very definite that section 27 is both improper from the point of view of its legal application, and completely unnecessary. I do believe it is proper to point out again on the motion for third reading of the bill, which is for the purpose of consolidating a great many provisions relating to the Canadian National Railways, and which have nothing whatever to do with the purpose of this section, that there are other legal provisions which give the Canadian National Railways all the power it needs to operate motor vehicles of any kind.
I would point out again that the subsidiary company of the Canadian National Railways, set up for the purpose of operating motor vehicles, has, under its charter granted under the company laws of Canada, just as wide powers as has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or any other railway company in Canada to operate motor vehicles.
I submit at this stage that there has not been one word which really justifies this addition under an act which is primarily for the purpose of consolidating general provisions of the Canadian National Railways Act. In fact, this section is an orphan among the general sections which are being consolidated. We agree entirely with the purpose of consolidation. We agree entirely with simplification of the numerous acts which are brought

together in this way. But section 27 is something new; it is outside the scope of these other sections. I repeat that section 27 is unnecessary.
Either there is some purpose not yet disclosed to this house for which section 27 is being introduced, or it has no weight at all. The subsidiary company has all the powers needed, and the Canadian National Railways now operate motor vehicles with the name "Canadian National Railways" on them. They are free to operate those vehicles in any way that might be desired, within any declarations made by the minister. I submit therefore that this section should not be included in this general consolidating act.
There is another point. Just over a year ago, at the time that the privy council had decided that all control over motor vehicle transport between provinces came exclusively under federal jurisdiction, this government invited representatives of the provincial governments to come to Ottawa to discuss that subject. Contrary to the decision which they had sought and had obtained from the privy council, they then invited the provinces to take full jurisdiction over the operation and supervision of motor vehicle transport of this kind. Since that was done a year ago, after the decision of the privy council, I submit it is appropriate, proper and in keeping with the right kind of relationship between this government and the governments of the provinces that the representatives of the provinces should now be invited here to discuss this and to indicate their opinions in regard to the application of section 27. Already statements have been made publicly that this section is questioned. All hon. members must be aware of it. That being so, it would avoid future disputes, future questioning and any uncertainty about the willingness of this government to abide by its implied undertakings to the provinces, if this section stands. If it does stand, no operation of the Canadian National Railways will be held back in any way. The consolidating section goes forward.
There is no appropriate resolution that can be introduced that would call for the government to invite the provinces. I am going to introduce a motion which will not have the effect of holding up the legislation, but it will ask that the bill go back to the committee of the whole house with the specific instructions that section 27 be deleted. Then the government could invite the provinces to have their appropriate legal representatives meet here to discuss the effect of the section, and if they saw fit they could then introduce this section separately later on in this session, if they thought it was 50433-311J
Canadian National Railways important, and have it dealt with in the light of the discussions which have taken place.
I would point out there is a special reason why there need be no delay. The representatives of the provincial governments are meeting here on Monday. It would be very easy for a telegram to go out this morning to all the provincial governments suggesting that they bring a legal adviser with them qualified to deal with this particular subject, if those who are coming here feel that they need any additional staff to deal with the question raised.
My motion is for the purpose of seeking the deletion of section 27, not to hold up the act. I recognize that I cannot make a motion which would give that specific instruction, but I want it clearly understood that along with the deletion of the section because of its legal application-that is, in my opinion and in the opinion of certain others-I also am making my motion with the express request that if it were accepted and, might I add, even if it is not accepted, the government immediately invite the provincial governments to bring any legal officials or other ministers they regard as appropriate to the meeting on Monday to have a separate meeting in some other room that could discuss this very subject while the other important subjects are under discussion on Monday and succeeding days that have already been announced.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green):
That Bill No. 351 be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to amend the said bill by striking out section 27 thereof.


George Carlyle Marler: I shall be very few minutes. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, it should be perfectly clear to hon. members that the points which have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition are in fact without foundation. It seems to me the first point is that the C.N.R. can exercise all of the powers that are contemplated by section 27 because it has a subsidiary with extensive powers with regard to transportation, and therefore by means of this subsidiary can exercise powers with regard to bus transport or highway transport.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, just so that the context may be clear, may I say that what I said was that they can exercise all the powers they require unless there is some purpose which has not yet been disclosed to this house.
4920	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways


George Carlyle Marler: In fact I think that that is the fourth time that the-


George Alexander Drew: Obviously it needs to be
repeated.


George Carlyle Marler: I think that is the fourth time the Leader of the Opposition has spoken of this bill as having an undisclosed purpose. All I can say is, and I say it for the fourth time following the example of the Leader of the Opposition, that there is no undisclosed purpose concerning clause 27 of the bill. I have said on four occasions-this will perhaps be the fifth-that the purpose of clause 27 is to enable the railway company itself, the parent company, and every railway company comprised in the national company, to exercise the power necessary to carry on delivery and pick-up services in the metropolitan centres, and to carry on bus or transport services in substitution for rail lines which are abandoned.
There is no undisclosed purpose. I think I have made that point abundantly clear on each occasion on which I have spoken in connection with this bill. It is not sufficient merely to say that Canadian National Railways may exercise these powers through its subsidiaries. I explained, I think on second reading, that particularly in the case of rail line abandonments it was the wish of the national company itself that it be in a position to operate bus and transport services where it is necessary to abandon rail lines, and to be in a position in proceedings before the board of transport commissioners to give in the name of the national company an undertaking to operate such services in lieu of rail lines being abandoned.
The second point is the concern which has been expressed by the Leader of the Opposition as to whether the Motor Vehicle Transport Act is going to be applicable to operations carried on by the national company or any other railway company forming part of the national company pursuant to clause 27 of the bill. It seems to me that the situation is perfectly clear. If the operations carried out are carried out wholly within the limits of a province, then it seems to me there is no doubt that the operations would be a local work or undertaking which under section 92 of the British North America Act, clause 10, falls within the limit of the legislative power of the provinces.
There is of course the exception contained in paragraph (a) of clause 10 of the section which speaks of interprovincial works, and I shall come to that in a moment. Then there is also the exception contained in paragraph (c), where works which are local and which are declared to be for the general advantage


of Canada would not fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces but would be under the jurisdiction of parliament. With respect to the exception in paragraph (c), I can only say that clause 18 of the bill makes it expressly and explicitly clear that any operations carried out under clause 27 would not be for the general advantage of Canada. It seems to me that it is abundantly clear that operations which are carried out wholly within a province therefore do not fall under paragraph (c), and if they are wholly within the limits of a province they must necessarily fall within provincial jurisdiction under section 92 of the British North America Act.
There remain the interprovincial operations which may be carried out by the C.N.R. under clause 27. I think it is perfectly clear that whether they be carried out by the C.N.R., by another railway company or by a company entirely outside the provisions of the bill, if they are interprovincial operations they will be subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.
Therefore the situation is this: Either the operation must be under provincial jurisdiction because it is carried out wholly within the province, or it must be interprovincial because it is carried out between points in two different provinces, in which case it would be subject to the jurisdiction which the provinces now have under the terms of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of referring the bill to the committee of the whole in order to delete clause 27 obviously fails. We have at all times said that we wished the operations under clause 27 to be carried out subject to the rights of the provinces and subject to their jurisdiction. It seems to me that we are effecting that under clauses 18 and 27 of the bill, and that no conference could add further to the bill or make it clearer that the rights of the provinces are being safeguarded in every respect.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, replying to the motion I have made-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no right of reply in this case. See standing order 43. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has already spoken, both to the main motion and to the amendment.


George Alexander Drew: Very well.


Mr. Slanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: 
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker has overlooked the possibility that a matter can be the subject of federal jurisdiction for other reasons than being declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. That is the point which the lawyers perceive and which perhaps some other members of the house have not noticed. It is a very simple matter to resolve the question. If, as the minister says, clause 27 is intended to be subject to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act in so far as interprovincial traffic is concerned, the simple addition of those words to the section would solve the whole matter and make it unnecessary to go to the courts after the bill has been passed.


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I understand thoroughly the minister's stand in trying to get the parent company in the position where it can carry on these services. On the other hand, I can readily understand that there is a possibility of the carrying on of these bus and trucking services being ruled by the courts to be part of the operations of the railway system and therefore works for the general advantage of Canada coming under clause 18. To my mind that is the only point in the debate, and in this case I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has a point. I believe the possibility is there as long as the legislation remains in its present form. In the committee I inquired of the minister what effect anything that had been said in the committee or in the house would have on any court action, and he assured me it would be a matter of interest but that was about as far as it would go.
That leads me to believe that what is said here in the house is of no effect and that it is what is written in the act that counts. That being the case, we must be ready to look at all sides of the question and be absolutely sure in our own minds that if the legislation should be tested in the courts the result will not be contrary to what we in the committee are trying to get across. In that sense I feel that we must support the amendment.


Mr. Goode:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with .the hon. member for New Westminster.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
236. 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 $175,000,000, 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 $4,269,726,540 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $2,443,441,346 will come due for payment in future years), $1,729,285,194.


Mr. Hees:: I should like to hear the minister express his views on the very excellent suggestions presented to the house yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich as to the need for Canada's armed forces to be completely airborne. As they so clearly explained to the house, this is the only kind of force which would be capable of protecting Canada against the only kind of attack which could possibly be effective against this country, namely an airborne attack against our airfields or our key installations. To meet this kind of attack, troops would have to be moved to a danger area far more quickly than would be possible by conventional methods of transportation; and this makes our present formations which are not airborne, and which comprise the great majority of our army formations in Canada today, ineffective to defend this country against the kind of attack we could expect. In addition, as the Leader of the Opposition said, an airborne force of this kind would be the best possible kind of contribution we could make to our NATO allies.
What was suggested yesterday was that our forces should be made up of air-army combat teams, capable of moving on very short notice to any part of Canada to protect airfields and other key installations against apprehended attack, or to re-take those installations after attack has taken place.

The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich !Mr. Pearkes) described very correctly the kind of force we would need, as a fire brigade. I think that fits the description aptly, because an attack on Canada would be a very fast strike, and would require the kind of remedial treatment that a fire brigade applies to a fire-the ability to move immediately, and to go into action immediately upon arriving at the scene. I believe the establishment of men and equipment which would be necessary for these combat teams would have to be worked out carefully to obtain the best possible mobility and striking power.
Yesterday the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) very aptly suggested that we would need a great many more transport planes than are available today, or would be available under ordinary military planning. He suggested we should follow the procedure adopted in the United States, that of building many transport planes and leasing them out to air transport companies, with the understanding that they would be returned to the government in case of attack, and could be used to transport troops.
I believe these combat teams could be based upon a combination of an air transport wing, and an airborne battalion, together with the required supporting arms. I do not believe it is good enough simply to have airborne battalions capable of being transported by air, because in the kind of defence we will need here, the effectiveness of any defence force would depend upon the speed with which the force could be delivered to the required area. If there was the necessity to wait until the troops and their transport were linked together, after an alarm had been given, the purpose of the attack would have been achieved long before troops could arrive on the scene of action.
In order to ensure that we have the maximum speed of movement and effectiveness of action, I think we must work out a very high order of teamwork between the air force and the army well in advance of the time these components would be needed to work together. The time to start planning and working is right now. This kind of team work, which was worked out so effectively among the ground forces of the last war, at which time there were combat teams made up of components of armour and infantry working together, can only be accomplished if the air-army components train together constantly, work together, get to know each other, and almost live together. One could not expect that kind of teamwork if the air-army components were simply thrown together at the time they might be needed to repel an attack.
Supply-National Defence
These combat teams would not require the same kind of supporting arms as conventional formations do today. For instance, I believe that the artillery support which a force of this kind would receive would be provided by bombers and mortars, both heavy and light, in place of the conventional artillery pieces. Perhaps it might be found desirable to include a light tank in each of these combat teams, or perhaps light tanks. And of course supplies would be delivered by air instead of by conventional methods. If we go in for an airborne army, such as was suggested yesterday as being the most effective, we must reassess the needs of Canada and the needs of our armed forces, both as to manpower and equipment.
We have also to start thinking in terms of the air force and the army training together as combat teams, rather than as two separate services. Indeed, the government seemed to be on the way to working out this kind of operation between the air force and the army when it established three airborne battalions some time ago. The plan seems suddenly to have been laid aside, and I would be interested in hearing the minister tell us later why this has happened.
Another point I should like to discuss is the abrupt and premature termination of the services of the army chief of staff, General Simonds. In taking the action it did take, the government is, in effect, saying that General Simonds, at the very early age of 52 years, can give no further usefulness to our armed forces. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the age of 52 is very young indeed for the retirement of a top executive-and the chief of staff in the army is just exactly that: a top executive. He works with his brains, not with his muscle.
I think it is important to remember that after the chief of staff has been retired for eight years, and has been drawing government pension for that length of time, he will then, and only then, be exactly the same age as the present Prime Minister when he decided to embark upon his present career in the service of his country. That was 13 years ago. I think the minister, and all hon. members, would agree that the Prime Minister is still pretty effective. And to consider that the army chief of staff, General Simonds, is ineffective at an age 21 years younger than the present Prime Minister, is, I suggest, somewhat ridiculous.
If General Simonds were just an ordinary soldier, his retirement might be understandable. But in my opinion he is the most outstanding soldier Canada has produced in many a long year. Those who had the privilege of serving under him during the last

Supply-National Defence war knew him as a brilliant strategist; and there is no one better able to judge the ability of a commander than the troops who serve under him, and who have to take the rap if he makes a mistake. In General Simonds, the troops who served with him felt that they were serving under a man whose judgment could be relied upon. When they went into battle following a plan he had devised, they felt they had the best chance of winning, and of survival. And that is very important to troops entering a campaign. It does much for their morale, as well as for the effectiveness of the force concerned.
General Simonds plan for the break-out from Caen to Falaise is conceded to be one of the most brilliant operations in the last war. To discharge this man of such ability at the age of 52 is, I suggest, an inexcusable waste of military ability, a waste of the kind of military ability our forces need today. General Simonds is, and always has been, a soldiers' general. I believe that he is far more capable than any other soldier in Canada today of leading Canadian forces into battle. His ability to prepare these forces for battle would be invaluable to this country for a number of years to come. I do say it is extremely regrettable that his services are to be completely discontinued from August 31. His services are being dispensed with because he simply refused to become a politicians' general and be willing to be a rubber stamp for the government's views in opposition to what he considers, from his very great experience, to be right. For that reason he has been cast aside at a time when his knowledge and his ability are at their very peak.
Another thing I want to speak about very briefly is the deplorable state of our civil defence. You have only to read the papers of the last few days to realize just how deplorable is the state of our civil defence, and also to know how seriously the United States takes this whole matter. We have all been very impressed by the civil defence operation carried out in the United States during the past three days. As hon. members know, the President, his cabinet, chiefs of staff, and all key personnel, were whisked away to some secret headquarters after the alarm had been given on Tuesday, and for the past three days they have conducted the affairs of that country just as though an atomic attack had taken place.
The President of the United States, his cabinet, the chiefs of staff, key officials and the people generally do not like to be moved about the country any more than anybody else does; but if they take this thing that
[Mr. Hees.l

seriously, it is important that we should consider doing exactly the same thing.
The President, by his action and by the serious way in which he has acted in this whole matter, is giving leadership in civil defence in the United States, and by this exercise that has taken place over the last three days, has demonstrated to the people of the United States that civil defence is an important defensive measure and one which must be taken seriously. If we followed that same principle here in Canada, people would stop taking civil defence as a joke, as they do today, and would start preparing under government leadership a proper plan to be used in case of an attack.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I realize that civil defence has been mentioned and discussed by previous speakers in this debate, but they have all quite noticeably connected civil defence with the possible parts of the armed services in civil defence, and I am going to ask the hon. member who has the floor to do so now because, except in so far as the part of the defence forces in civil defence is concerned, it would not be right for any reply to be made to criticisms which opposition members may feel justified in bringing up. In other words, what I cannot permit at this time would be a debate between critics and the minister responsible for civil defence when we are really discussing the estimates of the minister responsible for national defence. I think the hon. member for Broadview will appreciate the difference.


George Harris Hees: I had just about finished. If I may conclude my remarks, I would urge the government to take this matter as seriously as the United States government obviously does.


Mr. Martin:: In view of the fact that the hon. member does not want to obey your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I want him to know that the government does take this matter seriously, and so do the 10 provincial governments.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, since the minister has interrupted, may I ask him what is the explanation-
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. That is exactly what I do not propose to permit being asked or answered at this time. As hon. members know, there will be ample opportunity to discuss civil defence on the estimates of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for it. If any hon. member wishes to suggest, criticize or discuss the part which is being taken or should be taken by the armed services, for whom the Minister of National Defence is responsible, in connection with civil defence, he will of

course be in order; but the attitude of the government toward civil defence and the organization of civil defence generally, unfortunately perhaps for the continuity of the debate, cannot be discussed on these estimates.


George Harris Hees: Might I urge the Minister of National Defence to do all he possibly can to get civil defence back under his department where I believe it belongs. Perhaps we might then have leadership instead of the shocking lack of leadership we have had over the past five years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: After the observation of my hon. friend, may I congratulate him on his 45th birthday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We hope he will soon reach maturity.


George Harris Hees: Well, what do you know?


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: You have come out of your short pants, then.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, if the mature members of the house would care to come back to their onions, I should like to get back to the question of defence estimates. Perhaps they are the most difficult of all estimates for hon. members to discuss, for two reasons of course. One is the heavy veil of secrecy that is thrown over the details of defence expenditures, a veil of secrecy that is excused on the ground of national security. Perhaps one might question at times the validity of that veil of secrecy when he contrasts it with the habits of every other government. However, there is of course a certain measure of secrecy that has to be imposed. Perhaps more important, hon. members are inhibited from discussing these estimates because of a feeling of, shall we say, incapacity, lack of technical knowledge with regard to those expenditures. But it does not excuse hon. members from their responsibilities. That is the trouble. We have to assume responsibility for those expenditures, and when they are of the colossal size of our present defence expenditures, then we have to do our best to discuss the nature of those disbursements.
Perhaps the first thing we have to get straight in our minds is just what we have in mind with regard to defence. It is a very wide and embracing term, and it sometimes creates in people's minds pictures that are not in accord with reality. If we were to decide where and in what form a possible attack on Canada might take place, then I think we have to eliminate from our thinking certain alleged possibilities.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich was very sound in his suggestion that
Supply-National Defence in the final analysis the task of Canadian defence is defence against aerial attack over the north pole. We have to discard from any realistic thinking any possibility of an attack by ground forces on the area of Canada either by air or by sea. Anyone who has any knowledge of the terrain of the outlying parts of this country will realize that such an attempt would be worthless and useless and is not likely to be part of any aggressive plans which may be launched against Canada.
There is another thing we have to consider, namely, that any attack on Canada will be in essence part of an attack on the United States. I think we can accept that as virtually a fact; that an attack on Canada will be part of an attack on the United States. All of us have very clearly in our minds just what the nature of that attack might be. It would be an aerial attack on our industrial centres from the Arctic regions. We would have to discount the suggestion made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition of the possibility of airborne attack, for instance, on our uranium mines. I doubt whether that is a feasible possibility for an aggressor. I cannot see exactly what they would gain by such an attempt. Of course, the obvious suggestion is they would seize our sources of uranium; but of course they would be seizing the sources of supplies that would have to be used some considerable time in the future and would not in any way cripple, if that was their intent, the capacity of the United States and Canada at that immediate time. It seems to me that any sudden airborne attack would be merely part of a major aerial attack designed to destroy our existing industrial centres.
The next thing we have to consider is how well equipped we are to provide a defence against such an aerial attack. In the first place we have to examine the various types of military organizations which we have for that purpose. I am quite sure that the minister will agree with me when I suggest that ground forces of the army are of little consequence as defence from aerial attack. I notice that the Canadian Army Journal contains an article by the director of artillery at army headquarters here in Ottawa which has considerable bearing on this matter. I was interested in the comments made as to the limitations of conventional artillery. With regard to anti-aircraft guns he had this to say:
At a range of five miles, a fast plane will fly over two miles after the shell leaves the gun and before it arrives at the plane. Even if the aircraft does not deliberately change direction, very few pilots are sufficiently skilful to fly that distance accurately enough to be hit by a perfectly aimed shell.
4926	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence Rather a sardonic way of placing the problem before us.
Therefore except at short times of projectile flight, predicted fire weapons do not provide a truly effective anti-aircraft defence against modern high-speed aircraft.
There are guided missiles in production now that can effectively engage manoeuvring, high-speed targets at far greater heights and ranges than conventional guns. They possess the capability of out-manoeuvring any planes that may be constructed.
That would seem to me to indicate that our conventional anti-aircraft defence would be of no particular value. I think we can wipe out the army on that score, with regard to that part of our defence. 1 imagine that the same argument applies to the navy. I do not think anyone will suggest that we could send an aircraft carrier to Baffin Land during the few weeks when the water would be navigable to shoot down approaching aircraft.
More serious are the statements by some outstanding military experts of the world which present us with a rather grim picture, one that apparently we are not yet ready to accept. I should like to quote from a speech made by Field Marshal Montgomery before the California Institute of Technology in November last year when he said:
There is at the present time no sure defence against the aeroplane or ballistic rocket. Indeed, so far as we can see today, trying to get a secure defence against air attack is rather like trying to keep the tide back on the seashore with a picket fence.
In addition to Field Marshal Montgomery we had a statement early this year by the famous Captain Liddell Hart, who has been military adviser to successive governments of Britain. He had this to say in January of this year:
Big savings could be made in ordinary bomber forces, navies and air defence, since none is capable of preventing "a catastrophic penetration by 'hydrogen bombers' or bombardment by atomic missiles."
Last year Sir John Slessor, chief of the air staff of Great Britain, gave two addresses over the B.B.C. which were later reported in the Listener, the organ of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Sir John pointed out that today it is not a question of stopping a percentage of attacking aircraft and wearing down the enemy by that means. He points out that because of the nature of modern bombs we would have to have virtually 100 per cent defence to have any effective defence at all.
I suggest that that presents us with a rather grim picture of the possibilities of defending our territory. We should not delude ourselves that we have any defence or 


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I have just arrived at the appropriate moment, as I had been detained in my office, but I am very glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on these estimates.
I must say we listened with a great deal of interest yesterday to the remarks of the Minister of National Defence, and I wish to inform him that all members of this group are fully aware of the heavy responsibility 

he has to bear in the direction of this very important and key department. We express the hope that his ability, his understanding of parliament and his understanding of the people and what they are thinking and saying will soon reflect upon the administration of his department. In view of recent events and decisions on the part of the minister, we in this group have high hopes that the musty corridors of the defence headquarters are now being ventilated with the winds of realism.


