1955-06-30

Mr. Boisvert:: How many persons were registered with the national employment offices in (a) Trois-Rivieres; (b) Sorel; (c) Drummondville. in the province of Quebec, on the 1st of June, 1955?


Mr. Martin (for Mr. Gregg):: The number of unplaced applicants at the national employment offices in Trois-Rivieres, Sorel and Drummondville, in the province of Quebec, on June 2, 1955, were as follows:
(a)	Trois-Rivieres-2,681
(b)	Sorel-1,352
(c)	Drummondville-1,106


RENOUS NAVAL MAGAZINE STATION, N.B.   TRAINING OFFICER
Mr. Brooks:: 1.	Who is the safety and training officer at Renous naval magazine station, Renous, New Brunswick?
2.	Is this training officer at present taking a course at Bedford naval magazine, Halifax, in laboratory work?
3.	If so, what was the object in his taking this course and were his expenses paid?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Mr. B. J. Russell.
2.	Yes.
3.	Mr. Russell is taking a 59-day ammunition safety course at Bedford. The purpose is to increase his knowledge of the handling of ammunition, with special emphasis on safety procedures. On his return to Renous, Mr. Russell will use his knowledge to coordinate the depot technical training and safety program. His expenses will be paid.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Patterson:: 1.	Were certain properties expropriated for the erection of the new post office building in Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	If so, did one Rex Cox receive payment for any such properties, and what is the description of the property for which he received payment?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) Mr. Cox received $9,000 for the property described as lot 28, block 46, district lot 541.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: In view of the approaching conference at the summit at Geneva, opening on July 18, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Canada is to have any observer at or in the vicinity of the conference? If not, what arrangements have been made to keep Canada in contact with discussions there so far as that is to be done?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, arrangements are being made to ensure that we shall be adequately informed as to what goes on at that conference. We have a representative in Geneva, and it may be desirable to send someone else to assist him in reporting on this conference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister himself any intention of being over there at the time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I do not expect to be in Geneva during this conference at the summit.


REPORTED SALE TO COUNTRIES BEHIND IRON CURTAIN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the government reconsider its decision to supply butter to a communist government and consider the advisability of using such surplus butter as must be disposed of outside of Canada in this way as a supplementary contribution to the Colombo plan?
Right Kon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): I am not prepared to say, Mr. Speaker, that the government will reconsider. This butter is being sold at a price to be adjusted in accordance with the world price of butter, and if it can be disposed of at the world price for butter on the world market, it is the present intention of the government to so dispose of it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Prime Minister will concede, I assume, that this means that the communist government gets it at less than the Canadian taxpayer pays for it.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Yes, and everybody who buys butter from sources other than Canada at the present time seems to be getting it at less than the Canadian consumer is paying for it; but it is considered that this price, for the stability of the dairy industry for domestic consumption in Canada, is appropriate, and the price has been set for a period,
I think it is for the current year, to maintain that production. The hon. gentleman will remember that there was very serious discussion over the fact that if there was unemployment in Canada to the extent that prevailed last year it was owing to the fact that the farmer's income had suffered. I think it is generally felt that the dairy industry should be maintained and that the price that the consumer is paying for butter is in line with the general scale of prices in Canada.


George Alexander Drew: I have another supplementary question. Is it not correct that this butter has already been acquired from the dairy industry in Canada and has no effect on the current operations of the dairy farmer?


Mr. St. Laurent:: It has been acquired, but we would like to see it disposed of and consumed rather than see it spoil and be thrown away.


George Alexander Drew: Use it under the Colombo plan.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: What we are doing under the Colombo plan is acceptable to the recipients of aid under the Colombo plan. An effort was made by another country to supply nations receiving aid under the Colombo plan with butter and it did not work out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the Prime
Minister a supplementary question? In connection with the discussions of contribution of the Colombo plan, was any consideration given to supplying Canadian butter through those channels to any recipients of that aid?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The matter was discussed but we had the information as to what happened with butter supplied by another country and what difficulty they had to remove the salt in it and to remake it into the kind of thing that is used as a dairy product in those countries. We came to the conclusion that it would not be acceptable to them to have our butter placed on their market, or placed at their disposal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the Prime Minister indicate what country that was?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It was a country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask hon. members, under the guise of asking questions during this period, not to initiate a debate or continue a debate which was commenced

yesterday in connection with butter. We had several questions yesterday and we are having several questions today.


George Alexander Drew: And we will have several tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not for me to say what will be the result of these questions and answers. Rather than spend all the question period on butter, it seems to me that we might better slide to other subjects.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he has received a request from the Girl Guides Association of Canada for the use of the Connaught rifle range in the summer of 1957 for the holding of an international camp for girl guides and, if so, what is the decision of the minister?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think a request along the lines of the hon. member's question was received, but I