Mr. Brooks:: What a flight of fancy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The whole house listened with a great deal of attention, Mr. Chairman, to what we considered a statesmanlike speech by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. I thought he gave a very complete outline of the situation and most constructive criticisms. We also listened with a great deal of interest to the presentation on behalf of this group by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. I hope the minister will give serious consideration to the constructive criticisms made by both these gentlemen.
It is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to deal with the development of weapons and their use. I am a complete novice in that respect. The only weapons I am acquainted with, and have been over a very long period of years, are the mattock, the axe, the shovel and things of that sort, weapons with which you attack nature rather than human nature.
I am willing to leave the discussion of such questions to those who have knowledge in that field.
However, I wish to deal with two or three subjects which are directly related to the administration of the Department of National Defence and are of serious concern to many members of the house. Members do not express all their opinions in the house, but we have the opportunity to discuss matters with members of other parties, including members of the minister's party, and we know that many of them are quite as concerned about the matters I shall raise as are members of the opposition.
The first matter I want to deal with briefly is the necessity of maintaining the supremacy of parliament when it comes to the administration of the Department of National Defence. The second is our vigorous opposition, and I think I can include in that many members of the house, to any waste or unnecessary spending in the Department of National Defence. The third question-and I have had conversations about it with members

of all parties-is that we should make certain that justice is administered to all ranks in our armed forces regardless of their rank, background or prestige.
Before proceeding to deal with these three texts, which are the subject of my few humble remarks this morning, I want to pay tribute and give credit to the officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of all three services and of the reserve forces who take their duties seriously and are playing an essential role in the defence of this country by giving their time and services for this purpose without any hope of receiving the feudal rewards that can result from a class and caste system.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, my first text is that the supremacy of parliament must be maintained. When dealing with this question, and particularly with matters relating to the army, I always have in mind the remarks of the late president Clemenceau of France who said on one occasion that war is too important a matter to be left in the hands of generals and admirals. I have remembered that remark throughout the years because I think it is a very great truth, and that is why we are so keen on the supremacy of parliament. In addition, it is possible that I am a little bit prejudiced as far as generals are concerned. I am not referring to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, for whom I have the greatest respect, and I am sure he will support many of my remarks. However, I may be a little prejudiced because of one or two unfortunate experiences I have had with generals in my brief military career.
I shall never forget-and I am quite sure the minister will know the person to whom I am referring-having to take part in a series of very heavy infantry attacks in the battle of the Somme in 1916 and, in the latter part of November, in snowy and bitterly cold weather, being fortified prior to the attack commencing with a ration of cold pea soup as the result of what most of us considered to be the pigheadedness of the general commanding our brigade who insisted that there was much more inspiration in cold pea soup prior to an attack than in the normal stimulant given to men who are facing rather unpleasant circumstances.


Mr. MacDougall:: Would that be the Christian general?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not going to mention
any names. He was a very good general in many respects, but we did feel put out about the pea soup.
Supply-National Defence Mr. Philpott:	Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Mr. Philpoit:: Perhaps the general was
getting you in a properly indignant frame of mind for the attack.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Possibly, but we were so
indignant we very nearly marched backward. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the minister's actions in recent days and his statements indicate that he is not going to be the parliamentary apologist for the blunders and indiscretions of the senior officers.
I have heard quite favourable comment on the minister's administration to date not only in the house but through having received short comments in letters. I have the honour and the pleasure of representing a most intelligent electorate who read Hansard and the newspapers and who, in writing to me, frequently make comments on current happenings in parliament. I have had several favourable comments concerning the minister's administration to date.
But in dealing with this question I do wish to refer briefly to several public statements made by senior officers prior to recent days which in my opinion indicate their lack of understanding-I hope their understanding has been developed as the result of events- of the fact that in a democracy parliament is supreme and only the government makes and announces policy. In that connection I want to remind members of the discussion of the Currie report and the consideration of that report by the committee on defence expenditure. I think all hon. members will recall that at that time General Guy Simonds published an article in the Canadian Army Journal of December, 1952, in which he said: In recent weeks and months the army has been the target of unremitting attacks from many sources.
The sources he was indicating are quite obvious.
We have been criticized for the indiscipline of Canadian soldiers. We have been criticized for too much discipline. We have been criticized for extravagance and criticized for not providing a whole host of things which cost a very great deal of money. We have been criticized for lack of morale and accused of complacency and arrogance when we have shown or proclaimed a pride in the Canadian army.
The general went on to say:
The Canadian army today is certainly not perfect and in several respects falls far short of the standards which I hope and believe we can attain. I have made our policies and objectives abundantly clear to general officers of commands and to commanders abroad.
Then he continued further:
Anyway, there were quite a number of people at that time who thought it was most improper for the

Supply-National Defence chief of the general staff to write an article which clearly implied a criticism of the persons who were criticizing a section of the administration of the Department of National Defence, and that criticism of course was largely concentrated in parliament and was coming from members of parliament.
I see that according to the Montreal Gazette, of Tuesday, January 18, the general made a speech. I might say this would not be tolerated in Great Britain for one moment. They have a very strong tradition in that respect. In any event, the general is speaking in Montreal and according to the Gazette he said:
"I would like to see every young man in Canada given two years military training." Lt.-Gen. Guy G. Simonds, chief of the general staff of the Canadian army, yesterday told the Canadian Club of Montreal.
"I have spent all my life in the army or in association with the army", General Simonds declared, "and I have yet to meet a man the worse for that association. A system of compulsory military training would be good for the boy, for the army and for the country."
Now, it is quite right for General Simonds to have these opinions, but it is quite improper for him to deal with the matter in a public address. It is definitely a matter of government policy and a matter of considerable debate and discussion in this country and upon which there is some cleavage of opinion.
Then, I see that according to the Gazette of the same date, General Simonds said:
"In any future war, however," General Simonds declared, "the United States will be in it from the beginning and will make a heavy demand on Atlantic communications. In two world wars, Canada was in for two years before the United States and had Atlantic communications almost to herself."
"The next	time we	will	be much	more restricted," he	said. "It	will	no longer	be	usefulto send men	to Europe for	training. Our	troops
must be ready for battle when they leave."
General Simonds also said the army must be expanded by echelons to keep training at the highest possible level.	In	this way	the	acute
problem of accommodation in Canada can be met.
There again is a speech which gets very close to the field of policy.
There is an article in the Montreal Gazette of January 24 and I strongly suspect this was written by Mr. Blakely, who has no love for the ideas of the members of this group. I may say, therefore, I shall read it with greater relish.
Report is that Lt.-Gen. Guy Simonds, chief of the general staff, has been quietly cautioned to leave controversial defence policy references out of his public orations. Reason is his recent Montreal speech suggesting that it was high time Canada embarked on a policy of compulsory military service. The government defended the reference in public as having been a vague and harmless generality, but is anxious, it is said, to avoid a repetition. Parliaments are traditionally sensitive when military leaders enter the policy field. M.P.'s who agree with General Simonds' views on conscription are among those most critical of his public plunge into the controversy.
[Mr. Herridge.l

I think in that respect the writer of the article was quite correct.
Then, in the Toronto Daily Star of Friday, June 3, we have a report of the unfortunate and inappropriate remarks of Air Vice Marshal Plant. We are very pleased to know the result of those remarks. It is the first time since I have been a member of this house, the first time in a good many years, a senior officer who had made inappropriate and * improper remarks was promptly dealt with. We congratulate the minister on his effective and prompt action in that respect. In that connection, I just want to urge upon the minister that he continue his good work in maintaining the supremacy of parliament so far as his department is concerned. He has made a very good start indeed. Now, I return to my text. One of my grandfathers was a Methodist minister and the other one was an Anglican lay reader, and it is for that reason, I presume, I am inclined to speak from a text on occasion.
Now, my next text-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You know what real ministers do with texts.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -concerns our position with regard to waste and needless spending in the Department of National Defence.
According to the newspapers I have read and public speeches by various people, General Simonds is given credit for three major accomplishments. The first is the present army form of organization, the army we have today; second, the organization of the Regiment of Canadian Guards; and third, the consummation of the small-bore arms agreement. I want to deal with those three accomplishments briefly.
In so far as the general's accomplishment in designing and organizing our present army is concerned, I cannot do better than quote the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. In his very interesting speech yesterday he had these comments to make. He said that Canada was maintaining yesterday's army to fight tomorrow's war. Then again I notice the hon. member, as an old army man himself, said that the army which regarded itself as time-honoured was really timeworn. He said that the army of today had changed very little from the army that fought on the Somme more than 35 years ago. I was under the same impression when I had a look at the weapons on display in the front of these buildings the other day, with the exception of the guided missile which I am told confidentially was a dummy made of wood.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich goes on to say that the whole army should

be an airborne army. Well, I do not know how this Regiment of Canadian Guards will do their goose step when they get into aeroplanes. Then he went on to say that this army was entirely unrealistic and there had been an entirely new concept of the army formation and role. I should say that I cannot quote any better authority than the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Except yourself.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, I certainly regard the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, as a result of his experience and his mellowing experience in the House of Commons, which does have a beneficial effect on generals, as a good authority. In any event, I think it is safe to conclude from the observations made by the hon. member that our army organization is completely obsolete and as a result in recent years a great deal of the taxpayer's money has been wasted. That is the first accomplishment of General Simonds, the organization of an obsolete army which even the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich indicates should be reorganized on completely different lines.
I now turn to a favourite topic of some members in this house, some members of the armed forces, a good many members of the Canadian Legion and a good many people in this country, and that is the organization of the Regiment of Canadian Guards. The organization of this regiment has been criticized in the House of Commons, criticized in officers' messes, in military formations throughout this country, criticized in the Canadian Legion and criticized in public places everywhere. According to General Simonds there were two reasons for forming this regiment. The first was to give Canada a truly national regiment, as our other regiments had somewhat parochial connections. Well, their parochial connections did not prevent them from bringing credit to themselves when they were serving overseas in the defence of this country. The second reason was to glorify and glamourize the plain foot-slogging infantry. According to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, we do not want any foot-slogging infantry. We are going to have them riding around in aeroplanes. I do not believe, therefore, the arguments in favour of the formation of this regiment are very sound.
I was rather intrigued by an advertisement published by the Department of National Defence in an effort to secure recruits for the Regiment of Canadian Guards. I have some interest in this question because during a short period in the first world war I was attached to the guards, but I jolly well asked
Supply-National Defence to get back to my own unit as soon as possible. The advertisement reads as follows: Applications now being accepted for the new Regiment of Canadian Guards. Second to none on the parade square.
That is the place to which most of our generals relate their activities, the parade square.
Incorporating the colour and smartness of military tradition at its finest, the Canadian Guards ranks first among the army's regular infantry regiments.
Ranks first! Why, it was formed in 1953 and has fought a defensive rearguard action ever since.
Right now there is a requirement for young men who would like to share in the colourful dress and ceremonial activities of the new Canadian Guards.
Do you think the taxpayers of this country can afford to pay for the luxury of maintaining a regiment the principal purpose of which is colourful dress and ceremonial activities? Can we afford this, when already we have two regiments of guards in this country who have been active and performed many battle duties?
What do they do? Well, I will tell you what they are doing: They are trying to ape the British Brigade of Guards at Peta-wawa and that does not go down with Canadian society. If you go out to the parade ground you will find that their steps are being timed with a metronome and measured by a pace-stick so that they will maintain the exact distance of pace and number of paces per minute that is traditional with the number of paces per minute and the length of pace of the brigade of guards in Great Britain. I am just wondering how much this drill will assist in the defence of Canada.
Now, in our opinion, in the opinion of members of this group-and in this I am speaking for this group or, shall I say, on this occasion I am supported by members of this group-we find in this instance a return to the feudal conception. Do we want the glamour of uniforms and all that sort of thing, coupled with ceremonial drill? We suggest you would do better to leave that sort of thing to Hollywood. It is done better there, and people will pay to see it, but it is entirely out of place in the Canadian democracy.
We maintain, first, that it is a reflection on regiments in Canada which have rendered long service at home and abroad. It has caused a great deal of unnecessary friction in that respect. Second, it is a complete waste of public funds, as it serves no useful purpose in the defence of this country. And our feelings in this respect are heartened

Supply*-National Defence by the comments yesterday of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. Third, it is the breeding ground of class distinction, a military class system and snobbery. And we do not want any of these things in this country, in a Canadian democracy. Further, it is a complete waste of splendid Canadian manpower and material resources.
In the opinion of members of this group, ours should be a citizens' defence force, one composed of citizens who have offered their services to defend Canada on sea, land and in the air, without any thought of feudal rewards that are indicated in class distinction, in rank or in preference of position. Therefore we urge the minister to stop this waste of public funds. Listen to the plea of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich for reorganization, and in addition disband this unnecessary, inappropriate and most unpopular Regiment of Canadian Guards.
The third major accomplishment of General Simonds was the consummation of the smallbore arms agreement which, I understand, is to cost Canada, in the tooling process and purchasing of rifles, about $100 million. I suppose it is correct to say that there is a necessity for some small arms at this time. But I am wondering how essential a part small arms will play in an effective defence of this country.
Anyway, those are the three accomplishments of the chief of general staff. I want to be fair about General Simonds, because he is a man with a distinguished military record. But so often you find men who are successful under war conditions cannot become adjusted to civilian conditions, or those of peacetime. I think his opinion is rather well summed up by Mr. Austin Cross in the Financial Times of June 17. Let me say quite frankly I do not agree with Mr. Cross fully. In fact, about three issues ago he made some very caustic comments about me, all of which I take in my stride. But I understand that his whole family has a Liberal black-ground-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Blackgroumd" is right.


John Lorne MacDougall: What about your own "blackground"?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: However, he does write some rather pungent and caustic comments in the issue I have before me. I have heard these comments repeated almost verbatim by a good many other pressmen. I find the Department of National Defence is not any too popular with the gentlemen of the fourth estate. I think they have been a bit snubbed on occasion.

Anyway, Mr. Austin Cross has been snubbed and he takes it out in this article. He sums up his opinion when he says this:
Well, that's the end of gabby guys on parliament hill. The bouncing of chief of staff Guy Simonds sees the end of a gallant soldier but an insufferable civil servant. Surly, irascible, non-cooperative, I was glad I was able to duck anything to do with this fighting cock. Simonds retired after a period I regard as hopeless.
A brave man, he had no idea of how to get along with people. I would have written him off as a total loss were it not for my friend Leslie Mutch, the former MP, and soldier in two wars, whose opinions I value. Mutch had nothing but praise for Simonds and that to me is the only kind word I ever heard about this professional soldier.
A pro-conscriptionist; a fellow who was contemptuous of our politicians; a guy who could not care less about the taxpayers; Simonds would have made a great soldier in the German army.
He had courage, he had physique, he could do things, but in a peace loving country like Canada, he was lost.
He is succeeded by a fellow who is bound to be better, because he could hardly be worse, from my standpoint, at least. He is Major General Howard Graham, an amiable middle of the roader and a dark horse. We may perhaps return in army circles to the days when Charlie Foulkes, a gentle soul and effective soldier, was boss.
I might say General Foulkes is a very popular officer.
I have heard almost nothing of Graham but people here think he will be an excellent appointment.
However, I suppose you know why Simonds was told to move on. He too had made too much yakety-yak. Like his fellow Canadian Air Vice Marshal Plant, he was too loose with the lip on more than one occasion. Now he can fight the brave fight from our best clubs. There they can conscript to their hearts content over the whiskey and sodas, or if abstemious, over their cakes.
I do urge on behalf of this group that consideration be given to the disbanding of this Regiment of Canadian Guards, which has caused a great deal of criticism. When I say "disbanded" I do not mean a dismissal of the troops in question; they could be utilized along lines suggested by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. But let us stop all this unnecessary and wasteful expenditure which is now made for the development of ceremonial drill and glamour among the foot-slogging infantry, who are already disappearing from the scene.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Chairman, might I ask you to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day so that when you are in the chair I can ask for the indulgence of the house to make an announcement and to table a copy of an order in council?


The Chairman:: Is it agreed that I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the house to ask you to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling an order in council and making an announcement about it? The announcement is that the government-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: What I wish to announce is that the government has appointed the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects which had been forecast by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) in his budget speech in April.
The chairman of the commission is to be Mr. Walter Gordon, of Toronto; and the other members will be Mr. Omer Lussier, of Quebec; Mr. A. E. Grauer, of Vancouver; Dr. Andrew Stewart, of Edmonton; and Dr. Raymond Gushue, of St. John's, Newfoundland.
The terms of reference of the commission direct it to examine and report upon Canada's economic prospects. In particular, it is directed to study developments in the supply of basic raw materials and energy sources, prospects for growth and change in domestic and external markets, the growth in the population of Canada, trends in productivity and living standards and prospective requirements for industrial and social capital.
Mr. D. V. LePan of the Department of External Affairs has been appointed secretary of the commission and director of research for it.
I should like to table copies of the order in council made this day, which contains the appointment of the commissioners and the terms of reference.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will welcome the announcement as to the actual personnel of the commission. There are times when some people raise the suggestion that the appointment of commissions of this kind is an abridgement of the authority of parliament, but anyone who has studied the history of royal commissions of
Royal Commission on Canadian Economy this kind cannot possibly make such a statement with any expectation that it will be taken seriously.
In this particular case the chairman of the commission is a distinguished young Canadian who has won an enviable reputation for his objective approach to problems of this kind. He has in fact been called upon to perform similar services, not only for the government of Canada but for others. I am sure that he has left an impression of devotion and dedication to the task in hand which unquestionably commended him to the government in this case. The other members of the commission are men who will give broad representation of Canada.
I might simply add that in addition to the specific subjects which have been referred to by the Prime Minister-I should think the terms of reference are fully adequate for that purpose-I would hope that the commission in one branch of its inquiry would make an examination somewhat similar to that which was made in the United States as to the expected duration of the supplies of certain resources which are vital to our development. The recent findings in the United States in regard to their position in connection with resources came as a surprise to many people in that country and was something of a warning as to what can happen in regard to resources that seem to be plentiful and in no danger as to their possible continuity. I should think it would be extremely helpful if we had a clear and detailed analysis of the extent of our own resources and the expected life of those resources on the basis of any anticipated use.
I trust that this commission will lay the foundation for a fairly clear pattern in the future, but may I repeat that the findings of a commission of this kind are merely by way of assistance to those who must assume the responsibilities of government, and of course there can be no suggestion at any time that they infringe upon the full authority of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we too welcome the announcement of the appointment of this commission and we shall await with great interest the information which the report or reports of the commission will make available to parliament and to the government. We trust that that information will be used in planning for a yet greater future for this great country.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, this group welcomes the announcement that has been made. We recognize that this matter is not debatable at this time but we will
4934	HOUSE OF
Royal Commission on Canadian Economy take advantage of some future occasion to perhaps make more extended suggestions in respect to the commission. I fancy that the appropriate place would be the minister's estimates.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members who have spoken. I can assure them that in selecting the members of this commission we had very much in mind the factors to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred. We tried to get a body of commissioners who would have special qualifications to deal with the broad aspects of the problem as a national problem and also with special knowledge of the geographical regions from which they have been selected.
As one indication, Mr. Lussier may not be as well known to all members of parliament as he is to me, but I know he has been called upon to report upon all the forests under private management in the province of Quebec. For some thirty years he has been most active in exploring the resources of eastern Canada and has pursued his studies for comparative purposes into the forestry undertakings of northern Europe.
Mr. Grauer from the west coast has been a keen student of developments in that whole area, on both sides of the Rocky mountain range. I am sure that hon. members from the plains know of the high qualifications of the president of the University of Alberta, Mr. Stewart. We have had experience here with the devotion to public duty of Mr. Gushue, who is the head of the Memorial College in Newfoundland and who has, in addition to his general qualifications, a special knowledge of the importance of fisheries to the economy of the Canadian nation.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, no one need fear that there will be any undue influence exercised upon parliamentarians. There will be an objective report that parliamentarians will have to take the responsibility of using for the determination of policies that they feel best suited to encourage the continued development of this marvellously well-endowed land of the Canadian nation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the importance of this matter, I wonder if it would not be a good idea to have the order in council appear as an appendix to Hansard of today?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If that is the wish of hon. members I would be glad to suggest that permission be granted to do that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it unanimously agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of order in council above referred to, see appendix, page 4975.)

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
236. 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 $175,000,000, 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 $4,269,726,540 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $2,443,441,346 will come due for payment in future years), $1,729,285,194.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I shall continue my soliloquy on matters relating to national defence and before concluding my remarks refer to our criticisms of the policies pursued by the army. I want to say that we recognize fully the excellent service rendered this country by the chief of the general staff, General Simonds, in the second world war. No one can detract from that; but we do criticize most strongly the present army organization, particularly as evidenced concretely in the formation of the Regiment of Canadian Guards. The criticisms which we have offered have been offered in all sincerity and as representing, we are quite certain, the views of a wide section of Canadians.
I said I was going to deal with three texts today, and I have one more. The third is; we must be sure that equal justice is given to all ranks in the Canadian armed services, whether they be generals or whether they be privates. In our opinion justice in the Canadian army should reflect the principles of justice that apply to Canadians generally and there should be no distinction because of rank or background.
I am dealing with this matter because it has been brought to the attention of this group that from time to time there are prosecutions or courts-martial or court cases which occur as a result of such things as

Supply-National Defence
thefts by members of the armed forces. I Before concluding, I wish to compliment am all for punishing anyone who steals any- the senior service, the navy. I have always thing and I think we should be quite strong had a feeling of affection for the navy, since in that respect. I am afraid sometimes that some of my people were in the navy in our standards in that respect are being the old country, as they have lived up to lowered. I cannot stomach this sort of con- the traditions of the silent service by keep-duct. I sometimes meet people who say, "He ing quiet. I am sure senior officers of the is an awful rogue, but he is a very decent navy must have had quite a merry chuckle fellow when you get to know him". I cannot at the indiscretions of others and the deep understand that sort of comment. As I said water they have stepped into.
before, we support the swift punishment of anyone who commits a crime of that sort. We should not stand for any of that sort of thing in any of the public services. But we ask that the same treatment be meted out to all ranks. I think that has been done in general, but there are a few occurrences which indicate that a man's rank, position or background had some effect upon the court's decision. Quite recently-and I have not had time to pick up my newspaper clippings- there have been reports of lower ranks being punished for thefts and offences of that sort, as there were when the Currie investigation was on. As I say, that is quite correct and we support it; but some of us were very surprised to read in the Ottawa Journal of May 6 about a colonel who apparently pleaded guilty to stealing the following items, and I quote the list of items from the Journal:
60 bags of insulation, 19 rolls of toilet paper, two toilets, 450 square feet of maple flooring, 12 small radiators, a quantity of soil drain pipe, one 80-gallon water tank, one 40-gallon water tank, one electric pump and several electric motors.
An interesting thing in connection with this case is that the Crown Assets corporation assessed the value of the goods at $150. That was a pretty cheap lot. You could not buy much hardwood flooring for $150. One army official said that it was just junk. Anyway, this senior officer was not charged under the usual section of the National Defence Act for theft but was only charged with conduct prejudicial to discipline. As a result he was fined $500 and sentenced to a loss of two years' seniority. That is not comparable to sending a man to jail for three months who steals less than that, which is what happens according to the newspapers in recent years. It has caused some concern among people in this country, and as a matter of fact it is commented on quite caustically by certain members of the armed forces.
I urge the minister to watch that sort of thing and make sure that all our men in the armed forces realize that, whatever happens, the principles of justice that apply in civilian life generally will apply throughout the army, and that no one escapes a major punishment because of his rank or because of his position or because of his background.
In concluding my remarks, I urge the minister to continue the good work he has apparently begun in the maintenance of the supremacy of parliament in matters concerning the defence of this country and to take every opportunity to eliminate waste and unnecessary expenditure. I repeat that we include in that the immediate disbandment of the Regiment of Canadian Guards as an anachronism in Canadian society. We urge also that he make certain that his officers dispense equal justice to all in the armed forces, regardless of rank.


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Chairman, I believe I should at once intervene in this debate in view of the very violent and unfair attack which the hon. member for Kootenay West made on the chief of the general staff in his speech. General Simonds is not only a very distinguished soldier with an outstanding record of active service, but he is still the chief of the general staff and he will continue to be the chief of the general staff until he retires at the end of August. The hon. gentleman has therefore launched an attack on a man who, as I believe the hon. member himself observed in his remarks and as he is well aware, is in no position to speak for himself. This is grossly unfair to General Simonds, and it is also quite contrary to the traditions of this house. While I cannot prevent the hon. member from expressing the views to which he has given expression, I must say that they are the opposite of my own views and the views of my colleagues and, I believe, the views of most of the members of this house. I feel so strongly on the matter that I think the hon. member should apologize.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, we of this party would like to dissociate ourselves entirely from the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Kootenay West with reference to the chief of the general staff, Lieutenant General Simonds. We share the high opinion of Lieutenant General Simonds that the minister has just now expressed. We feel that it is entirely unwarranted and far from the best traditions of this house that any member should get up

Supply-National Defence and attack a public servant of this government. General Simonds is not responsible for creating the brigade of guards. It was the government which formed the brigade of guards, and if there is any criticism-and criticism has been voiced on this side of the house-regarding the formation of this brigade, it is criticism directed to the government, not to the chief of the general staff.
While I am speaking of the guards regiment of Canada, I recall that my name was mentioned on several occasions in the speech made by the hon. member for Kootenay West. He said that I had urged the disbandment of that regiment. I did not urge the disbandment of that regiment but I suggested that, like the other units of the Canadian army, they should be reorganized and they should have an airborne role. Then the hon. member for Kootenay West began to ridicule the idea of guardsmen being airborne, and he cast slurs upon the tradition of the brigade of guards of the British army, a tradition which we in Canada share with the rest of the countries of the British commonwealth. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate upon the very glorious tradition in battle that the brigade of guards of the British army cherishes, dating back for several centuries. I would call attention to the fact that numerous regiments of the brigade of guards have rendered valuable service here in Canada and, in reference to the ridicule which was heaped upon these men when it was said that it was impossible for them to adopt modern conditions, I would call attention to the fact that the commander of the first airborne corps during the last war was Sir Frederick Browning.
I happen to have known General Browning for a number of years. It may interest the hon. member to know that General Browning started his service as an ensign in the Grenadier Guards in the first war. During the period between the first and second world wars General Browning commanded not only the King's Company of Guards but also the first battalion of the Grenadier Guards. When the second world war broke out he commanded the brigade of guards and from that command he was called by the war office to organize the first airborne brigade. He drew the personnel for the airborne brigade mainly from his own brigade of guards. From there, as the airborne forces expanded, he went on to command the first airborne division and finally the first airborne corps. I should like to put that on the record because I feel that an injustice has been done to a very gallant corps.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On a question of privilege,
I am quite sure the member for Esquimalt-Saanich misunderstood me. I did not say
j

that he recommended the disbanding of the Regiment of Canadian Guards. I said that his criticisms of the present organization would indicate a necessity for disbanding the Regiment of Canadian Guards. There was no intention on my part to ridicule the traditions of the British Brigade of Guards- in fact, entirely otherwise-or to ridicule the traditions of the regiment of guards we have had in Canada for many years. It was just the opposite. I suggested there was no necessity for this new-born organization and that our present regiments could quite properly perform the functions they are atttempt-ing.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Macleod has asked me to dissociate this group completely in the course of my remarks from the remarks and the general attitude of the hon. member for Kootenay West in respect of General Guy Simonds, and also to express our intense disapproval of such remarks. I do not know what incentive there is for a man to strive upward through the ranks of the army, to do his duty and risk life, limb and health all the way, to assume the highest responsibility in the army with all that means, and to hold the highest post of honour for four years, if at the time he is removed from his position he is to be the object of such an unjustifiable attack as the one we heard this afternoon.
I want to be perfectly fair to the hon. member for Kootenay West. I know he has been in the army himself and has had a distinguished military career. If it were not for that, my words would be stronger still, but I cannot see how he could use such terms of contempt and ridicule and still not mean to express contempt and ridicule, because ordinarily the member is very accurate in his language and has no difficulty in expressing exactly what he means. I leave that point with the general observation that this country is not finished yet with the need for great military leaders. Every race in the world that has the sense it was born with is still prizing great military leaders and honouring them, and must continue so to do as long as the troublous times in which we are living continue.
Some of us have allowed all the talk about coexistence, peace and all that sort of thing to go to our heads. We had all better try to keep our feet on the ground, even those who are most ardent in support of this eternal peace, with Russia in charge of the world. That is what it amounts to. Apparently it does not matter a particle who rules the world so long as it is Russia and China. If we talk about the British being distinguished at all, that is "racism", but it is all right for

China to rule or Russia or the Mongolian outfit that are in charge of Russia. We will run right to them and kneel before them.
We have got to the point now where we do not dare speak up for the great, noble and wonderful Anglo-Saxon race of which we are a part and whose history has placed us in this house with all the advantages we have, has even given us this parliament, the flag, the Queen, the crown and the commonwealth. We have no time for that in the house, so much so that I am getting homesick for someone to get up and give a word of credit to the Anglo-Saxon race.
By that I do not mean to dissociate the splendid people from France who are joined with us in this country almost as if in a marriage relationship-and we are proud they are. We are proud of them. We want them to go along with us in unity and understanding, having inherited the great traditions of both their country and ours.
I wish to say one or two things along a line that more or less arises right out of what I have just said. I do not want to be critical of the minister, but I am not sure that the kind of thing being taught to our boys in the forces is the best thing for them. I have seen one or two pamphlets which were apparently part of a series being issued regularly in the forces. Those pamphlets were subtly poisonous through and through, subtly poisonous to everything that would make for the greatness of our race.
I know the minister will agree with me that in preparing for war we are preparing to defend ourselves against Karl Marx and the people who believe in Karl Marx. It is just as well to be frank about it. The Lenins and Manuilskys have said positively time and again that they will not stop until they have utterly destroyed capitalism. That means every one of the nations of the British commonwealth, and the United States. They have been working industriously and with astonishing success in the direction of the achievement of just that objective, and with the servile co-operation of far too many people in public life in Canada.
Before we finish the discussion of the minister's estimates I should like him to give the house an assurance with respect to the kind of thing that is being taught to our boys and girls in the forces. I want to know whether in the information that goes out through pamphlets and through lectures which they hear-heaven deliver them from a lecture by Brock Chisholm, for example- they are being taught to believe in God, to believe in the Bible, to believe in the Queen and the British flag. By that I do not mean what is called colonialism. I mean a reverence
Supply-National Defence for the Union Jack, the flag of our fathers, the flag that has been laid over the breast of every hero who has died for the British cause for a thousand years, either the Union Jack or the cross of St. George which was the flag of our ancestors before the putting together of the cross of St. George and the cross of St. Patrick. I want to know whether they are taught to realize the importance of that flag.


Mr. Campbell:: They are taught to fight.


John Horne Blackmore: If they were merely taught to fight, I would not be worrying about it. The point is they are taught all this other subversive material. I know they are, because I have had three boys in the service and I know what they were being taught. I do not want a boy of mine going away from home believing in God, believing in the Bible, the flag and the Queen, the importance of the British commonwealth and the Anglo-Saxon race, then coming back to me a communist. I do not want that to happen; that is a very poor reward to me for raising my boys. There are men in the house who would be quite happy to have that happen to their boys. They are welcome to have it happen to their boys.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: You say there are such members in the house? Name one.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not naming one but there are three or four with smirks on their faces which make it easy to see what they think.
This is terribly serious for two or three reasons. In the first place, if we can keep preparing for war for 10, 15 or 25 years and send splendid generations of young Canadians through courses which turn them out communists or sympathizers with communism when they come back, we will surrender this nation by default through the back door of the education our boys obtained from the services. That ought to be obvious. The supporters of the Kremlin can see that, and they had it all planned years ago. Apparently we are too stupid to see through that device.
Now, some of my connections when they came back I will wager had been indoctrinated by men who had been very closely connected with the communist conspiracy in Moscow. Let us not suppose that men of that kind are not right in the public service of this country, probably right in the armed services and even in the defence department itself.
While I am on the point, I should like to know who it was originated the brilliant idea of discontinuing the singing or playing of "Rule, Britannia!" on Canadian ships. This ruling was announced by the previous minister of national defence, and announced as

Supply-National Defence an accomplished fact. I would wager that he could not have obtained the passage of such a measure through this house in 10 years of debate, but he just did it through his almighty power as minister of national defence. Take it or leave it, I don't care; that was the attitude. Well now, that was something serious, because Britannia does not happen to mean just Great Britain: it means the whole of the Anglo-Saxon race and the British commonwealth.
I am going to take just a minute or two to go back to Karl Marx. Karl Marx laid down these two principles. He said that in order to have communism prevail in the world we must destroy the Bible and the British Empire.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: May I
ask the hon. member a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, any number.


Edward George McCullough: Are you
now speaking for the Social Credit party?


John Horne Blackmore: Personally I speak for the patriotic men of Canada, wherever they are and whoever they are. If all the members of the Social Credit party are patriotic and interested in the welfare of this nation, then I speak for them. I do not know because I have not discussed it with them.


Mr. Ellis:: And all the racists, too.


John Horne Blackmore: What is the word, I cannot figure it out?


Alfred Claude Ellis: All the racists.


John Horne Blackmore: One more of the absolutely stupid interruptions by the hon. member for Regina City.
I should like to know, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the minister give us a positive assurance concerning all these matters. Just to show how very pertinent this matter can be, let me recall a passage from Time magazine which was put on the record by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin on April 6. I quote from page 2885 of Hansard of that date. Time wrote of a certain man that he just became too much of a socialist altogether for his employer, the manager of the Ottawa Citizen, and was relieved of his position. I read this passage:
Woodsworth was admired in Ottawa for his biting wit, sharp writing and occasional Donald Duck editorial rages. His portside politics evidently never troubled Canada's ruling Liberals. Last year, the department of defence flew him on a two-month junket through the Far East and invited him to lecture on Asian problems to troops of the 25th brigade in Korea. He was also a frequent lecturer at Department of External Affairs briefing sessions. With some lecture and television dates ahead ...
Now, you can imagine the kind of indoctrination the boys from Canada received 
when that man spoke before them; the falsehoods they were told about Korea; the falsehoods they were told about Formosa and its significance; the falsehoods they were told about the conspirators of the Kremlin; the disrespect they were taught to have for the flag; the disrespect for the Queen and for the empire. Just the very minute we begin to talk about the British Empire, the British commonwealth and the Anglo-Saxon race, then "racist" comes to the lips of the hon. member for Regina City.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, I will, any number.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to pick out one of his points, has he anything in writing or any evidence at all to indicate that Mr. Charles Woodsworth advocated disrespect for the Queen?


John Horne Blackmore: The only reply I would give would be this. The pro-communist line follows right down the line-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then you have no evidence.


Colin Cameron: Answer the question.


John Horne Blackmore: I am making this speech and I will give an answer to this question when I choose to answer it. I will give an answer, without a lot of silly communist claptrap.
There is a definite communist line, and all I need to do is lay down the facts. Karl Marx said in order that his ideas prevail he would have to destroy the British commonwealth. If you wanted to go about destroying the British commonwealth, what would you do? You would first of all cast reflections on the king or the queen and the crown. You would cast reflections on the British Empire and the British commonwealth. You would raise a doubt as to whether or not the Bible was true, because the Bible is full of references to the British people.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Which Bible are you talking about?


John Horne Blackmore: The King James version; it is too bad my hon. friend is so deficient in respect of the Bible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member will admit that I am not one who indulges in any claptrap, as he says. I am asking just a straightforward question, as our friend across the way did when he was speaking the other night. Since he has made the statement that Mr. Charles Woodsworth indulged before the

Canadian troops-when he was travelling at government expense, by the way-in disrespect-


John Horne Blackmore: No, I did not make that statement.


Colin Cameron: You did.


John Horne Blackmore: I said you can imagine what he would say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest it is terribly unworthy of the hon. member to imagine what was said. I want him to say yes or no. Does he think Charles Woodsworth indulged in disrespect for the Queen, the crown, the Bible or the British commonwealth?


John Horne Blackmore: Well, the editorials which came out in the Ottawa Citizen, to which I could refer in due time, occasionally indicated a pretty strong leaning towards the communist line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Mi. Blackmore: Well, let us follow the line.


Colin Cameron: Can you mention one?


John Horne Blackmore: One at a time. If he was so pro-communist that the owners of the Ottawa Citizen relieved him of his position, you can be sure he would be likely to teach communism all the way down the line.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


John Horne Blackmore: I say a man like Charles Woodsworth could not safely be turned loose on the body of the people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, from my own experience in the courts of this land I believe if these statements were made outside the House of Commons the hon. member could be taken into court on a slander or libel charge.


John Horne Blackmore: I would not be a bit
surprised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are completely untrue; they are completely unjust; and they are nonsense unworthy of the hon. member.


John Horne Blackmore: You can take the words I have put on the record; they stand right there-what I have said-and draw a conclusion that they are an unbiased presentation of the truth. You might just about as soon trust a skunk in a chickencoop as a man like Mr. Charles Woodsworth among a company of young servicemen.
Now I am concerned that the minister make clear to us-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some people certainly like to tell the world the kind of men they are.
Supply-National Defence


John Horne Blackmore: Including the kind of men he is opposed by. I don't hesitate to tell the world about that, too.


An hon. Member:: Put the truth on Hansard.


John Horne Blackmore: I have put so much truth on Hansard that my hon. friends, to save their lives, cannot absorb it. Just as a simple illustration I would refer to all the lies told about Chiang Kai-shek by their leader on March 24, all absolutely disproved by the speeches I gave on April 21 and May 5 of this year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, no.


John Horne Blackmore: It shows the shallowness of their minds.
I leave it to the minister to give us some evidence or to assure us that when our boys go into the armed services they are going to be taught Canadian patriotism and not Russian patriotism.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Chairman, as a member of 33 years' standing in the press of Canada I think it would be extremely unfortunate if the most unjustified and unfair remarks which have just been put on the record by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), were allowed to go uncorrected.
Neither in the way in which Mr. Charles Woodsworth's services with the Ottawa Citizen were terminated1 nor in anything, so far as I know, that he has ever done either in public or in private life is there the slightest suggestion of any justification for the unfair and libellous statements made in this house this afternoon by the hon. member for Lethbridge. I think it is extremely unfair that a journalist of long standing with the Southam press in this country-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Perhaps I might have interrupted the hon. member for Lethbridge. I had understood that he was referring to instruction in the armed services, but the debate seemed to expand into a discussion of doctrine. I did not interrupt the hon. member for Lethbridge, although perhaps I should have done so. However, I believe I should now inform the hon. member for Vancouver South that we are discussing defence estimates, in particular item No. 236, and I really do not think that this phase of debate should extend much further.


Elmore Philpott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had no intention of prolonging it further, except to make that correction, one which I think is due and which I think, on sober second thought, will be agreed to by the hon. member for Lethbridge. I was glad to see that today the hon. member, talking about world conspiracy, confined it to Mongolians
4940	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence and left out the Turks, which shows that his thoughts have progressed a bit since last year.
Without any desire to hold up the debate, I should like to make one or two comments. I could not agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo this morning when, as I understood him, he suggested that our defence expenditures were entirely useless. I believe he quoted some American authority to suggest that with a proper air defence of North America it might be possible to shoot down up to 85 per cent of the attacking Russian planes, if and when such Russian planes ever attacked. Surely, with the destructive capacity which each plane would carry, it would be well worth while to shoot down even 85 per cent of the attacking Russian planes, assuming that 15 per cent of them did get through.
I agree with some hon. members when [DOT]they say that there is no real defence against the destructive devices of today. But after listening to some of the criticism in the last couple of days by hon. members opposite- and I exclude from this my very good and genial friend from Esquimalt-Saanich, whose masterly answer to the minister was I thought just as good as the minister's masterly presentation-after listening, as I say, to some of that criticism in which they suggested that all of our equipment is obsolete, and that we are thoroughly prepared for the last war instead of the next one, I must conclude that they are not in touch with the facts, ft seems to me that if this division which we now have concentrated in New Brunswick is there for a very good purpose, it is because it forms part of our obligation under the NATO treaty.
I should like to express one or two opinions on other matters. One is that no one has mentioned thus far in the debate the importance of the ground observer corps that has been so admirably built up all over northern Canada, in which tens of thousands of civilians are enlisted to detect enemy aircraft which cannot be detected by radar devices. Arrangements have already been made for the instant transmission of information to filter centres. I have seen some of the tests and I have been astonished by their efficiency.
So I believe that our defence, as it is now shaping up, is well worth while. I believe some hon. gentlemen opposite who suggest that all of the billions we are spending on defence have been utterly wasted would be the very first to complain if there were a Russian attack and if we had not managed to stop at least half those planes getting through.
The most ominous comment I have seen on what would happen in the event of an


attack was given by no less an authority than our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when, at the opening of the recent dominion-provincial conference, he said:
If a major war commences we cannot but expect at Its very beginning-that is, in the very first few hours-heavy attacks on North America with large nuclear weapons. These attacks would likely take place on Canadian targets as well as on those in the United States. The potential damage to Canadians and to the material fabric of our country in such event is so enormous that we must approach the whole problem of war and defence in the most deadly seriousness.
Now, without criticizing in any way the admirable reorganization of the forces that is now under way, and has been under way for some time past, I would like to suggest to the minister that perhaps some greater emphasis should be given in the future on the new type of training that will be necessary for our reserve units or militia units, as we now call them, in the light of the situation which would actually result in the event of a bombing attack. Because in the event of a Russian bombing attack there will be destruction of great Canadian cities. And I think we are living in a fool's paradise if we do not realize that fact.
Because of the terrible destruction that would take place in some Canadian centres at least-perhaps the most dangerous feature would be the aftermath-it would be necessary to move from their homes scores of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people, some wounded and some suffering from the effects of nuclear attack. It would be necessary to move them, and the civil defence authority we have set up, or contemplate setting up, would be totally inadequate to deal with that particular situation unless our militia units were very carefully trained to take care of the situation which would then exist.
As I suggested a few months ago, Mr. Chairman, I believe the time has come when we must have a much more ambitious system of training for our reserve units in Canada than we have had in the past many years. In this connection, I should like to submit that if for any reason we have manpower problems that are not easily solved by the methods we have used in recent years, I for one hope we go back to the old fashioned militia act that was on the statute books of Canada for many scores of years. I believe that if, instead of adopting the type of conscription we tried to adopt in the first world war and the second world war, we had gone back to the old fashioned militia act, that was almost as old as this Dominion of Canada-actually older by that time-and was a combination of voluntary enlistment and selection by lot of the reinforcements necessary to bring militia units up to

strength, we would have avoided the great national tensions we had in both world wars. But in the light of the Prime Minister's statement, which certainly must be the last word in authenticity as to what would happen in this country in the very first hours of an attack, I for one believe much greater emphasis must be placed on the training of militia units to handle the potential chaos which might result immediately after the first bombing attack, and that we should take whatever steps are necessary in peacetime to see that we have a fully effective army to do that job.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, some of the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Vancouver South have turned the current debate a little in the direction in which I have particular interest, and that is why I rise at this time. The relationship of the militia and civil defence work was mentioned by the hon. member. Reference also was made to this subject yesterday by the Minister of National Defence. I have a somewhat related matter in mind which I would like to touch upon briefly.
I suppose the closest parallel one can draw to the place the various armed forces occupy in our society is that of the fire fighters at various levels of government in our country, such as cities and municipalities. I do not propose to enter into the aspects of the debate which concern the effectiveness or otherwise of the armed forces as a protective group, or upon the likelihood or otherwise of our having to use them to put out the kind of fire which all of us hope will never start. But I should like to suggest that since we are maintaining a force of fire fighters that is costing us billions, any auxiliary use we can make of this force during what we hope will be virtual idleness for a long time to come should be considered as something desirable.
I was interested in the reference on page 10 of the white paper which was put out recently by the Minister of National Defence. Search and rescue work is described very briefly in paragraph 35. Mention is made of the fact that elements of the R.C.A.F. are participating, and it is suggested that the R.C.A.F. has been acting as a co-ordinating agency. I am sure the minister will recall that on two or three occasions during the last session of parliament the question of a coastguard service for Canada was discussed. If I recall the discussion correctly, the then minister of transport suggested that in effect this search and rescue arrangement which is referred to on page 10 of the white paper 50433-312
Supply-National Defence was, so far as he and the government were concerned, a substitute for a coastguard in Canada.
That may or may not be so. I do know that a good many people in Canada, particularly those living in the coastal areas, are not entirely satisfied that it is so. It would be useful if there were a more detailed understanding of just how that function is being fulfilled, if it is being fulfilled, by this organization. I notice that in the white paper no particular reference is made to any participation in this arrangement by the Royal Canadian Navy.
In this connection I should like to relate my remarks to the situation on the western coast of Canada, about which I do know a little. I must confess that the absence of any mention of participation by the Royal Canadian Navy in this arrangement does raise some questions in my mind.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member would forgive me if I interrupt him at this time on a matter of procedure. The hon. member will recall that last year we had an arrangement for dealing with this department that seemed to work very well and that apparently met with the approval of all parties in the house. The arrangement was to have a general discussion when the first resolution was called. When the general discussion concluded, the chairman was then instructed by the committee to call the main headings in the blue book, which this year commence on page 306. These headings were called one by one for purposes of discussion, and when the discussion of all headings had been fully concluded, the resolution was put and carried.
It occurs to me at this time-and I ask the hon. member to forgive me for interrupting him-that these remarks are now directed specifically to search and rescue. That is one of the specific headings that will be called. Hon. members will find it on page 341 of the blue book. As I say, I ask the hon. member's pardon for being forced to interrupt him, but it seemed to me that if, as appears to be the case, he intends to direct his remarks specifically to search and rescue, he might find that it would better be done at a later date. However, if he feels that his remarks are of a general character I shall of course say nothing more.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I must say that perhaps I had not searched the details of the estimates carefully enough, and felt that I would have to raise this matter on the first item if I were to be in order in raising it. I did not observe any other hon. member of the committee attempting to rise

Supply-National Defence when I rose, and I thought perhaps this might be an appropriate time to bring up this matter which I readily agree is somewhat apart from the general debate which has taken place. I did not have a great deal more to say on the matter and perhaps, seeing that I have gone as far as I have, I might be allowed to conclude and then I might raise the matter again when we reach the particular item.
By way of illustrating the point I was raising I was merely going to draw to the attention of the minister and the committee the apparent need which has been suggested to me on a number of occasions for more in the way of a patrol on the west coast. I am referring particularly to the west coast of Vancouver island, which is exposed to the open Pacific and which I happen to know in more detail than other parts of the coast.
There is a need for a larger and better type of patrol vessel than apparently has been available there up to the present time. I feel that greater use might perhaps be made of the existing or contemplated naval services. For example, it has been pointed out that the type of boat provided on that coast by the Department of Transport is not adequate to meet some of the situations which arise in that area.
When we reach the item to which you have referred I would hope the minister would be prepared to give us in some detail the manner in which this program is being carried out, and some indication as to whether further participation by other elements of the armed services might not come into being, which would create a more effective substitute than we have had heretofore so far as the equivalent of a coastguard service is concerned. I am raising this matter because it is of great concern to the people on the west coast.
The question of a coastguard service has been raised from time to time. If a satisfactory substitute could be created by utilizing the elements of the armed services which are in a position to maintain anything of that nature; if that type of arrangement could be arrived at, then perhaps those who live near the sea can be effectively served with greater economy as far as the over-all tax picture is concerned.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, just before we get too far away from this question which the hon. member for Vancouver South raised a few minutes ago may I read a little quotation bearing on the matter of this man Woods-worth who was permitted to lecture for the department of defence, according to the

excerpt I read a few minutes ago. What I intend to quote appeared in Time magazine about three weeks before April 6. On that date the hon. member for Wetaskiwin was quoting from Time magazine, and he quoted it correctly. I should like to give his quotation from Time magazine, as reported on page 2885 of Hansard of April 6:
Even after cautiously conservative Bobert Southam, 40, took over as publisher two years ago, editor Charles James Woodsworth, 45, crusading son of J. S. Woodsworth, founder of the C.C.F. (socialist) party, continued to pursue his vigorously left of Liberal policy. But when Woodsworth came out against the rearmament of West Germany, publisher Southam got fed up. Word leaked out last week that he had quietly sacked his editor.
Whether Time is correct or whether it is not, the simple fact is that it is easy enough to find, by reading the Ottawa Citizen editorials while Mr. Woodsworth was editor, evidence of his extreme left of Liberal policies.


William Alfred Robinson: Having interrupted the
hon. member for Vancouver South on the same point, I waited until I understood the tenor of the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge, and I now fail to see that this connects with the item under consideration.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I am glad you raised that question, because I do not under any circumstances want to be out of order. But a man cannot fight with the fervour with which they fought 50 years ago unless he believes 100 per cent in what he is fighting for. When men are fighting, how can they fight as their fathers fought on the fields of Waterloo and the other great fields of battle on which our freedoms have been won and preserved, unless they believe? That is my point.
What I am saying now goes right to the root of the very matter of morale. Anyone knows that if an army is not strong in morale it will not be as successful as it would otherwise be. My position is that we want our men to be strong in morale. We want them to feel that they are fighting on the side of God; we want them to feel they are fighting against the devil. That is all there is to it. Unless a man is fighting for everything that is righteous and good, and fighting against the devil and everything that is unrighteous, then he is not fighting 100 per cent.
They will not be able to do that if they listen to men like Charles James Woodsworth or if they read articles written by men who think the way he does. That is why I raise this question at this time. I happen to know whereof I speak.
I do not wish to go into detail, but I think probably the very minute that the present

minister took over, things in that respect began to change. I want to be as fair to the previous minister of national defence as I possibly can be, but I had the impression all through his administration that there was subversive activity going on, possibly without his knowing of it. We want no more of that, and that is why I spoke.
The hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned Mongolians, but the proper term is Turko-Mongolians. The men who originated, and are in charge of, communist activities are Turko-Mongolians; they are not true Russians; they are not Chinese; they are enemies of everything that pertains to the well-being of the Anglo-Saxon race.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the minister could answer a question relative to what the hon. member for Lethbridge has said both now and in his utterances earlier this afternoon. Earlier today when a certain attack was made the minister felt obligated to make an immediate reply. This afternoon his whole department has been attacked with the charge that it is responsible for procommunist education and pro-communist teaching within the armed services. Has the minister not some comment to make in reply to that charge?


John Horne Blackmore: Before the minister is tempted to reply, let me straighten out the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He says I have charged. I did not charge, I raised the question as to whether or not it was so. The evidence I have I got from various sources including three sons who were in the services, two of whom fought right through the services in world war II and one of whom gave his life over Germany; and from three brothers, one of whom went right through into Germany. These men can tell what went on. I base what I say on that on the fact that I have had other indications which lead me to suspect that, at least up till last year, subversive pamphlets were issued-subversive in a very mild way, but nevertheless subversive pamphlets. What I ask the minister is that he will give this house the assurance that he will see to it that his house is cleaned if there is any such thing in the army.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whether it is a charge, a suspicion or an innuendo, will the minister comment on these remarks concerning procommunist education in the armed forces under the direction of his department?


William Alfred Robinson: Before the minister replies,
I wonder if I might take it that the period of questioning has begun, or are there other members who wish to speak in the general discussion?
Supply-National Defence


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make it quite clear before we leave this that one question has been raised with which we wish to deal, but I do not want to interfere with any discussion that is now under way and I have no desire to break in on the comments that have just been made.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I think we should proceed with the general discussion. It seems to me, if I may say so, that as we are getting more extended in time we are getting farther afield in scope, and unless we are getting into a detailed discussion item by item I shall not make any further comments on the generality of the debate until it is completed.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that the subject with which I propose to deal comes appropriately at this point. It arose out of a statement made by the minister last night just before the house rose. Therefore this affords me the first opportunity of dealing with something that goes to the very root of our whole method of organization. In Hansard for yesterday, at page 4913, the minister is reported as saying:
I should like to point out to hon. members that the first Canadian division is, of course, a division under NATO primarily for the defence of Europe.
Mr. Chairman, that is the first time that statement has been made. It is a statement of the utmost importance. It places clearly on record the fact that the first Canadian division is a division under NATO primarily for the defence of Europe.
The discussion yesterday hinged very largely on our proposal that we should get away from the old concept that the Canadian army in training, whether permanent or militia, is a segment of a European continental land force. We emphasized that because it had been pointed out by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that, in spite of changes in weapons, there has been a great similarity continuing through the first world war and the second world war in the unit formations. He pointed out that really today there is very little difference in the general structure of our army from that which was engaged in the great battles of the Somme or the other battles of the first world war and, later, the battles of the second world war.
In advocating, as I did, after it had already been put forward in very clear and understandable terms by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, that we should accept the proposition put forward in the white paper at the outset that there must be a new concept of Canada's military organization, we proposed that we should really bring about

Supply-National Defence sweeping changes in organization consistent with the inescapable fact that we have a population of only 15 million people in the third largest country in the world, a country of nearly 3J million square miles. We urged that the army continue to be made up of conventional units of infantry, artillery, armoured forces and other organizations of that kind. We urged, however, that these should get away from the continental concept of organization, and that we should have a unique, completely distinctive Canadian organization that would be suited to the demands here in Canada itself.
It was with that thought in mind that we proposed that all units be airborne. There is in fact no other way in which our units can be effective. I would point out that the hon. member for Vancouver South himself brought to our attention the attitude of the Prime Minister which, of course, must be the attitude of the government, that if a major war commences Canada will be involved in that war. If that is so, what is the use of training units which would be called upon to leave by road, by train, by boat, to travel long distances? The early, decisive stages would be passed before they would even become engaged with whatever enemy units had been employed.
The idea put forward that it would be unlikely that land forces would be employed by the only possible enemy we have in mind is not, of course, consistent with the history of recent wars, even of the last war. In the last war we saw cases of mass air attacks and at the same time airborne forces dropped at strategic points. In fact, at the time the Normandy invasion was taking place, key points were seized by paratroops-British, American and Canadian-who dropped from the skies to seize the strategic points well in advance of the actual movement of the conventional land forces. It is inevitable that, along with a mass air attack, there would be the use of paratroops to seize key points.
Can anyone with recognition of the importance of aluminum in military production be in any doubt for a moment that among the points in any Russian plan is the seizure of Kitimat, the seizure of Shipshaw and the surrounding plants, the seizure of the great iron mines at Sept lies, and the seizure of the various power plants through the northern area that supply the vital power to our industry?
It is obvious that this would happen. It is obvious that any employment of conventional troops in a conventional manner would be utterly ineffective. It is with that thought

in mind that we have urged that there be a bold reorganization of the Canadian army so that it may be completely mobile. We were urging that in the face of the premature statements by the minister, but we urge it with new force when the minister in his closing remarks last night for the very first time in this house or elsewhere laid down the policy of the government that our first division, our main army overseas, is a division under NATO primarily for the defence of Europe.
That is in conflict, Mr. Chairman, with every statement that has been made since it became necessary for Canada to revise its whole army concept after the outbreak of war in Korea. On February 5, 1951, when the discussion of the army was before the house for the first time that year, the then minister of national defence had this to say, after outlining Canada's program generally, as found at page 90 of Hansard:
That program is intended to provide, as Canada's part of an effective deterrent against aggression, what is considered necessary at this time for the defence of Canada against attack and to carry out Canada's undertakings under the charter of the United Nations and the North Atlantic treaty to the full.
That force at that time was of course entirely different from that which is now contemplated. Again at page 93 of Hansard for the same date we find this statement by the minister:
The defence plan for the first time set out particulars of the requirements for defence: it showed to what extent those requirements could be met; it also showed the allocations of forces that might be contributed by each of the member nations.
Then at page 94 we find this statement by the minister:
The force we propose to send will initially be a brigade group or regimental combat team . . .
That was the statement as to the force we were contributing under NATO. Then in the white paper for 1954-55, tabled last year, we find this statement on page 11 immediately after the word "army":
Since November, 1951, Canada has maintained a brigade group in Germany in fulfilment of Canada's commitment to the armies of the NATO integrated force in Europe.
May I emphasize the fact that last year's white paper not only emphasized that the brigade group was the fulfilment of Canada's commitment to the armies of NATO but that it was also our commitment to the integrated force in Europe. Then on May 20, 1954, the then minister of national defence, Mr. Claxton, had this to say as reported at page 4908 of Hansard:
So far we have carried out rotation in Korea and Germany exactly as planned, and we intend to continue to do so, but to do it will require very

considerable numbers of forces in Canada. Altogether, to provide for the brigade in Korea, the brigade in Germany and mobile striking forces and units for rotation forces with the forces necessary to make up a first Canadian infantry brigade, it will take a total of 15 infantry regiments. Those regiments now exist and they are well up to strength. They are well officered and well manned.
Then we come to the white paper for the present year and we find in the very first words of that white paper under the heading "Defence Objectives" this statement:
Canada's defence program continues to be planned for the immediate defence of Canada, for co-operation with the United States in the joint defence of the Canada-United States region, for co-operation within the North Atlantic treaty organization looking towards the provision of a collective force capable of deterring aggression, and for carrying out undertakings by Canada as a member of the United Nations Organization.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the statement of our defence objectives in the white paper. There is no suggestion that there is a commitment of a division, no suggestion that our primary purpose with the army is the defence of Europe as part of the NATO commitment. On the contrary, the very first statement is that our defence program contemplates the immediate defence of Canada and, in fact, the last of the several purposes declared is the fulfilment of our part in the joint undertakings of the United Nations.
The statement now made presents an entirely new picture, inconsistent with statements that have been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister. It will be recalled that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was questioned in the house after his return from Lisbon, where there was a meeting of NATO as to whether there had been any additional commitment beyond the brigade, and it was emphatically stated that no additional commitment existed. After the Paris meeting, which paved the way for the entry of Germany into the fellowship of the free western nations organized within NATO, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked if this involved any additional commitment for Canada, and he stated that there was no additional commitment. That statement, of course, was not made here because we were not sitting at that time. It was made in an interview.
We have constantly been impressed with the fact, Mr. Chairman, that there have been no commitments in addition to the commitment to provide a brigade as part of the NATO organization. Now we are told in the exact words of the Minister of National Defence that the first Canadian division is of course a division under NATO primarily for the defence of Europe. That is exactly the point we have been seeking to emphasize.
Supply-National Defence We need an explanation regarding the real function and purpose lying behind the training of our army. We have emphasized our belief that the army organization should be a distinctly Canadian organization, and that it should conform to the statement made in this year's white paper to the effect that the first purpose of the Canadian defence forces is the immediate defence of Canada.
What we contend is that the kind of organization that will be able to take part in the immediate defence of Canada in case of an attack is, in the case of the army, an organization made up of compact, hardhitting, mobile groups, all of which can be moved immediately by air to any threatened point, whether it be a hydroelectric power station, a mine where vital minerals are being produced, a harbour, or any of the key positions which would naturally be in any plan now in the possession of the Russian general staff.
I do submit, Mr. Chairman, that before we proceed with any detailed discussion regarding the army we should have a clarification of that point. I submit that it would be a very useful and, in fact, a very necessary thing for the Prime Minister himself to clarify this point, because if the statement of the minister last night was correct then we have assumed obligations of which no honourable member of the house was aware. We need to know exactly what our obligations are, and we repeat our request that our army shall not be trained merely as a segment of European continental forces but that, having regard to the fact that the first demand of our training should be the immediate defence of Canada, we should have a distinctly Canadian army organization suitable to the needs of Canada in the event that an attack should ever come.
We have said and we repeat that such a mobile, hard-hitting, compact army organization would not only be an effective organization for the defence of Canada in the unhappy event of any outbreak of this kind, but would also be the most valuable contribution we could make to NATO itself, because it would be the kind of force that we could move to any danger spot anywhere in the world as part of our general commitment to NATO.
I leave the subject there, in the hope that not only the Minister of National Defence but also the Prime Minister may clarify the uncertainties which have now been created by the Minister of National Defence through his declaration for the first time in the house that we have a commitment of one division as part of our NATO obligation for the defence of Europe.

Supply-National Defence


Mr. Harkness:: Last night, Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister if he would clarify our defence policy, and I asked a few specific questions about that. He did not have time before ten o'clock to answer those questions, so I should like to have him do it now while we are still on this general discussion. The minister did give a partial answer in regard to the matter the Leader of the Opposition has just raised. He said that the first Canadian division was primarily a NATO force for use in Europe. That was something we did not know before, and I believe it is a very important addition to our general knowledge as to wjiat is our defence policy.
One of my chief criticisms yesterday was that we did not know what our defence policy really was. I hope the minister will make it clear. It was indicated particularly in the minister's speech and in the white paper that changes in emphasis were in progress or were contemplated. I think we should know what are those changes in emphasis. We should know what is the general concept of defence. We now know what is the primary function of this first Canadian division. I wonder if we could not have information along the same lines so far as the other important components of our defence forces are concerned.
In addition I asked a specific question about manpower; that was how this 120,000 ceiling was arrived at; to what was it related, and has it any real relationship to our national defence needs?
In view of the fact that it is quite evident the number in the air force is going to have to be increased if we increase the number of squadrons, the radar screens and so forth, how are these extra people to be acquired? Are they to be acquired by reducing the army and the navy, or by increasing this total of 120,000? I wonder if the minister can answer some of these questions in addition to the one posed by the Leader of the Opposition before we go on to any of the details.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Before we go on to the details there is one remark I wish to make which is perhaps of a particular nature, but I think it applies to the general discussion. As everyone knows there is being opened in New Brunswick, Gagetown camp, the largest military camp in the dominion. This camp happens to be in part of my constituency, and when these many thousands of young men from all over Canada are concentrated in this section of New Brunswick I feel that the people in that area would like to welcome them to that part of our dominion. I might say we hope and feel that this camp will be a great success in our province. We wish all those troops who come to New Brunswick at


this time, and in the years to come, an enjoyable stay with us and very profitable training.
I was a little surprised when Gagetown was selected a few years ago as the training area. It was one of the best farm sections in New Brunswick, a very old, settled part of the province. I had always advocated and pressed for a training camp in New Brunswick. At that time I felt it should have been in some other section. People have been moved out of that area, some 1,100 families or over 3,000 people in all. I believe they have been moved to other parts of New Brunswick and other parts of Canada, and now they are fairly well settled. As I say, I do hope that this camp, for the sake of the people of New Brunswick and for the sake of Canada, will be a great success.
I agree with my leader and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that today our army must be trained as a mobile unit. In training these men as a mobile unit, it would seem to me that this camp, particularly as a new camp and the largest in this dominion, should have airfields associated with it. I should like to point out to the minister, and I hope he will give it consideration, that in the vicinity of Camp Gagetown there is an airfield known as Blissville. It belongs to the Canadian government, and it seems to me that for the training of the men at Gagetown that airfield should be developed. At the moment it is not used and the buildings and runways have deteriorated. It does seem like a great waste of money, if the field could be used to a good purpose. Also not more than about 25 miles away there is Pennfield, another airfield which belongs to the Canadian government. I believe that in the future those airfields should be used in conjunction with the development at Camp Gagetown.
When the camp was being discussed for New Brunswick I thought Utopia in the vicinity of Pennfield was an area which would be selected. It was near the sea, and it had this airfield belonging to the government nearby. There was a great area of land in the rear which was clear, and it would not have been necessary to take over land which had been settled. However, the Department of National Defence in its wisdom decided to take the Gagetown area. I hope these matters I have mentioned, Pennfield and Blissville, will be given consideration by the government because I believe these airfields would be complementary to a modern camp such as Gagetown must be.
While I do not wish to advertise our severe winters in New Brunswick, I must say that we do have some winter weather. However, the winters in any part of Canada are

severe and they are no more severe there, possibly not as severe as here in Ottawa where the temperature goes many degrees below zero. I hope Gagetown will be used for the training of men in winter exercises. It can be done there just as well as in the areas farther north. If this is to be a great training area for Canada it must be used to its full capacity, and developed as a place where airborne troops and mobile units can be trained. Airborne troops could be trained in exercises related to the far northern part of this country, which experience they may find necessary.
I see the Minister of Defence Production in his seat. While this might not have to do altogether with national defence, we have in that area of New Brunswick supplies which could be used for national defence. We have a splendid farming area in the country surrounding this camp. It is a small fruit growing area, and the apples and other fruits could be used. I hope this will be done. I was pleased to hear that coal, which comes also from the area in which this camp is located, is to be used in heating Camp Gage-town.
I might say to the minister that we are pleased with the development of what is practically a small city in what is known as Oromocto. To give some idea of the size of the town, I have an article which says that it contains 85 stores, a hotel, five large department stores, four schools and offices for professional men. As a matter of fact a city of from 8,000 to 10,000 people is being built at Oromocto.
However, I pointed out in the house before, and I would point out again, that those who suffer most from the establishment of this camp at Gagetown are the people along the fringe of the Saint John river, between the camp and the river. I have in mind towns like Gagetown, Hampstead, and Upper Gagetown which have lost practically all the business they had in the back areas. Those areas for years supplied our sawmills and our cheese factories. They supplied the mills and the stores with customers. That is now all gone.
I did speak to the former minister of national defence, and I appeal to the present one, to see that in the establishment of hospitals, the construction of garages or other buildings, where men would be employed, places like Gagetown, Hampstead and Wels-ford will not be ignored. I do not think all the construction should be in one area, that is at Oromocto, just below Fredericton. As I say, these other places have suffered most from the establishment of the camp. While
Supply-National Defence the people in the area were well paid for the farms they gave up, others still have to try to make a living in this fringe area, and they receive no compensation whatsoever. I do believe the department and the government owe these people some consideration.
I have nothing further to say at the moment, though I shall have some questions to ask later in the discussion. I do hope the minister will keep in mind this question of airfields at Pennfield and Blissfield, which I think must be complementary to the Gagetown training area if it is to be a modern and up to date camp. I hope also that he will take into consideration assistance to these places I have mentioned on the fringe of Camp Gagetown. I repeat that the people of New Brunswick would wish me to welcome the thousands of young men from across Canada who have come to New Brunswick, and we hope their stay will be mutually beneficial to the young men and the people of that province.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with only two matters at this stage of the discussion, one of which may be less interesting than anything that has been discussed up to now, because it is a technical point.
I suggest to the minister that next year, when his estimates are brought before the house, item 236 should be broken down into 20 items, and that the department should be treated in the book of estimates just as other departments are treated. This would obviate the necessity, which we have had in recent years, of arriving at an agreement to deal with item 236 as the first item, and then go on to the various headings in the details at the back of the book.
Why item 236 should be all-inclusive I do not understand. No other department is dealt with in that way. The other departments are set out more clearly, and each item can be taken up in an orderly fashion. This department, dealing with expenditures of about $2 billion, and divided into such marked divisions as the navy, the army and the air force, could more easily be treated as I have suggested than some of the others.
I make this suggestion to the minister. I have been here long enough to know that it takes about four years for a suggestion to seep in. Therefore I shall repeat the suggestion next year and the following year and, if I survive the next election, I shall keep at it.
Although the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has dissociated this group from the remarks made this morning by the hon. member for Kootenay West, as one who served

Supply-National Defence under General Simonds in northwest Europe on several occasions I feel I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing my regret that his name should have been raised in the House of Commons in the way it was during the course of this discussion.
I should like to express my admiration for him as a great commander. During the course of my lifetime it has been my experience to serve under seven or eight generals, and out of earshot of most generals I have had occasion to criticize them. During the course of my career, having been fortunate enough not to be mixed up with the staff, I have been able to form more definite opinions of the exalted position of general than have perhaps some others who came more closely in contact with them.
Most certainly I recognized, and every person who served in northwest Europe in the last war recognized, the outstanding qualities of General Simonds as a field commander. He could not have risen to that position, or maintained it under the grim conditions of the second world war, without outstanding ability. Generals are always on the edge of a precipice; normally one mistake in the field is enough to promote a general upstairs. The fact that General Simonds survived indicates that he must have had marked ability.
I would like on some other occasion to express my criticism of the policy of the government of Canada during the course of the war in the way it dispensed with the capable services of distinguished and high-ranking officers on the paltry pretext of age, whereas the Americans and British were much more sensible along that line. I shall offer those remarks on some other occasion when I feel some annoyance toward the Department of National Defence and the government in general.
But let me add with regard to General Simonds that those who served under him respected him as a great field commander, and I would simply like to pay that tribute to him on this occasion. I realize that when generals get into conflicts in the political field they find themselves in an entirely different kind of life that sometimes leads to difficulties. At the same time I think it is incumbent upon Canada to pay its respects to those who have served in high command with the distinction that was the lot of General Simonds.


Mr. Castleden:: Mr. Chairman, in the few remarks I make this afternoon I wish to discuss a line of defence which has not been dealt with up to this time. The history of man, the rise and fall of nations, can be traced to their ability to adapt themselves to changing weapons of war and destruction.


Today we have reached an age when for 10 years we have had atomic and nuclear weapons. Thus man's ability to destroy himself has developed so rapidly that we are having difficulty in keeping pace with the modern weapons, some of which are obsolete by the time they come off the production line.
This is one of the problems facing us today. As we look at the expenditures of the Department of National Defence in 1955 we wonder how long a nation can go on spending money in this fashion, how long it can use its national production and its power to produce things which very soon become obsolete and have to be discarded. I wonder whether the cost may not ultimately break us, or whether a war would not annihilate us.
The duty of members of parliament is to investigate and question the expenditure of money which the government is spending in its administration, and this is one of the important departments. The amounts spent on defence today are almost as great as those spent by all the other departments of government put together. On page 57 of the white paper we are given some figures which will astound a good many people, and which would have been thought impossible a few years ago. On the navy we are spending some $290 million; on the army some $346 million; on the air force some $923 million. On mutual aid we spent some $320 million, but we get some of that back in refunds. Then on administration and pensions we spent another $48 million. We cannot be given the full details of all of the expenditures for security reasons. Probably that has to be accepted. Someone has pointed out that this is why it is difficult for members of parliament effectively to question and give adequate consideration to all the details of these expenditures.
The minister's statements at the beginning of this debate were rather interesting. We welcomed his frank statement with regard to the effectiveness of our defence expenditures. His statement was that there is no 100 per cent defence against thermonuclear attack if it should be launched against Canada. That was the reason we had to go in with such groups as NATO. It is rather significant also to learn that it is folly for people to talk in 1955 about winning any war. All mankind would lose if war were to break out today. Therefore our best defence is our ability to deter such an attack.
How long are we to continue in this race? How long are we going to be able to continue in it? I suppose time will tell, but I do think one thing might be said. In this fight our ability to find out what modern warfare can

do and what we can do to deter the opposition is largely a matter of what research can do. To be up to date in modern research is surely one branch of national defence which should be emphasized. If we are to continue in this race we must continue research. Canada's ability in research has been well proven in years past, particularly in time of war. If a real assessment of the efficiency of the department were made, and some of the facts looked at with regard to the ability of industry to produce weapons which will be up to date at the time they are delivered, compared with what we might be spending in research, we might be surprised. I suggest that production research is very important.
There was a change-over in the use of Canadian small arms and ammunition. That change-over at this time might be questionable. We might even question the effectiveness in a war of the future of certain types of rifles, artillery, machine guns, certain types of depth charges, anti-aircraft ammunition and so forth. What can nations produce in the way of modern weapons which would be effective in a nuclear war? Let us look at the situation in a broad way. Perhaps the people of the world are going to have to look for other ways of preventing war, other ways of meeting what we believe is the enemy today.
I wonder whether we are doing our part in looking forward to the real fight, which is a fight for the minds of men. Research and studies under the United Nations, the Colombo plan and the food and agriculture organization reveal that about a billion people in the world are living in hunger and poverty, disease and malnutrition. These are the people who are being won over by the enemy with respect to whom we are spending this money on defence.
I wonder whether there is not another line of defence. Should we not be spending more money than we are spending today to win these people over to the democratic way of life? If we can spend almost $2 billion a year, which was more than the whole annual wartime expenditure in the first world war, on this kind of defence, I wonder whether we might not be doing well to spend money to win these people to the democratic way of life, to show them that democracy has something more to offer to the world than hoarding up our own abundance. Surely if there are a billion people in the world who need assistance, food and human compassion, we cannot say that there are any such things as food surpluses.
If we spent a few hundred million dollars to provide these people with food, with 50433-313
Supply-National Defence assistance and with education as to the importance of sanitation, training them how to use the land and the resources they have, might it not be an action of broader vision than some of the waste which I believe must exist in the defence program as we have it today? That food and assistance might be a more effective weapon than all the weapons we can produce.
Ten years ago atomic bombs were dropped by our allies on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and monuments have been erected on the spot where those bombs fell. The simple message that has been placed on that spot is the hope that mankind might never again be guilty of dropping an atomic bomb. With respect to dropping atomic bombs on mankind, the thought we might throw out to governments today, not only here but elsewhere, is that which has been expressed in the United Nations, namely that no nation can win a war. The possibility in going along the road we are travelling is that mankind may be annihilated if war, which we hope to deter, breaks out. If that should happen, half of mankind would be wiped out.
If we are trying to win the war for the minds of the peoples of the world, to show them that democracy has something to offer other than $2 billion a year spent on modern warfare, I humbly suggest to the government that the spending of a few hundred millions of dollars on bread, assistance and human compassion for the free people who are being won over to the other side would do a great deal more good.
I am looking at it from the point of view that this government might think of the possibility of another line of defence. The government should look upon these fellow men of ours, a billion of them, who are living in want today, as people who might be won over to our side. If we can win them to our side in a real way perhaps this defence race, which is costing us so much and leading us we know not where, might be terminated successfully.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the pleasure of the committee that we should now turn to the details?


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman. A discussion of the detailed items would be meaningless without a statement from the minister in regard to this completely new statement that was put on the record last night about our commitment to NATO and the purpose of our army division in Europe.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any real ground for misunderstanding about our commitment. The phrase I used

Supply-National Defence may have been an unhappy one, but it was accurate. The record shows that the 1st division is for NATO defence purposes. That is not new and it is not secret. I shall possibly be able to explain the meaning of it a little later. At page 9 of the annual report of the department for 1953-54 under the heading "NATO" we find the following:
As a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Canada continued to assign components of the three fighting services for duties with NATO forces. In addition, substantial quantities of mutual aid were given by Canada to other member nations. Highlights of Canada's role in fulfilment of her NATO obligations were the formation of the 1st Canadian infantry division with headquarters at Petawawa, Ontario.
Then again at page 41 of the same annual report, the second paragraph under the heading "Formations Abroad" reads in part:
During the latter part of 1953 the 1st Canadian infantry division was formed in accordance with our NATO commitments.
And on page 16 of the white paper which was tabled this year on June 7, we find the following in paragraph 53:
Towards the end of 1953 and in accordance with our NATO commitment, the 1st Canadian infantry division was formed with headquarters in Canada. Two-thirds of the division are stationed in Canada and conduct their training here; the remaining third, the 1st Canadian infantry brigade, proceeded to Germany and relieved the 27th brigade there in November, 1953.
I am somewhat at a loss to understand the difficulty of the Leader of the Opposition. I think the facts of the practical application of these commitments are and always have been understood to be that our commitment in peacetime is to have a brigade group across the Atlantic as part of the integrated force under SACEUR. That was the case at the outset and I think my predecessor explained it on a number of occasions; in fact the Leader of the Opposition quoted him to that effect.
Rotation forces are needed. The brigade proceeds to Europe and remains for a two-year tour of duty. Then it must be replaced by a duplicate brigade organized and trained to fit into the SACEUR forces before departure from Canada. For this reason forces required for NATO must be kept separate.
For the defence of Canada we have the mobile striking force of three airborne parachute-trained battalions. These are the forces which would be utilized in the event of any engagement with the enemy which might take place in Canada. I might say in addition that we are committed, as are other nations in NATO, to pool our resources and work together for mutual safety and protection.
As I mentioned, of the battalions which make up the 1st division all but one brigade
[Mr. Campney.l

are located in Canada and are here if needed. In order to keep a brigade continually in Europe in peacetime, and yet allow the personnel a reasonable period at home in Canada, we must have further brigades for rotation.
There has been a great deal of discussion-the Leader of the Opposition initiated it and the hon. member for Calgary North and other members referred to it-that our Canadian forces should all be airborne. While that may sound rather attractive I must say that I am of the view, on the advice of my military advisers, that, having regard to the long distance we are from our potential enemy and the fact that any men landed here would be far from any bases, the likelihood of invasion by persons in numbers has decreased, as the power of the bomb, which would otherwise be carried by these longdistance planes from far away, has increased. It is felt, and I am so advised, that the three battalions which comprise the mobile striking force are adequate protection for that type of warfare should it arise.
To have troops airborne is an expensive matter. I made a rapid calculation this afternoon of what it would cost. One element of cost is the aeroplanes necessary to move the division, to make the division airborne. I think as good a transport aircraft as we could expect to have is the C-124, which can lift 120 men, but without anything except their personal arms. To lift a division of 20,000 men would take 175 of these aeroplanes which cost approximately $2 million each. If you wanted to move the division in one lift, you would have to have $350 million worth of planes, plus the cost of the planes needed to carry equipment, plus the cost of the more expensive planes needed to carry tanks, artillery and that sort of thing.
The other side of the picture would be this. If you did have a great number of airborne troops, more than you needed, where would you take them? What is the purpose? I think what we have meets the situation as it is both with regard to our NATO defences in Europe, to which we contribute, and the defence of Canada, which is our responsibility.


George Randolph Pearkes: No one has said that we would be lifting a division at one time.


Ralph Osborne Campney: You can divide it up as often as you like; you can divide it by four or five, and you are still in the millions.


George Randolph Pearkes: We have not been talking about the movement of a division.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Maybe I misunderstood, but my understanding-if I am wrong I can be

corrected-of the statement yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition was that all our troops should be airborne.


George Alexander Drew: That is right.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The question of how many may be debatable or that our whole army should be made airborne. May I now deal with some of the other questions?


George Randolph Pearkes: Before the minister leaves that point, may I ask, in order to complete the picture of the organization, what is the role of the 4th brigade?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The 4th brigade would be used, I presume, as reinforcements or in support of any other troops or in any other connection in which we might need to use them.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is that also committed to NATO?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, if it would be more convenient to deal with this particular subject now there are some comments I should like to make, but if the minister would prefer to deal with other points there are certain comments I should like to make in regard to what he has just said.
I had hoped that my own remarks, to say nothing of what I thought were the extremely clear remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the hon. member for Calgary North, had made it clear that we were talking about an entirely new type of army; we were talking about the use of conventional forces reorganized into much more compact, hard-hitting and mobile units. At no time was any suggestion made by us that the present massive form of our division would be simply taken up bodily as it is now formed and moved by air. An examination of what we said makes it perfectly clear that that is the very opposite to what we were suggesting. We are suggesting a unique Canadian army organization. It would involve a smaller number of men of higher hitting power and of immense mobility.
May I again also point out that the remarks the minister has made are no answer to the comments that have been made about the statement he made last night. I would point out that it is only today that we have had a chance to deal with this, because this is the very first time it has been put on the record. It is true that reference was made before to the fact that there was the formation of a division so we could take our part in the NATO activities. It was also clearly stated that our commitment was one brigade for the defence of Europe, and it was explained in 50433-313i
Supply-National Defence this house and outside the house that we required the division so we could maintain the brigade with the rotation mentioned in the quotation I have put on the record from the speech in the House of Commons by the former minister of national defence.
What the minister said last night was that the 1st Canadian division is, of course, a division under NATO primarily for the defence of Europe. That means that the whole division is under NATO; and it also means, if the words mean anything, that it is primarily for the defence of Europe. The minister has said that the troops here are primarily for the defence of Canada. They cannot be primarily for two different purposes. If the statement of the minister last night is what he really means, then this is a new statement. If the minister wants to say that in the course of the debate last night he made a statement that did not correctly put the facts before us, that would be a different thing. But if he stands by the statement made last night, then we have had for the first time in this house the statement that our division is a division under the control of NATO, and these are his words: "primarily for the defence of Europe".
That is his statement. Unless he withdraws that statement it is obvious that we need not one division but at least three divisions in Canada if we are to carry forward the same general practice. We would need a division available for the defence of Europe and two divisions available for the purpose of rotation, consistent with the plans that have already been made. That, of course, would be an entirely new concept of army organization, an entirely new demand, that would involve figures that go far beyond any suggestion we have made.
I state most emphatically that the proposal we have made for a reorganization of the army forces into airborne units embracing not merely airborne battalions, but airborne units of artillery, of armour, of medical services, of army service corps, of every other component branch of the army, would be much less costly than the present cumbersome type of division which is simply a segment of a European army.
On that basis I have been asking, and other members have been asking, for a Canadian army formation equal to the Canadian demand. We point out that the kind of force that is suitable for the Canadian demands, immediately mobile, ready to be put into action within a comparatively few hours at any point in Canada, is also the kind of force that would be most valuable to NATO, because it could be moved within a matter of 24 or 36 hours to almost any threatened point in the world.

Supply-National Defence
Instead of that the present organization can only be assembled slowly, then moved slowly and ultimately carried to some destination by ship. That is not the kind of force suitable for the defence of Canada, nor the kind of force that will make the most effective contribution to the joint demands of all the members of NATO.
I ask the minister to explain to us what he did mean by the statement he made last night or else explain that-as all of us must reasonably do from time to time-in the exchange of debate a statement has been made which did not correctly convey what he meant to say. Unless he is prepared to state that, we have a new statement, and one which demands close attention.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I think I explained what I meant. If I did not express it clearly in Hansard or if it was subject to two meanings, the position is as I have just stated it and as it has been stated many times.


George Alexander Drew: Was the statement made last night wrong?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think you can take a wrong interpretation of it, as you obviously did.


George Alexander Drew: I am not taking a wrong interpretation of it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I still maintain that the division is related to our NATO commitments which I have just set out. But if it was not clearly expressed, I have tried to clear it up this afternoon.


George Alexander Drew: I am not seeking to anchor the minister to any particular set of words, but there is a vast difference between being related to NATO and the division being primarily for the defence of Europe. That is what we are trying to clear up.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think I have cleared it up this afternoon. If the words of the text of last night's Hansard do not conform to that, they are not an accurate expression of the state of affairs.
Mr. Chairman, may I now refer to a few of the remarks that have been made today? The hon. member for Comox-Alberni this afternoon initiated an inquiry to which I shall probably come back later, with regard to R.C.A.F. search and rescue operations. The R.C.A.F. is very closely tied in with the Department of Transport and other services having facilities for search and rescue work, particularly on both coasts. We are quite cognizant of the need and we co-operate, but we do not maintain anything approaching what you might call a coastguard service in the accepted sense of the term.


I can assure the hon. member for Lethbridge that we neither teach nor encourage communism or Marxism in the armed forces. As a matter of fact we have a good system of adult education and a good system of current events education. I do not have time to read all the material, but I do read a good deal of it. I think it is a very fine type of material and I am sure the troops find it very helpful. As a matter of fact I have had considerable favourable comment from representatives of other nations as to the efficacy of our efforts to keep Canadian forces well informed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Many of those Current Affairs booklets are excellent publications.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of public and private bills.


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should not say this, but I understand the minister is just finishing his comments on the first item. Would it be possible to complete that so we may pass the item before we go on with private members' bills?


George Alexander Drew: Agreed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I regret to have to point out to the committee that the arrangement we have made is that we will discuss the component parts of the first item, item No. 236, in their order when it comes to the question and answer period. But, as I have already stated, item 236 cannot be carried in sections. As it is one resolution the whole of the item will have to be carried at the same time. I am also afraid that I shall have to say to the minister that I do not feel the committee of supply, even by unanimous consent, can interfere with the rules of the house. Therefore I am afraid I must call it five o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: I would earnestly hope, in view of the importance of this debate, that unless there is something of very special significance, those who have any items on the order paper would permit them to stand, because I believe most members are very anxious to proceed with this subject.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I agree that the committee of itself cannot direct the house what to do, but if you were to take the chair I think you would find there would be unanimous consent to continue.
At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.



PRIVATE BILLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: In
view of what was said in committee of supply, may I say that I believe the house has the power by unanimous consent to do as it wishes. Is there unanimous consent that all matters on the order paper under the heading of both private and public bills be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The business under private and public bills having been disposed of, the house will revert to committee of supply.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
236. 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 $175,000,000, 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 $4,269,726,540 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $2,443,441,346 will come due for payment in future years), $1,729,285,194.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Calgary North reiterated today a number of requests which he made last night. He asked a number of general questions which I do not think can be dealt with easily in the form that they were asked. They have already been dealt with in a general way which is about the only way you can deal with them.
He asked what is our defence policy, what is the disposition of our troops, and how did we arrive at the figure of 120,000 as a ceiling of manpower. As to the number of personnel, all I can say is that it was felt that 120,000 personnel were sufficient to discharge our present tasks. If new tasks arise or present ones are extended or decreased the ceilings will again have to be considered. They are not permanent. They have been
Supply-National Defence changed a number of times, but they represent our best judgment as to the number of personnel required for the duties we have laid out.
As to where we will get new men if we need more men for the air force-and the hon. member says he thinks we will-these are problems I am not going to try to decide here and now. If they should arise they will be dealt with to the best of our ability and judgment.
I have noted the observations of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on the break-down of the estimates. I am not too familiar with the history of this matter, but I have a feeling that they were set up in this way to conform with the desires of the Department of Finance or some branch thereof, so they might be systematically arranged like the other estimates. I think that is the reason they were changed some years ago, but I may be wrong.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver South for his reference to the ground observer corps. Because of the number of matters to which I had to refer yesterday I did not have time to make reference to it. The ground observer corps stretches across Canada now and consists of about 80,000 civilian volunteers at 5,000 posts and with 12 filter stations. We feel it is performing very useful work. I should like to say that we are most appreciative of the number of people who have come forward to volunteer and who are actually following up and taking part in this very useful service.
I think that about covers the points that have been raised today, and if hon. members agree perhaps we could now proceed with the details of the estimates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I am by no means satisfied that the questions I asked have been answered. The minister has brushed them aside as being of a general nature and has said they cannot be answered any more than they have been answered. I do not think that is the case. One definite thing he did tell us yesterday about the infantry division has, I think, clarified our defence policy to some extent, particularly in view of the further explanation he has made today.
I believe what I have asked is quite reasonable and simple. I have asked that we be given further clarification regarding the role of the other elements in our defence forces, and particularly that we should be told-1 have already asked this twice-what changes in emphasis are taking place. It is indicated in the white paper that changes in emphasis are under way. What are those changes? I think the minister should be able to tell us

Supply-National Defence what changes are contemplated if they are not already in being. I believe we are entitled to that answer, and the minister should be able to give it to us.
In connection with the ceiling of 120,000 as the maximum number of persons in the regular forces, we have had that figure now for some considerable time. It was not arrived at just this year. We have had it for the last two years at least, and I think longer than that. In spite of the fact that we have had that figure for this length of time, we now find that very considerable changes are taking place in the general organization of the forces and in the emphasis to be placed on the roles of the different arms. That is why I asked what relationship the figure of 120,000 bears to defence needs now as compared with three years ago. Three years ago the Korean war was on. It is not on now. I think the minister could give a much more definite answer than he has given.
Then there is another matter. We now have in the forces some 3,000-odd women whom we did not have a few years ago when we also had a figure of 120,000 as the maximum. What proportion of the 120,000 in the regular forces are going to be women? Is it planned to have 5,000, 10,000, 15,000 women in the forces, or merely another thousand or two? I think that is a definite part of defence policy as far as manpower is concerned, and we should know.
As I say, I should like the minister to be a little more definite with respect to the figure of 120,000. He said he could not say how it had been arrived at, except on the advice of his military advisers. If they advised 120,000 three years ago, surely they are not still advising the same number in the light of changing conditions. There must be some other explanation unless, as I said last night and as it appears to me, it is a purely arbitrary figure.
With respect to the role of the 4th brigade, in answer to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich I understood the minister to say that as far as he knew it was for reinforcement purposes. That is no role at all. Surely the brigade has some other role than to serve as reinforcements. If that is the only role it has surely it is an extremely bad thing for the morale of the brigade. If I were in the brigade and knew that the only role I had was that of reinforcement I would not be too interested in the development of the brigade, no matter what my position was. I would think I was only going to be there temporarily and was going to be sent some place else 

as a reinforcement. Why would I be interested in building up unit spirit, a good platoon, a good company, a good battalion or whatever it might be?
I could not imagine any statement which would be worse for the morale of that brigade than the one the minister has made, to the effect that its chief role is to provide reinforcements and so forth. As a matter of fact I hope that brigade is going to be continued, and it should perhaps be trained in the same way as the airborne brigade is trained. The people in it should be given airborne training, and perhaps some of them should receive parachute training and others training in landing aircraft. Certainly I would say that the present situation is very unsatisfactory. In any event, I think it must have some more definite role than just reinforcement. I would think that for the welfare of that brigade the minister should perhaps correct that statement.
I do not think I have been unreasonable in asking the minister to give more definite answers than he has given concerning this change in emphasis in so far as the role of the various air force units is concerned, particularly in view of the fact that the number of these home defence squadrons equipped with the CF-100 is going to be increased to nine and the role of the auxiliary fighter squadron is to be reassessed.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think if the hon. member would look carefully at my statement yesterday he would find that I developed to some extent the question of reassessment. If he will compare the figures of the units and the forces, he will see there is a changing emphasis from the army, for example, to the air force. I was only making an observation about trends. There is nothing permanent about the figure of 120,000. There have been some variations in the figure and it may have to be varied again.
As regards the auxiliary air forces, I think I said very frankly yesterday all that could be said about the matter at the moment. In view of the nature of modern planes, heavier planes and more intricately equipped planes, the role of the auxiliary air force is being reassessed to see how its services can best be utilized. Our air defence might have to be reviewed and revised as a consequence, but I do not propose to try to spell out every change in detail. I do not think I should be expected to do that. There is nothing static about these things. They change with changing conditions, as they are bound to change. As I say, general questions of this nature are not easy to answer in specific terms. I do

not think that is an unreasonable answer to what my hon. friend referred to as a not unreasonable question.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that one of the difficulties with which we are confronted is the very large group of figures embraced in this single item 236, calling for a total expenditure of $1,729,285,194.
The second point with which the minister has not yet dealt, and one which has an important place in these general items, is the training of the militia. Will the minister indicate to us whether any change is going to be made to give effective training to the militia at these great camps we have established? I dealt with one particular type of training, the artillery training. We have great camps, wonderfully equipped, suited for the training of artillery units, yet the fact is that this year, which we are told is such an important year from the defence point of view, only a fraction of the artillery units are going to go to camp.
In addition to that, no plans have been made for competitive firing or other competitions or other activities in Canada as they were in the past. Will the minister tell us something about what the prospects are of getting back to a really effective form of militia training in our camps?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have been informed on a number of occasions that the reorganization of the militia, which has been proceeding during the past year, and which includes the artillery and the other arms of the service, has progressed steadily, including training activities. I am surprised at what the hon. member has said. I am told the training is better, more use is being made of equipment and that generally the whole training of the militia is being conducted in such a way as to improve the activities of these services. I have been informed that a good deal of progress has been made in the past year in improving the training.


George Alexander Drew: I can only express more than surprise, I can only express amazement if the minister is surprised at the statement I have made. All he needs to do is obtain a list from the officials concerned of the number of artillery units in Canada and the number that will actually be carrying out firing practice at the camps this year.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am obtaining them.


George Alexander Drew: If the minister has that he will find that only a fraction of the units in Canada will actually be carrying out firing practice. I have used the artillery as an illustration because I happen to know something about it
Supply-National Defence from personal contact. The fact is that without firing practice artillery training is largely useless. Any suggestion that at this time we have militia forces that could be used in the event of an emergency would be completely remote from the facts. I can only express my admiration for the men who are carrying on under the difficulties they encounter.
When this huge sum of money is being spent, we are not getting results from the units in our reserve forces. I think before passing on from this item, which embraces all the training items of this kind, we should have some explanation, not only in regard to the artillery but in regard to armour, the engineers and the other services. We should be told what percentage of the men actually enrolled in local units are going to get training in camps this summer. Hon. members are wholly unable to even express an effective opinion in regard to the adequacy of our training methods unless they know that simple fact.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


George Alexander Drew: It cannot be carried until we have some indication as to what is contemplated from the point of view of training. Surely the minister can, possibly within a few minutes, obtain a statement of the units of infantry, artillery, the armoured forces and the other services, with the number of men enlisted and the number of men from those services that are going to camp this year. Those figures are now available because plans are made. Can the minister get that for us?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall endeavour to do so. I do not think I can get the full information for all the different services within a few minutes, but I shall endeavour to get what the hon. member wants.


George Alexander Drew: I should like the minister to tell us about plans for the training of the militia. After all, it has been represented to us over and over again that the militia is the backbone of our defence training. Can the minister tell us exactly what the plans are for the training of our militia, and to give them the kind of training at camp that will at least to some extent prepare them for any possible emergency they might be called upon to face?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am certainly not in a position to give the details of the training schedules of all the services at this time. I think the Leader of the Opposition is rather unfair in suggesting that. The training officers of each of these branches have organized their training plans, and I have discussed them generally with them. But I have not any detailed knowledge as to how many people

Supply-National Defence are going to these camps, for what periods they are going, or the details of the training syllabus. I do not think I should be expected to have such material here. I shall get what the Leader of the Opposition wants; but most certainly I do not have it with me.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, let us just see exactly where this leads us. The minister suggests it is unfair that we should ask him to tell us the percentage of men on the strength of the militia units who will get camp training this year. We have great camps in this country, camps on which millions and millions of dollars have been spent. Not far from here is one of the greatest artillery camps in the world, at Petawawa. That camp is capable of training every artillery unit in eastern Canada and of taking the fullest establishment permitted for training.
Surely the minister should be able to tell us what the relationship will be between the number of artillery units in eastern Canada that are actually active, and the number of those units which will take men to camp this summer. Anything less than that would make our discussion of militia estimates a farce. Surely that is the basic information we require.
That camp is for the purpose of training artillerymen. We have a great infantry camp at Gagetown, and other camps for infantry and other branches of the service. We have camps at Shilo and Valcartier and camps farther west across Canada, all created at great expense.
Surely the first information we should have before we can express an understandable opinion as to the adequacy or otherwise of the preparations being made by the Department of National Defence in regard to what is considered as the backbone of our whole defence system is to be told how many infantry units, how many artillery units, how many armoured units, how many engineering units and how many units of other kinds there will be.
If the minister tells us he cannot give us that information now, then perhaps he will say that at a later date or at a later point in the discussion, when the officials of his department are here, he could give it to us. Can the minister assure us that this will be done?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, certainly.


George Alexander Drew: Then we may count upon having the officials present when the militia estimates are dealt with?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The officials who are usually here will be here.


George Alexander Drew: I know that; but I am pointing out that this is basic information. Will the minister give us the assurance that there will be officials here who can give us information in regard to the number of units of the various services actually-to use the army term now being used-activated, and the number of men from that enrolment who will be at camp this year?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall undertake to get
the information. That is all I can say.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Without taking
part in the debate, may I point out to the committee that item 236 for $1,729,285,194 is, in the details, broken down into five major headings, namely departmental administration, navy, army, air and research. If by consent we proceed to the discussion of those five major headings, one at a time, thus permitting questions and answers, by proceeding with that discussion in that way we are not in any way approving or carrying item 236. As I understand it we are just enabling the minister to have before him the proper group of officials to deal with each subheading. Then when the discussion is finally concluded it will then be necessary for the Chair to go back and put item 236 to the committee.


George Alexander Drew: If it is done in that way it will be entirely satisfactory. I had understood from an earlier statement that you did not feel it should be done that way. However, if this is done we can proceed with the details under those headings, and then deal with the single item.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Then I would point out to the committee that the details are to be found at page 306, and that the first heading is that of departmental administration.


George Randolph Pearkes: Under this heading I see there is no great change in the amount. The civil staff has gone up, and that was to be expected. But we had always questioned, from this side of the house, the necessity of employing a large number of professional and special services. I note with some concern that while the amount in this particular item is not so large, there has been an increase in professional and special services from $25,000 to $35,000. In view of the large number of professional men in the various services, can the minister explain why it has been necessary to engage this outside assistance?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The major item in this increase is for the services of a consulting engineer in connection with planning for new accommodation for the department. He has been engaged to work on that project. The

remainder erf the item is $25,000, the same as it was last year, for the bureau of current affairs.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: I note at page 307 that the department has listed a librarian, grade 3, and a librarian, grade 1. Do the requirements for those positions necessitate the holding of a degree in library science?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot answer categorically, but I am reasonably satisfied the answer is no.


Mr. Nesbitt:: I note at page 306 an item for a real estate appraiser. What are his duties? Does he go out to all parts of Canada appraising the value of real estate the department is considering purchasing or leasing?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand most of our appraisal work is done by local people in the areas where we are operating. This man is the co-ordinator of their efforts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I note that while the salary of the deputy minister was $15,000 last year, it is $20,000 this year. I am not making any implications, nor am I suggesting that the present deputy minister is not worth that much. As a matter of fact I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for the work he has done in the Department of National Defence. We read in the press that in a short time he will be leaving the department to engage in a different occupation. I believe he has great gifts and has exercised them with energy in the post of deputy minister.
I rise, however, to point out this increase from $15,000 to $20,000. Looking through the estimates I find different amounts in different departments. While in the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice the deputy ministers are to receive this year this same amount of $20,000, in the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Agriculture they receive $17,500, in the Department of Fisheries the amount is $15,500, and in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources it is $15,000. Then in one branch of the Department of National Revenue the deputy minister is to receive $15,000 and in the other branch $16,500.
How were these increases arrived at, and why is there this very considerable variation?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The salaries of the deputy ministers and of other senior officials are approved by the government. They are based on the recommendations of the treasury board after a very exhaustive study, and they have recommended varying rates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is a change. They used to be all the same.
Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: Ever since I have been familiar with the matter there have been changes from time to time, and the salaries were at varying rates some years ago.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is another matter in this particular detail. I notice on page 307 the total personnel under departmental administration last year was 769, and this year it is 791. There is a small increase; but when we turn to page 30 of the white paper, where there is a break-down of civilian employees at national defence headquarters, we find that instead of these figures of 791 this year and 769 the year before the figures of 756 and 647. What is the explanation of those figures? Which figure is actually correct?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The figures in the blue book are the number on the establishment. The figures in the white book are the actual number of personnel. In other words, some of the positions on the establishment were not filled last year; some of them are not filled now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister estimated for them last year and he is estimating for them again this year, in spite of the fact that the positions are not filled?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand they are not always the same positions that are not filled, but generally speaking it has been the history of the establishment of the department over some years that it normally runs somewhat below the actual numbers of the establishment as fixed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In this instance there is a difference of 124 out of a total of 769, as far as last year was concerned. That is shown in the blue book. In the white paper only 647 are shown. Surely there were not 120-odd positions in this group which were not filled.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I see that the establishment last year was 769 and the actual positions filled were 756, which is a difference of 13. We have not the final figures for this year to put against the established figure of 791. We will not have that until the end of the year.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On page 307 I find the following: "Publication of departmental reports and other material". Last year the estimate was $146,300. This year it is $156,300. Can the minister give us just exactly what these departmental reports consist of, because I see that the individual services have enormous amounts of money put aside for that purpose. The navy had $500,000 set aside for departmental reports. I have not actually checked the army and the air force, but I presume there are proportionately large sums set aside for those reports. Is there any particular

Supply-National Defence reason why this amount should be increased by $10,000, and what is the "other material" that is referred to?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The principal item in this vote for the publication of departmental reports is the expenditure for the bureau of current affairs. It issues a regular series of publications throughout the year which account for $140,000. Then there are the annual reports of the department in English and in French and the white paper, administrative amendments to directive documents and small matters of that kind. The major part of this, however, is for the publications of the bureau of current affairs.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: To follow that up, what is the distribution of the publication of the bureau of current affairs? Is it distributed to all members of the armed services?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Some of the pamphlets that are published by the bureau of current affairs go to all members of the forces, some go to officers and some go to units as a group. Some of them are reserved by the queen's printer for sale to libraries, who make inquiries for them. The bulk however go to the troops.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Are any of these pamphlets monthly or bimonthly publications, or are they individual publications?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The standard practice is to put out two a month. In addition to that they publish a news report monthly.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not yet satisfied in regard to the matter I was speaking of a few minutes ago because on December 31, 1954, the white paper shows the number of these administrative personnel as 647. The number provided for in the estimates in 1954 was 769, or 122 more; but the number provided for in this year's estimates is 791, which is 144 more. I do not think the fact that a certain number of positions were not filled can be the real explanation of that.
When we get these figures, I like to think we can rely on them. This puts us in a difficulty. I do not know whether to take the figures from the blue book or from the white paper, or just what the situation is. It leaves a certain amount of ambiguity. It seems to me the department is estimating for many more people than it should be estimating for; otherwise the figure in the white paper is not correct.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I must apologize to the hon. member. I looked in the wrong column. The figure of 756 which I gave should have been 647, as the member stated. I understand there were a great number of vacancies, and fMr. Nesbitt.]

they are being filled gradually. As of May 31 this year the figure had arisen to 699; the rest are still unfilled.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Are any of these positions still not filled?


Ralph Osborne Campney: If we continue to find suitable people for these positions at the present rate they should all be filled by the end of this year. We have difficulty getting certain types of people for certain jobs, and they may remain vacant for quite a while.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How much of the amount of $2,529,601 which was voted last year was unspent?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The actual expenditure was $2,438,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That appears to be an obvious discrepancy. The difference between the two amounts is less than $100,000, but we are told that there were between 120 and 140 fewer people than appear on this list.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the discrepancy in last year's figures is explained by the fact that there was a general salary increase after the estimates had been prepared, and therefore it took more of the available money for fewer people.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is a question I should like to ask the minister with regard to the details on page 308.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the committee any further discussion on departmental administration?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would this be the proper place to discuss the historical section?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Is the hon. member referring to the army historical section or to any particular service?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would refer more particularly to the army, but what I have to say would affect the other two services as well.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the hon. member might as well make his observations now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In the first place I want to say that those responsible for the publications issued by the services deserved credit for what they have produced. The Canadian Army Journal for the army, the Roundel for the air force and the Crowsnest for the navy are all well-produced publications and I think serve a very effective purpose. However, I am more concerned with the material produced by the historical section which comes directly under the army.
A first-class piece of work has been done under the direction of Colonel Stacey in

providing a history of the services during the second world war. Beyond what Colonel Stacey and his assistants have produced in this connection they have contributed innumerable articles dealing with other aspects of Canadian history during other periods of time. The point I should like to take up with the minister may not at first make any great appeal to him, but I do present the case on this occasion for his consideration.
Along with the hon. member for Greenwood, about three years ago I interviewed the minister of national defence of that time and discussed the possibilities of producing a short history of the first world war. He agreed to discuss it with the historical section but nothing further was heard of the matter. I bring this matter to the attention of the present minister and ask him to give consideration to it. When I raised the question before it perhaps was not a suitable time, because the historical section was busily engaged in completing its work with regard to the second world war, but I understand that this has now reached completion.
They have a most competent staff and I suggest that before it is too late for the generation to which I belong some action might be taken to correct a grave deficiency that existed between the two wars, when steps were taken to produce a history of the first world war which did not get beyond one volume, after which apparently the project was dropped. Perhaps at this stage it is too late to talk about a detailed official history of the first world war running into several volumes, and that is not what I have in mind.
What I have in mind is something like the volume Colonel Stacey produced in 1948 entitled "The Canadian Army 1939-1945. Official Historical Summary." This volume relates the activities of the Canadian army during the course of the second world war to matters of general importance concerning Canada's war effort. The volume runs to about 350 pages and is an admirable publication serving the very purpose for which it was designed. I think that something along that line might very well be done with regard to the first world war. The historians might consider that it should be somewhat more elaborate, perhaps running to two volumes, but I would accept their advice in that regard.
The reason I raise the matter at this time is that the period of the first great war, from 1914 to 1918, represented for Canada its first such effort on a national scale. It was as a result of the effort of the Canadian people at that time that Canada achieved in the international field full recognition as a nation, though she had enjoyed this to a degree before. Had it not been for Canada's effort in
Supply-National Defence the first world war we would not have been represented at the council table when the peace treaties were signed, nor admitted as an independent nation to the league of nations. The argument for treating Canada as a separate nation was based upon her effort during the first world war. So without going into too great detail, I suggest that is one of the highlights in the history of the Canadian nation which is deserving of great attention.
I would say to those who think the first world war is over and forgotten that articles are appearing continually in the Canadian Army Journal, the Legionary and other magazines with reference to the first great war. Histories of Canada are being published at frequent intervals in which attention must of necessity be paid to the first great war. But for those who write with regard to that period there is no official Canadian history available.
In addition I would say to the minister that there are surviving in Canada several hundred thousand of those who served in the first world war. They look with envy upon the valuable books which were produced after the second world war concerning the navy, army and air force, and they express regret that the history of the period in which they were so active has not been written and presented to the Canadian people.
Consequently, for those and other reasons I might bring forth, I would ask the minister to give serious attention to this particular matter. I believe the historical section has the research material available. They have the trained staff ready and willing to embark on such an enterprise. I would hope that Colonel Stacey, if he is still actively engaged wtih the historical section, would be given the opportunity of directing the work, and the result would be a first-class contribution to Canadian history and Canadian military history.
We sometimes tend to play down military matters in Canada a little, as if we were not much interested in such matters and as if we were not a military nation. Yet when you read the history of this country you find that too frequently our destiny was determined by some military activity.
In that connection I would draw the attention of hon. members to the book published by Professor Stanley, of the Royal Military College at Kingston, on "Canada's Soldiers, 1604-1954", a period of 350 years, to which he gives the subtitle "The Military History of an Unmilitary People". In that history he brings forth for the first time a great deal of material which is not usually found in the histories of Canada, certainly the ones that have come to my attention. That volume is

Supply-National Defence a great contribution to Canadian military history, is well worth the study of those who are in the national defence department, and is of interest to the public generally.
We all are or should be aware of the value of a knowledge of the history of one's country. It so happens that part of that history at times has to concern itself with war. War is a destructive force in civilization and should not be played up from the standpoint of glorification or anything of that nature; but from the very fact that war involves sacrifice, and that as a result of the wars in which Canada has been engaged our country has gained in strength and our freedom has been maintained, there is no need for us ever to be ashamed of having histories of Canadian effort in wartime produced in this country.
I grant that there is as much interest in the history of other activities in a country; and as one who has always had an interest in history I get enjoyment from reading of other activities that Canadians have undertaken in building up this country over the centuries. Nevertheless there have been war activities, and the neglected portion in Canada's historical record has been the first great war. I hope now, before it becomes too late for this generation, the history of that war might be written.
It is fair to say that it will be written eventually, perhaps 20 or 50 years from now. People have an insatiable desire to know what has happened in the past. We read with interest nowadays stories about the Napoleonic wars and other wars that occurred in much more ancient times, and there continue to pour out from the printing presses histories of England, histories of the United States and histories of Canada. So, as I say, eventually the history of the Canadian effort in the first great war will be written. I simply propose to the minister that he give consideration to having it done in the near future, because he has a very able staff available to undertake this task.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I should be very glad to take the hon. member's suggestion under consideration. As one who had some part in world war I, I have often received the same complaint he is making of not being able to find information about some phase of that war.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the matter I was discussing a few minutes ago. There seems to be a further discrepancy in the amount of $2,438,000 paid to 647 employees. The reason given as to why the amount spent was almost as much as the total amount provided for 

769 employees was that there had been a salary increase after the estimates had first been prepared. Has any increase in salaries taken place since the preparation of these estimates now before us listing the salaries referred to, particularly that of the deputy defence minister? Are those increases in salary not provided for or shown in the present list we have before us? Are they the present salaries?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, they are.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If that is the case, why is it that $2,438,000 was paid out for 647 people in 1954-55, whereas $2,631,108 is the amount now projected to be paid out for 791 people? It is a difference of less than $200,000, but there is a big difference in the number of personnel.
Mr. Chairman, it is about six o'clock. Possibly the minister could get that statement during the dinner recess. After recess he might also be able to say something about another question which is worth looking into. The white paper shows the total of these civilian personnel at December 31, 1954, as 54,795. I should like to know how many of these civilian employees are shown in the estimates for 1954-55 and 1955-56. In other words, I should like to know what discrepancy there is between the numbers for whom we voted salaries in the estimates and the numbers shown as actually being on strength in 1954 in the white paper.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I understand that this is notice of the question.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, immediately before the recess I had asked the minister a few questions regarding the civilian strength at headquarters and he was going to produce some figures in connection therewith.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In response to the hon. member's question, I cannot give definite figures but I am informed that, as far as departmental administration is concerned, the difference between the 791 personnel at a cost of $2,631,000 and the cost of the positions during the previous year is due to two factors. One is, as I have already stated, that actually a number of these positions are not filled or were not filled at the beginning of the year. Some of them will not be filled during the year.

The second factor is that these figures do not take into account the statutory increases which a great many of these people receive. The over-all figure of the cost of these positions is arrived at without regard to the statutory increases of the various employees, which amount to quite a large sum if the increases are granted and if the positions are occupied. That is the imponderable. Some of the positions are occupied and some are not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It seems to me what that comes down to is that we are being asked to vote $2,631,000 for a group of positions outlined here, and at the salaries outlined, and we should be able to take it that the amounts are absolutely definite. But then the minister tells us that some of these positions are not filled and as a result they think the sum of $2,631,000 will be close to the amount they are going to expend. Surely we can get something more definite than that.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Perhaps I might say, as I have already mentioned, that there are a number of imponderables in these computations. The estimators who made up the estimates for 1954-55 estimated a sum of $2,529,000 on the same basis as the $2,631,000 was estimated this year, making some allowance for positions that probably could not be filled, statutory increases, and so on, and we actually spent $2,400,000 odd. Therefore the over-all picture is pretty closely parallel.
It is very difficult to give specific figures for items such as statutory increases when we do not know how many of a given classification are entitled to them, and when we do not know how many vacant positions there may be in a given classification at any particular time. While we have vacant positions when we start the year, there are also vacant positions which arise during the year and they are not filled right away. It is pretty difficult to lay it down right on the line, but I should think the amount spent in the previous year in relation to the estimate for that year would indicate that by and large we are fairly close to the mark, and it is on the same basis that the amount of $2,631,000 is estimated.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would say just the reverse of what the minister said. As a matter of fact they laid down definite salaries for 769 persons and they only had 647. That is 122 less, but they spent within less than $100,000 of the amount estimated. When I asked for an explanation of why 647 people got as much money as we had voted for 769, the minister said that to begin with quite a number of the positions had not been filled. Then he came along with another explanation
Supply-National Defence that there had been increases in salaries in the meantime. But then I pointed out that for the present 791 positions the vote is only $2,631,000, less than $200,000 more. Subtracting 647 from 791, there are 144 more people at increased salaries.
Therefore the explanation just does not add up arithmetically. There is something wrong with it. If the list of amounts shown here is completely wrong, then I would say we are being asked to vote money under false pretences. The list includes a deputy minister at $20,000, two associate deputy ministers at $12,000, and so on. Is the minister trying to tell me these are not the present salaries of these people, and the same thing right down the line? I do not think he will try to say that. I would say the explanation he has just given really does not hold water, and that from what we have been told so far you cannot reconcile the amount of $2,438,
000	paid last year for 647 people with a vote of $2,631,000 for 791 people. Arithmetically it does not add up, and we have had no answer so far to show what the correct situation is. I would not be surprised if there was a perfectly logical explanation, but we have not heard it so far.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have given a number of factors which, put together, I think make a very reasonable explanation. The hon. member referred to the deputy minister's salary. This is one of the 791 positions. The deputy minister is getting a salary of $20,000 a year. He will be retiring on the 1st of July. Another deputy minister at a lesser salary will be coming in on the 15th of August. These are imponderable things that you cannot reduce to dollars and cents. After all, you have nearly 800 positions and a great many of them change. In addition, these are only estimates; these are not the sums that will necessarily be paid.
All I am saying is that for the reasons
1	gave before dinner and the one I added since dinner, the fact is, as the estimates indicate, that 1954-55 was fairly close to the mark. I do not think it is possible, and I do not think any good purpose would be served by continuing to try to reconcile specifically each of these 791 salaries, with all the imponderables of the positions filled, the positions vacant, the positions which cannot be filled, the statutory increases and so on, and try to reduce it to dollars and cents. If the hon. member can do that he is better than I am. I can only leave it in that position.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not in a position where I need to do it, but I think the minister is in a position where he needs to do it.

Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am in a position where I need to be sure that I am paying a man what he has earned and what he is entitled to get.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When we have certain figures presented to us in the committee and we are voting money to pay these people, we should be in a position to know that there are 791 people and that their total salaries amount to so much. We should vote that amount. However, now we discover that is not the situation. Some of these people are not there at all, and some of them may not be receiving these salaries at all. As I said, I believe in effect we are being asked to vote money under what really amounts to false pretences.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: The hon. gentleman should know how this operates. The civil service commission approves the establishment and approves the scales of salaries. The statutes provide that if the chief of an employee who has been engaged under civil service regulations, and who has given satisfaction during the statutory period, certifies that he is entitled to an increase of $5, $10 or $15 per month, then that increase is granted. However, it is conditional upon there being a certificate submitted to the treasury board from the chief that the man has given satisfactory service. I happen to know that, because I have to sign these certificates for the employees in the privy council office. They are brought to me by the immediate chief of the person concerned, and it is only when I have signed a certificate which goes to the treasury board that the increase is authorized.
Now, if we were voting money to pay for past services it would have to be absolutely precise. But as the minister has said, he is asking parliament to appropriate money that will be sufficient to pay these salaries under conditions as they may develop. It may be that there are, and it usually is the case that there are, some of these amounts that are not expended. It happens that there are some who do not get the certificates which, if they got them, would entitle them to the increase in salary.
Then these certificates are not issued at any one period during the year. They come at the anniversary of the entry into the service of the civil servant concerned. It may be that he will have for a part of the fiscal year a salary of so many dollars per month, and for the last three, four, five or six or eight months of the fiscal year a larger salary than he had in the previous months. Those are what the minister has referred to as the imponderables.


The deputy minister who will replace the retiring deputy minister will commence at the initial salary fixed under the establishment that has been set up and will, from anniversary to anniversary of his entry into the service, if his minister recommends it, get the approved statutory increases. The maximum for the position is $20,000 and the initial salary is, I believe, $17,500. I have no doubt, from my personal knowledge of the capacity and devotion to duty of the gentleman who has been appointed to the position of deputy minister, that at each anniversary of his entry into the service, his minister will certify that his services have been of a character to warrant the so-called statutory increases.
The treasury board has been called the watchdog, and it is the watchdog. It requires written certificates with respect to the application of these provisions that apply to the statutory increases in salary.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Prime Minister was not here during the whole of the discussion, and therefore is not apprised of the sort of basic discrepancy about which I have been complaining. The imponderables about which he has spoken would amount to possibly a few thousand dollars, and I quite understand that. But there is a basic discrepancy which the imponderables, changes in salary and so forth, would not explain in any case so far as this particular vote is concerned. It is for that reason I have been pressing this thing for some considerable time. It seems to me that these votes which are presented to us should be as close, both so far as the individual items which make them up are concerned and so far as the total amounts are concerned, as it is possible to get them. Last year we voted for 769 positions at definite salaries, and then we find from the white paper that actually there were only 647 people.


Ralph Osborne Campney: There were 714 as of December 31.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As of December 31, the white paper shows 647.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is at headquarters, but not for the whole category. They are in other places besides headquarters.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the vote we are talking about. Up to this minute the minister never disputed the figure of 647; that is the figure we have been talking about, and he has never raised any question about it. Perhaps that is the explanation. As I said before,
I was sure there must be some other explanation than the one that had been given, and perhaps that is it. There are some people who

appear on pages 306 and 307 of the blue book who do not appear in the list of 647 at page 30 of the white paper. That may be the logical explanation, but certainly we have not had any explanation up to date. It would appear this is a quite serious discrepancy in the amount of money paid and in the number of people employed.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister going to say there are more than 647 people covered?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I said that as of December 31, 1954, there were 714, including all those people in this particular category. The figure the hon. member has been quoting is for headquarters, and the administrative offices are not all at headquarters.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think perhaps we have finally obtained an explanation of what looks like a quite serious discrepancy. In addition to the 647 shown on page 30 of the white paper there are enough more in other parts of the service to make up 714, and whose jobs appear under departmental administration at pages 306 and 307?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The figure is at the bottom of page 29 of the white paper.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At the bottom of page 29 is shown the total number of people, 714, in administration other than inspection services. If the minister is stating that is the total number of people covered here, and the number who have been paid, then that may be a reasonable explanation. But it has taken a long time to get that far. Then the white paper at page 29 shows 54,795 civilian employees. How many civilian employees are shown in the estimates for the years 195455 and 1955-56?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The positions for which salaries were detailed in the estimates for 1954-55 numbered 47,678, and for the present year 51,608. Those are positions detailed in the estimates. The figure of 54,795 as of December 31, 1954, at page 29 of the white paper, is made up of (a) casuals, not detailed in the estimates and (b) staff of the defence research board, likewise not detailed in the estimates. These are not handled in the estimates in the same way as the rest of the staff.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I should like to mention a local problem in my own riding having to do with a road.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the hon. member is out of order, because we will have an item under which that could be discussed. I know
Supply-National Defence the matter the hon. member is referring to.
I would have no objection to discussing it now, but it deals with a road to a radio station and is connected with the air force.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Very well; we shall discuss it later.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I notice at page 306 of the estimates an amount for a director of public relations. Are there any civilian employees under the director of public relations, or are they all service personnel? If they are, then how many service personnel in each of the services come under the jurisdiction of the director?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Each service has its own director of public relations in that service, and his staff are members of the service. The director of public relations is a civilian who correlates and co-ordinates the work of the other public relations officers.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Does the head of public relations in each service come under the chief of staff or under the director of public relations?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Each public relations officer in each service is under his own chief of staff. However, they also work in close co-operation and co-ordination with the director of public relations.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is it the chief of staff or the director of public relations who has final authority over public relations staff?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Technically speaking I would say that each public relations officer is under his own chief of staff. Some of the publicity comes to me, and it always comes through the co-ordinator. They all work together. They work with him and he works with them. But technically speaking I would say that each public relations officer is under his own service.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: How long has the office of director of public relations been in existence?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It was instituted during the war and has been almost continuous ever since. Offhand I could not give the date.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps I might ask my other questions when we reach the various services. I would still like to know the number of personnel in each of the services, but I will be content to ask those questions later, if desired.


John Borden Hamilton: Information at the bottom of page 307 would indicate that there has been a gradual increase in the number of stenographers, typists and clerks. I know that in certain cases reclassification takes place so that the increase shown may not be as great as would appear at first

Supply-National Defence glance. But at pages 307, 309, 313, 325, 337 and 338 we note a considerable increase in this kind of help in the department. It would seem that the combination of typists, stenographers, clerks and publications would indicate a continuation of the paper war. I note that the amount spent for publications in 1951-52 was $71,000; 1952-53, $103,000; 1953-54,	$126,000;	1954-55,	$146,300 and
1955-56, $156,300.
In each year over the past four or five years there has been a steady increase in this type of expenditure. What steps are taken within the department, or what control is exercised by the senior officials in the department, in connection with the type of appointment which is reflected by this increase in numbers and by the increase in expenditures on this type of publication, and so forth?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think I outlined fairly clearly in my remarks yesterday the procedure for establishing a new position. First of all there is the committee in the department which screens the prospective position, studies it and makes such recommendations as it sees fit. When that has been done, the report, if favourable, goes to the civil service commission, and they do their own studying and screening of the request for the position and make their report. When that has been made, if the report is favourable, then the question of the position goes to treasury board, and they are the final authority who authorize or do not authorize its establishment.
Therefore it can be taken that positions are not lightly created and, in fact, are not approved unless there is genuine need for them. The department has grown; I think the figures will indicate that the growth in the numbers by categories is not out of line with the growth in civilian personnel in these offices.


John Borden Hamilton: Will the minister indicate where the actual request for appointments on this level is initiated? Does it come from the upper brackets of the officers of the department? Where is the actual request initiated?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The initiation of a new
position in a branch comes to the head of the branch from the particular person who seeks to have the position established. The head of the branch then considers it, and if he thinks it has merit he sends it to the assistant deputy minister in charge of personnel, who then looks into it, and if he approves then it goes to the committee I have mentioned.


John Borden Hamilton: Has the minister ever considered the appointment of a board within his own department to review what appears to be continuing applications of this type for increases in personnel?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There are a number of these committees. In fact there is one in each service. They are all competent committees and they sit from time to time. In addition to reviewing the applications of which I have been speaking, they also review existing positions to see if they are still needed and if they are being utilized. Therefore we keep as close a check in the department on the growth of the staff as can reasonably be expected.


John Borden Hamilton: Has that work been extended at all into an investigation into departmental procedures from the paper standpoint? I have illustrated a continuing increase in expenditure of one type. Is there any over-all committee which is conducting any check on this type of expenditure?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is no over-all committee which covers the whole field, as the hon. member has suggested, but committees are set up from time to time to make specific studies where it looks as though they should be made. For example, we had one not long ago studying publications. But there is not an actual over-all committee that surveys the whole department in one operation.


John Borden Hamilton: I would suggest to the minister that if this type of expenditure continues to increase in this way we might consider appointing a committee to look into the work of that other committee.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee through with departmental administration?


Mr. Macdonnell:: I should like to ask a question supplementary to the one asked by my colleague. The question of outside investigation by efficiency companies has been raised before, and the predecessor of the present minister pooh-poohed it and would have no part of it. I am interested to learn, from what the minister has just said, that there apparently is no over-all committee surveying the question of employment, the allocation of duties, and so on, notwithstanding that, if my memory serves me there are over 30,000 civilian employees in the department. I understand there are merely these ad hoc committees surveying various problems from time to time. That is my understanding of what the minister said. That seems to me to leave the possibility of gaps, and to fail to grapple in a comprehensive way with what appears to be a huge problem of organization.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall we pass to inspection services?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish the minister would comment on that.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think I have said all that I can say. There are complement committees -a number of them-which together cover the whole field. There are other matters in the department that ad hoc committees deal with from time to time, such as publications. But on the personnel side the complement committees, who sit all the time and who are specialists, taken together-one committee could not do it all-cover the whole field.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister speaks about the committees being specialists. Will he explain how they become specialists in this kind of organization? In the first place, are they service officers whose primary duties would presumably be in organization on the military side?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that they are composed of service personnel and civilian personnel who have been trained in personnel work. Some of them are graduates of the Harvard school of business. They are all well trained in the type of work in which they are engaged.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But the co-ordination
apparently is more or less accidental, or at any rate there is no body which co-ordinates the various ad hoc committees which are dealing with special problems.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall we pass to inspection services?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I have an answer to that question?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand the co-ordination work is done by an officer on the deputy minister's staff who is known as the superintendent of establishments.


John Borden Hamilton: One other question in connection with this particular aspect of the estimates; has any survey been conducted throughout the whole department as to the use of various new mechanical means of handling the massive paper work that must be handled by the department? We read daily of large corporations which make considerable savings in personnel and expenses by utilization of mechanical devices in office work. Has the department looked into questions of that kind?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is a man under the assistant deputy minister, administration, who is a specialist in the field to which the hon. member has referred, and who spends his time in an effort to shorten procedures
Supply-National Defence and save paper work and do the various things that the hon. member has suggested.


John Borden Hamilton: Does the
minister feel that from the office standpoint his department is up to date in connection with the new types of equipment that are available?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would say reasonably so, yes.


William Alfred Robinson: On inspection services.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two questions I should like to ask under this heading. I will outline what I have in mind and then perhaps the minister can give an answer. Set out on page 308 are four categories of inspectors. There are inspectors, grade 1; inspecting officers, grade 3; inspecting officers, grade 2; and inspecting officers, grade 1. There are between 40 and 50 of these. Then a little further down the page we find inspectors of stores, grade 4, of which there are 79; inspectors of stores, grade 3, of which there are 327; inspectors of stores, grade 2, of which there are 466; and inspectors of stores, grade 1, of which there are 117, making a grand total for inspectors of stores of 989. Then when we refer to the various services specifically we find that the air force has 25 inspectors of stores and the navy 16. These are of varying gradations, grades 1, 2 and 3.
In all the defence estimates there seems to be a total of 1,069 inspectors of stores, which is a formidable total. I was wondering if the minister could give us an outline of what these inspectors do and where their duties are carried out; how long they work, exactly what is their work, and so on.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The members of the inspection service of our department include highly-trained engineers, chemists and technicians who are located at various points across Canada. The services maintain six chemical laboratories, a very complete electronics laboratory, a physical testing laboratory, two gauge laboratories, three proof ranges, a tire testing laboratory and many other incidentals. The direct value of the stores still to be inspected as of March 31 of this year was $518 million, with the number of contracts being 5,111.
These men are placed in their positions on qualifications established by the civil service commission, which account for the different grades. The different grades depend on the type of work in which the men are engaged. This work represents a major effort of our department, as naturally we have to have everything inspected before we accept and pay for it, and a good deal of the inspection

Supply-National Defence has to be done in laboratories, much of it while the commodity is being produced.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If the minister has not the information now possibly he can give it the next time his estimates are being considered, but I should like to have a sort of break-down of what these people do. The word "inspector" is a vague sort of word and would seem to suggest someone who was inspecting stores periodically. I take it from the minister's remarks that this category would include people who test materials received by the various services, materials being used in building contracts and so on. The personnel set out on page 308 under inspection services represents a cost of nearly $3-5 million, which is a tidy sum indeed for inspection purposes.
I should like to know how many of these inspectors actually go around checking stores on hand in the various establishments, how many are actually testing materials, and so on. I think that information would be most helpful.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot at the moment give the details the hon. member has requested, but perhaps I can give him some idea of what is involved.
This service is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that materials and equipment ordered by the armed services are furnished in accordance with the specifications, *or suggesting changes in specifications to bring them in line with manufacturing practices, for investigating facilities of firms to produce specific requirements, for interpreting to the contractor government specifications and the technical requirements of the contract, for recommending for or against design changes requested by manufacturers and to recommend cancellation of a contract when it is determined that the manufacturer is not meeting his commitments. In addition to the above, reciprocal inspection is carried out on behalf of the United States armed services and in connection with the NATO and Colombo plans.
That is a general statement of the work they do.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Possibly the next time the committee meets the minister will be able to give us a further break-down, because there seems to be an extraordinarily large number of persons involved in this particular branch of the defence department. I for one would like to have further explanation at a later date.


John Borden Hamilton: There is an item on page 310 covering payments for municipal and public utility services, and
similar items will be found on pages 319, 329, 333, 334 and 340. I assume that this covers water services, probably sewer services and so on furnished by municipalities in which defence department buildings are located. Are these payments based upon the tariffs of the municipalities, or are they a type of grant to the municipality? Is it in any way tied in with the grants made to municipalities in lieu of taxes as provided by the Municipal Grants Act?


Ralph Osborne Campney: This vote represents sums paid to municipalities for water and services of various kinds. Such sums are taken into consideration when grants are being made under the Municipal Grants Act. There is an adjustment made so we are not paying twice for the same thing, or for something we do not get. In certain circumstances we make contracts for the services from the municipalities as any customer would.


John Borden Hamilton: In other words you are paying for the services based on the tariff of the municipality. Is a capital contribution ever made toward the establishment of these services, in the same way that an owner of real estate must make capital payment for the establishment of services?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, we have in some cases, under certain circumstances where it seemed to be in our best interests. It is the only thing to do in certain cases, depending on the situation. We have made capital contributions for the services that we use jointly with the municipality, such as a water plant, or a sewerage or disposal plant.


John Borden Hamilton: I understand there are cases where simply the cost of the service is paid and no capital contribution is made.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister a question or two about irregularities and losses that have occurred in No. 11 works company, R.C.E. I assume it would be appropriate to pursue those inquiries under "Inspection services", or would it be more appropriate to do so under the army item?


Ralph Osborne Campney: If the hon. member does not mind, I would rather deal with that under the army.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Are these inspectors we have been discussing living in camp or do they have to supply their own domicile on these salaries? Some of the salaries are rather low.


Ralph Osborne Campney: For the most part the inspectors, except those who work in the laboratories testing materials, as I have mentioned, are appointed to ensure quality. They do not live in military camps. Most of them live in proximity to plants where they are stationed, where there are contracts for defence services. They are sent to plants from which we would buy production.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Two hundred dollars a month does not seem to be a very large salary for an inspector who has to find his own living quarters.


William Alfred Robinson: On Royal Canadian Navy- active force and general.


George Randolph Pearkes: A year ago concern was expressed regarding the supply of officers for the Royal Canadian Navy. In order to meet what was then a seeming shortage, a new scheme known as the "Venture plan" was introduced. I had the opportunity of visiting that Venture college, and it is an extremely well run college with an excellent type of young men coming into the service from all parts of Canada. But I am still rather concerned regarding the supply of officers for the Royal Canadian Navy.
I notice in a return which was included on page 27 of last year's white paper that the number of men in training in the various schools for officers in the Royal Canadian Navy amounted to 1,287. That did not include the Venture scheme. When I look at the similar return on page 26 of this year's white paper I notice that there are 1,241, a decrease of 46, in spite of the fact that Venture college has been established and I believe there are in the neighbourhood of 100 young men taking that training. So it looks to me as though the situation has not been met yet, and that the sources of supply of officers for the Royal Canadian Navy are not improving.
I am also concerned regarding a return which was tabled in the house on March 7 showing the graduates of the various service colleges. Over the past six years the young men entering those colleges have averaged 220 a year. But out of that number, in the last two years-and I am dealing only with the last two years because the colleges have not been operating much longer than that and would not be turning out graduates-in 1952-53 only 11 of these 220 went into the Royal Canadian Navy and last year, 1953-54, there were only 12 commissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy.
It does not seem to me that the navy is getting anything like its fair proportion of the young men entering the service colleges. If from all sources there is a reduction in the
Supply-National Defence number of those under training this year, in spite of the fact that Venture college has been started, has the situation deteriorated or do these figures not really represent the supply? We are getting only 11 from the naval college. Eleven or twelve per year certainly will not take care of the wastage. I wonder if the minister could say how many young officers were commissioned into the navy last year, that is out of this total of 1,287 who were in training in the various intakes.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sorry that I have not the figures set up in that way, but I shall be glad to get them.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could the minister inform
the committee as to the situation? I am not so concerned regarding the numbers, but I have given the numbers to illustrate the reason for my concern. It seems that the situation is deteriorating. If that is not so, perhaps the minister would inform us.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The figures the hon. member quoted are not quite complete, owing to the fact that the executive officers after the second year go directly into the navy, whereas engineers for example continue on. I have not the figures here, but I am told the situation is rather tight.


George Randolph Pearkes: I realize that executive officers go out in the second year, and I have included those in the two years. From the service colleges seven went who passed last year, and five from the four-year group. Of course that is only a trickle, and there must be a much greater demand.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Each year for several years -at least six or seven-I expressed considerable concern at the proportion of service personnel in each of the services engaged in administrative and other jobs of that sort, as compared with the number of people in actual fighting units. Ordinarily we have had a fair amount of discussion about that. Perhaps as a means of meeting that criticism, in last year's white paper a breakdown was given on page 23 for each of the services, showing how the service personnel were employed. As far as the navy is concerned it was as follows:
Navy
Units for NATO, Korean force and defence
of coastal waters	 5,900
Training staffs and trainees	 6,200
Commands and administration	 1,500
Dockyards and bases	 3,300
16,900
I note that in this year's white paper the breakdown of the employment of navy, army and air force personnel has been omitted.
4968	HOUSE OF
Supply*-National Defence 1 wonder whether the minister could give us comparable figures for the same date this year as last. That would be December 31, 1954, instead of December 31, 1953; or if he has figures for a later date that would be even better.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall have to get the breakdown set up the way it was last year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When the minister is getting that information will he also get it for the army and air force, because I shall be asking the same question in connection with those services. I should like to observe at this time that I think it was a mistake that the breakdown was dropped from this year's white paper. I do not understand why, once the giving of such figures had become established, they were omitted, because it just takes more time to get the figures during the period we are discussing the estimates.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have three questions I should like to put to the minister with respect to the naval service. The first is a general one. Looking through the estimates, it is rather surprising to me to see the vast number of civilian personnel used by the navy. Going back to the days when I was an active member of that service, it would seem to me that a great many of these positions now apparently filled by civilian personnel were filled by service personnel. I suppose the question naturally arises, what difference does it make? As I see the matter, it makes this difference. For example, let us take some of the figures on page 317. At the very top there is an estimate for 11 pipe fitters, the same number as there were last year. The difference in the estimated cost between last year and this year is the difference between $28,465 last year and $42,463 this year.
I presume this is due to the increased cost of hiring civilian personnel, which does not arise if the personnel are in uniform. You will find the same thing all the way down the page, in practically every item. Take refrigeration mechanics. There are two in the estimates for this year and last year. Last year the cost was $7,894 and this year it is $8,808. The next item is one repair maintenance man at a cost last year of $2,631 and this year $3,318. Further down we have stewards and steward cooks. One would normally expect to find the people doing these jobs in uniform. Last year there were four stewards at a cost of $8,748. This year there are the same number and the cost is $9,672.
On page 316 we find that there are a great number of messmen, an increase from 130 to 164. Then there are such items as 

"painters, brush hand", "painters, finish", "painters' helpers", and a great many others. One could go on for 15 or 20 minutes, but I do not intend to take the time of the house to do that. However, I point out that many of these jobs, as 1 recall them, were formerly carried out by service personnel and I see no reason why they cannot be carried out by enlisted personnel. The main advantage would be saving the increases in wages which I am sure, if you add them all, amount to a tremendously large sum of money. That is the first question on which I should like some comment.
The second has to do with a particularly interesting item I find at the bottom of page 314. I see that this year we have an increase from 267 to 270 in the number of civilian chauffeurs for the navy. On the face of it one would wonder what on earth the navy could do with 270 chauffeurs. I have no doubt it may be a somewhat ambiguous term and covers certain other duties that one would not normally expect of a chauffeur. However, I am sure the minister will give us the explanation. The item below is "chauffeurs, motor truck drivers", and there is an increase this year from 26 to 51. I can quite understand why the navy would require motor truck drivers, but I am a little curious as to why the number should be just about double. As far as chauffeurs are concerned, we have 270 this year and there were 267 last year. On page 313 we find there are four chauffeurs in the United Kingdom. I should like to hear an explanation of what the Royal Canadian Navy is doing with four civilian chauffeurs in England.
My third question is one I previously put to the minister. How many naval personnel are engaged in public relations?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would not want the minister to think the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Oxford are the only members interested in how the navy spends its money. When the minister is answering some of the questions that have been asked, will he tell the committee why the navy spends $3,340 a year on a man for holding on. The item will be found on page 315, being the sixth from the bottom.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I wonder whether the hon. member would let me deal with these other questions first.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: He receives $3,340, which is an increase over last year.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that the navy does not have naval drivers for cars; they use civilians. Therefore the drivers, in this case called chauffeurs, are simply the drivers

of the various vehicles that are utilized by the navy or else they are motor truck chauffeurs for navy trucks. With regard to the other question as to civilian artificers and tradesmen, to whom the hon. member referred first, and as to why they are not in uniform, I understand when men whose skills are required on shore, and there is no necessity for them to have sea duty or fleet experience, civilians are engaged.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I suggested that many of these personnel should be in the navy because of the great increase in cost this year over last year involved in employing civilians. As we all know, the cost of civilian labour is increasing from year to year. If a lot of these people were in the service that extra cost would not necessarily be involved. Then, too, if they were in the service they would also have the advantage of a retirement pension in due course, plus certain other advantages that service personnel enjoy.
That is particularly noticeable in the case of the chauffeurs. This year there are 270 and last year there were only three fewer. Last year the estimate was $621,000 and this year, with only three chauffeurs more, the estimate is $717,000, almost $100,000 more. If naval personnel were used as drivers there would be a saving of very close to $100,000 right there. I would be interested to hear the minister's comment on that and also on the size of the naval establishment in the United Kingdom that requires four chauffeurs.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot answer the last question, because I do not know how their classifications run in regard to civilians employed as against uniformed personnel. The fact is I am informed that notwithstanding the increases in these civilian posts in the last few years, the difference between the pay of civilian employees and uniformed service personnel is still quite great. I mentioned yesterday that the reason we use civilian employees in so many positions is because there is a wide difference between the cost of maintaining a serviceman and the cost of a civilian in this type of employment. I think ordinarily a civilian earns around $2,600. These 270 chauffeurs costing $717,206 work at about $2,600 each, and a serviceman of the same type or class to do the same work costs about $3,600 per year.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In so far as these chauffeurs are concerned I see below this item mention of motor truck drivers-what sort of vehicles do they operate? Are they staff cars or what?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, they have an assortment of vehicles. The chauffeurs operate all the types of vehicles used around a dockyard, and by the navy. There are passenger
Supply-National Defence cars, station wagons, buses, jeeps, trucks, ambulances and various other types of vehicles.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister has said, I think, that they have certain comparable figures in relation to civilian and uniformed personnel. He pointed out that something had just been worked out with respect to the cost of the serviceman as a chauffeur versus a civilian. Has there been an actual, careful survey made throughout all these classifications to see whether it is really cheaper to hire a civilian, despite the greatly increased cost of labour, or to bring a man into the service? If so, has that survey been made recently? There does seem to be a great difference in the cost between the estimates of this year and the estimates of last year.
This matter of chauffeurs may seem rather trivial. Perhaps the hon. member for Greenwood would correct me if I am mistaken, but I understand that many a mickle make a muckle. It seems to me that surely the department could dispense with a great number of these chauffeurs. I understand that senior officers, for prestige purposes, have to have chauffeurs, but it would seem to me that many of the more junior officers might very well drive their own cars. It is a small item, but the number does seem rather large.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that the
vehicles which are utilized by all branches of the navy, and by other services, and types of drivers are matters that are considered by a committee. This committee says whether or not they are justified.
In connection with the other point raised by the hon. member, I think it has been found more economical to have one man assigned to drive a car than to have different people driving service cars intermittently. These men are engaged full time. Under the pool arrangement a man is responsible for his car or truck, or whatever vehicle he has been entrusted with, and is closely checked.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Probably the minister overlooked the other question I had asked. What is the number of personnel engaged in public relations in the navy?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Perhaps while I am giving the figures for the navy I could give the figures for the other services, since I have them here now. In the navy the total number is 13 service personnel and 9 civilians, a total of 22; in the army, 55 service personnel and 9 civilians, a total of 64; in the Royal Canadian Air Force-this includes those in Europe-45 service personnel and 7 civilians, a total of 52.

Supply-National Defence


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thank the minister for that information. In so far as public relations men are concerned, could the minister give a brief outline of their duties? Are they required to write certain releases for the press or are they required to go out and speak at public gatherings? What type of work are they generally given?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The duties of a public relations director are to maintain a flow of ordinary news items of interest from his particular service to the public; meet representatives of the press, radio, and television; prepare reports on training and on new equipment; issue press releases and from time to time feature stories of their service; to oversee publicity photography for the service; to prepare radio tapes for use in making the service known, and the usual contact work in the establishment of press relations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a few words on behalf of one particular group of civilians who work for the Royal Canadian Navy. I refer to the prevailing rates employees at the ammunition depot at Renous, New Brunswick. The matter I have in mind is one which is well covered in a letter dated June 13, 1955, copies of which were sent to ten or a dozen members of this house including the Minister of National Defence. I would ask him to look at that letter of June 13, which was sent by the Renous federal union No. 239, to see if something cannot be done to meet the complaint of these employees. In my experience here, Mr. Chairman, it is a frequent grievance of prevailing rate employees, and it is one about which complaint apparently has to be made. I know one of the answers I may get-and the minister may get the same answer from his advisers, because I have had it before-is that this is a matter in which any other department takes guidance or advice from the Department of Labour. We are told that they ask the Department of Labour to go into the area and find out the prevailing rates for people doing the same or a similar kind of work. But it seems that the comparisons are made with the poorer paid rather than the medium or better paid workers doing what the workers feel is a comparable kind of work.
I shall not take time to go into the various details involving hours of work, superannuation benefits and other points which are covered in the letter to which I have referred.
It does seem to me, however, that the Minister of National Defence has some responsibility to deal with the matter. I hope he will give me the assurance that he will look at 

the letter and see if this complaint cannot be met without further delay.
He will recall that on a previous occasion the hon. member for Cape Breton South raised this matter. On his behalf and my own, as well as on behalf of these employees, I am asking the minister to take another look at it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In principle, the hon.
member answered his own question when he said that in the matter of prevailing rates we rely on the Department of Labour. I am aware of the letter to which the hon. member refers, and I shall be glad to do what I have been doing upon occasion, namely, discuss the situation with the Minister of Labour. I do not try just to pass all responsibility to that department, but we must be sure to keep some sort of rate basis that will be appropriate to the particular part of the country. But we do not take the primary responsibility for the fixing of those rates. In this particular case I have read the letter and I shall discuss the matter with the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Mitchell (London):: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to change the subject by referring to page 319, where it deals with the acquisition and construction of buildings and works. Perhaps in the interests of brevity we might consider at the same time army buildings.
A problem is gradually developing in cities and towns across Canada in connection with property on which are located buildings used by the Department of National Defence. Many of these buildings were constructed many years ago as barracks and armouries, at a time when property was comparatively low in value. Those buildings are now located in the midst of cities and towns, with a resultant loss of revenue to the municipalities concerned. They do not serve any particular purpose, so far as the forces are concerned.
As an example let me refer to my own constituency of London, which the minister visited recently and with which he is familiar. We have in London a naval depot known as H.M.C.S. Prevost located on perhaps the most valuable downtown piece of property in the city. We have also an armouries located on equally valuable property, and we have an area headquarters for the army.
What is the policy of the department with respect to these properties when the buildings erected thereon outlive their usefulness? The minister is no doubt familiar with the area headquarters building. It is antiquated, as is the naval headquarters. We have in London Wolseley barracks, which has ample property on which to consolidate at least the army part of the set-up. Surely other

property equally suitable but less valuable could be found for the naval headquarters.
I am asking the minister to comment generally as to the policy of the department concerning the removal of such buildings from valuable downtown property as and when they become outmoded. What are the department's plans for the area headquarters in London, and for the building now occupied by the naval division?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As most hon. members realize, the question of administration accommodation is constantly before us. It is never fully resolved because its priority in the matter of the allocation of money is of a relatively low order. We are trying to improve conditions in various places as fast as we can, but we are very much in arrears due to the fact that very little was done during the war; and because of our high expenditures for defence purposes at the present time. At the present time we are endeavouring to obtain a site for H.M.C.S. Prevost and I can only say I hope we will succeed.
In regard to the other matter the hon. member mentioned, let me say that I cannot make any promise because there are many similar situations. The only thing I can say is that we are trying to remedy the most urgent cases first.


Robert Weld Mitchell: Is the minister's answer a statement that the policy of the department is, wherever possible and as money is available, to release valuable downtown property for commercial purposes rather than to occupy it for military purposes.


Ralph Osborne Campney: If we do not need the property we certainly will not endeavour to hold it. But that raises the whole question of downtown properties, particularly armouries. Most of the major facilities in our cities are downtown, and these properties have become valuable. Many of the buildings are still in good condition, and we would suffer a heavy loss if we were to undertake to replace at today's costs those buildings which do not require replacement. However, if it is property we do not really need we try always to co-operate with the municipalities.
As I have pointed out, the governing factor is money. Downtown property is high in price, but so is the cost of new buildings to supplant downtown buildings. It is just a case of adjusting the money we have available to those places which need it most.


John Borden Hamilton: May I ask
a further question in that connection. I shall mention a situation which falls within the four corners of the minister's statement, but
Supply-National Defence concerning which we have had no action for a considerable length of time. I refer specifically to the Long Branch rifle ranges in the county of Peel. I am convinced that the price that could be obtained for the property by the department would replace, in a slightly more distant location, all the facilities the department now enjoys.
Undoubtedly the procrastination of the department in answering the request of the municipality in that area is proving a very great hardship. That property now is certainly among the most valuable lakeshore properties left in the district of metropolitan Toronto. I would seriously suggest to the minister that if the policy he has laid down is the one to be pursued by the department, then the Long Branch situation can be fitted squarely into the four corners of the policy and some relief might be granted to that particular area in the very near future.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think I can assure the hon. member that there has been no procrastination since I have been minister, because I started to look into this situation as soon as I became minister. The facts of the situation are that while it is a very valuable property, it is also the only rifle range we have in that whole area. As Minister of National Defence I have had to take the view that, until we can find a suitable area for a rifle range, I cannot very well give up the present site.
I have not stopped there but have had a study made-I must say unsuccessfully-of other alternatives that might be available close to Toronto. We are now engaged in preparing the necessary facilities and ranges at Camp Borden. When they are completed we shall not be requiring the Long Branch area, and I presume that under the usual crown procedures it will be disposed of. From the last report I have received, which was some weeks ago, that will not be until possibly next spring or summer.


John Borden Hamilton: Does that mean the minister may be in a position to commit the department to a date not later than the summer of 1956 for disposal of the Long Branch range It seems to me that would be adequate time. After all, Camp Borden has been in existence and used for that particular purpose we are talking about since early in the first world war. In addition, there will be no sacrifices required by the members of the militia units. The changes in methods of travel since the building of the Long Branch rifle range I am sure place Camp Borden almost within as easy reach of the centre of Toronto as Long Branch was at the time of the construction of the range there. As a matter of fact, with the construction of
4972	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence highway No. 400, even keeping within the speed limit I would estimate that Camp Borden is only 1J to 13 hours away. Therefore I hope the minister can make a definite commitment as to when that land will be available to the municipality.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not want to be put in the position of making a definite commitment. I have seen too much of construction since I came into this particular office to make promises or fix specific dates. All I was endeavouring to do was state with frankness what I am trying to do. If everything comes to pass which I have mentioned I would hope that by next summer or fall we shall be in a position to take up new quarters, and I would not want to go beyond that. I think my hon. friend will have to rest his case there.
I have the figures for the breakdown of the services by categories for the hon. member for Calgary North. These show the employment of the active forces on December 31 last. The total is 117,000. The navy is divided in this way: units for NATO, Korean force and defence of coastal waters, 7,600; training staffs and trainees, 6,900; commands and administration, 1,600; dockyards and bases, 2,700; total, 18,800.
The army: units for NATO, Korean force and defence of Canada, 28,000; training staffs and trainees, 8,000; commands and administration, 2,900; service units, 10,500; total, 49,400.
The air force: units for NATO and the defence of Canada, 16,800; air transport, search and rescue, 4,400; training staffs and trainees, 21,000; commands and administration, 2,100; service units, 4,500; total, 48,800; grand total, 117,000.


Daniel Roland Michener: If I may supplement the question the hon. member for York West has asked, it seems to me the minister's answers today show some advance with respect to the Long Branch situation. As I recall the answers I received last year to the same questions, an effort was being made to find an alternative rifle range in the vicinity of Toronto but not so far away as Camp Borden. May I take it that now the department has decided that Camp Borden will be used instead of Long Branch, and the department have given up the search for an alternative and have settled on Camp Borden as the new site for the rifle ranges which were at Long Branch?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes. We spent considerable time searching without success for a suitable site nearer to Toronto. I suppose we could be searching yet, but I decided that we had


covered the field and that something should be done about the matter. We are now committed to Camp Borden.


John Borden Hamilton: In connection with the item for aircraft and engines on page 319, which is also referred to on page 42 of the white paper in paragraph 157, can the minister tell us how many airplanes were acquired for the navy last year, whether they were purchased in Canada, whether the engines listed were purchased in Canada, and if they were not purchased in Canada, was any attempt made to obtain suitable aircraft in Canada?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We always try to procure aircraft and engines in Canada if we can find suitable ones for the purpose for which we are acquiring them, and we go outside Canada only when we feel that it is not reasonably possible to obtain them here.
I think it has not been the practice, and I am sure it should not be, to give out the numbers of planes acquired for the services.


Mr. Hamilion (York Wesl):: Were these planes acquired in Canada, or were they purchased outside?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that planes
for the navy are being manufactured in Canada, but we did purchase a number of helicopters outside of Canada.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Were the motors manufactured in Canada?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The question of manufacturing engines for aircraft in Canada is being considered by the Department of Defence Production, and that department has not decided whether they will be made in Canada.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What company is manufacturing the planes?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The de Havilland company.


Mr. Thomas:: During the general discussion yesterday I mentioned the merchant aircraft carrier which was used for escort work during the last war. Would the minister comment as to whether the construction of aircraft carriers of that type has been considered by the department and, if so, why has it been decided not to go into the construction of that type of ship?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that any consideration that was being given to the proposal mentioned by the hon. member has been suspended for the time being. Studies as to the usefulness and acceptability of helicopters are now engaging our attention.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: At the top of page 319 is an item covering films, displays, broadcasting,

advertising, and other informational materials, $316,000. Can the minister tell us how much money was spent on advertising, which I presume would be for recruiting purposes?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Practically the whole of
this vote will be for recruiting advertising in one way or another. The largest item is advertising in publications, $123,000, and then there is an item of $25,000 for radio advertising. Another item which may be only indirectly related to recruiting advertising is the cost of exhibition displays, which runs to $23,000. Then there is an item of $60,000 for a mobile recruiting unit. All the expenditures under this item are directly or indirectly connected with recruiting.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Has consideration been given to greatly reducing this expenditure on newspaper advertising in connection with recruiting? In my general remarks on these estimates I pointed out that it was my feeling, which is shared by a large number of other people with whom I have discussed the matter, that ads in newspapers and periodicals to join the navy and see the world, so to speak, are largely ineffective. A great number of the persons joining the navy would do so without this advertising. It is my contention that many of these ads are never looked at. If a person is really interested in joining the navy, and many are, he can find out how to go about it from divisional headquarters or other recruiting centres. It is my feeling that much of this advertising reaches only the last 30 per cent of the recruits obtained. My feeling is that consideration should be given to greatly reducing this item.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member will notice that it is reduced from $360,000 to $316,000, and the total for the three services has been reduced from $2,820,000 to $2,317,000, or a reduction of $503,000.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is a step in the right direction.


John Borden Hamilton: Perhaps I may be forgiven for referring again to municipal and public utility services, which item is to be found on page 319. I asked some questions previously about this item. Am I correct in assuming that there are municipalities which provide services to the department which are paid for on a tariff basis only, with no capital assistance given either directly or under the Municipal Grants Act?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I hesitate to say definitely, but I feel quite sure there are. I know that on a number of occasions we have negotiated on a straight basis of tariff rates for services to be provided and have concluded some arrangements in that regard.
Supply-National Defence


John Borden Hamilton: Would the minister give some thought to providing some assistance, either in the way of capital grants under this item or under the Municipal Grants Act? Obviously it means that in some cases the ordinary home owner is paying more than his proper proportion to provide these services.


Elmore Philpott: I should like to correct the low opinion of the hon. member for Oxford of the value of newspaper advertising. That opinion is certainly not shared by the successful premier of Ontario, and it is certainly not shared by many of the successful businessmen who are the backbone of the support of the Conservative party. As long as there is anything to advertise, all business experience is that newspapers provide the best medium.


Mr. Nowlan:: Does the item "Repairs and upkeep of equipment" on page 319 cover repairs to ships, or would that be under the item "ships, $73,000,000"? Does the minister's department designate where ship repairs will be carried out, or does that come under the maritime commission?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The item of $18,890,000 covering repairs and upkeep of equipment covers repairs to ships, whereas the item of $73,000,000 under the heading major procurement of equipment, ships, refers to the acquisition of new ships. In answering the second question may I say that we lay out a work plan in the navy for repairs and maintenance of ships, and then the Canadian maritime commission of the Department of Transport is charged with allocating the work. We let them know what we want done and where the ship is located and they determine, I think in the interests of keeping as many yards active as possible, where the work should be done. They are able to judge this because they are aware of what civilian work is being done as well.


George Clyde Nowlan: We are certainly not going to finish these estimates tonight, and when they are again before the committee I wonder if the minister could give us a breakdown of the expenditures last year on repairs. Can he give us the breakdown as between the different places in Canada? Perhaps he can do it now. Can he also give us the number of jobs and where they were performed, and the breakdown showing the expenditures, up to as recent a date as possible?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would suggest that the hon. member could more readily get this information from the maritime commission. We keep the accounts, of course, but we do not keep a running account of the amounts

Supply-National Defence paid at different locations. The maritime commission has those figures at its fingertips, and you might get them more quickly from the commission.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not interested in getting it at my fingertips. I suspect that the navy has a fairly accurate picture of the expenditures made on the various ships that come within the department, and I should like to ask that next week the minister give us whatever information he has. If it is not satisfactory, we can take up the question with the maritime commission.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the big item in the naval estimates, which was $93 million last year and is $73 million this year, for the procurement of ships, could the minister tell us what proportion of those two amounts will be spent on the long-building 14 naval destroyers? We have had these 14 destroyers or destroyer escorts appearing in the estimates for a long period now. I believe it would also be very interesting to the committee to find out how much these destroyer escorts are going to cost. What is the present estimate of the total cost per destroyer escort?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall have to endeavour to get that information for the hon. member.


George Clyde Nowlan: Would the minister give us the information as to where they are being built at the same time?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South I thought I should like to get something quite straight in his mind and for the record. It is this. The remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South indicated to the committee that I had no knowledge of the value of advertising. I am as fully aware as the hon. member for Vancouver South of the great value of newspaper advertising for many commercial purposes, but I still seriously doubt the value of newspaper advertising in selling a commodity such as the Royal Canadian Navy. In selling furniture and various other commercial products, yes; but the Royal Canadian Navy, I am afraid, no.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: We now proceed to the Royal Canadian naval reserve.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Royal Canadian sea cadets.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Canadian Army- regular and general.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Clyde Nowlan: No. It is five minutes to ten, and I certainly have some comments to make on this item which will take a little while. The minister might feel fairly happy about what he has done today and call it a day. If there is any disposition to have this carried, Mr. Chairman, I might simply suggest that it is easy to call it ten o'clock, if the minister agrees.


An hon. Member:: It is cooler here than outside.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreed that I call it ten o'clock and report progress?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not think we should begin on the army tonight.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we shall begin with the Defence Production Act, then take the Library of Parliament Act, the resolution with respect to judges' salaries, the resolution with respect to the Criminal Code, and the committee stage of the Canada Elections Act. Then we shall take the customs resolutions.


Mr. Green:: Is it the intention to carry on with that list on Tuesday?


Walter Edward Harris: The intention is to carry on with legislation on Tuesday and Wednesday, and estimates after that.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to extend this too much but so we may understand I should like to ask this. Since the Defence Production Act debate will not be finished on Monday, will it continue on Tuesday?


Walter Edward Harris: No, we shall take the other items I mentioned.


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

Royal Commission on Canadian Economy
i	APPENDIX

[Stage Direction]
Certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency the Administrator on the 17th June, 1955.
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report from the Prime Minister stating that it is desirable that the Canadian people should be more fully informed of the long-term economic prospects of Canada, and that it is in the national interest to initiate, examine and publish studies of Canada's economic potentialities, including developments in productive capacity, the growth and distribution of the population, the direction and nature of our internal and external trade, progress in standards of living and expanding requirements for industrial and social capital.
The committee, therefore, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister advise that Walter Lockhart Gordon, Toronto, Ont.; Omer Lussier, Quebec, P.Q.; Albert Edward Grauer, Vancouver, B.C.; Andrew Stewart, Edmonton, Alta., and Raymond Gushue, St. John's, Nfld., be appointed commissioners under part I of the Inquiries Act (chapter 154 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952) to inquire into and report upon the long-term prospects of the Canadian economy, that is to say, upon the probable economic development of Canada and the problems to which such development appears likely to give rise, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to study and report upon
(a)	developments in the supply of raw materials and energy sources;
(b)	the growth to be expected in the population of Canada and the changes in its distribution;
(c)	prospects for growth and change in domestic and external markets for Canadian productions;
(d)	trends in productivity and standards of living; and
(e)	prospective requirements for industrial and social capital.
The committee further advise;
1.	That the commissioners be authorized to exercise all the powers conferred on them by section 11 of the Inquiries Act;
2.	That the commissioners adopt such procedure and methods as they may, from time to time, deem expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry and sit at such times and in such places in Canada as they may decide;
3.	That the commissioners be authorized to engage the services of such counsel, staff, clerks and technical advisers as they may require at rates of remuneration and reimbursement to be approved by the treasury board;
4.	That the officers and employees of the departments of the government of Canada render such assistance to the commission as may be required for the inquiry;
5.	That the commissioners be directed to report to the governor in council; and
6.	That Walter Lockhart Gordon be chairman of the commission and Douglas V. LePan be secretary and director of research.
R. B. Bryce,
Clerk of the privy council.
50433-314J
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 20, 1955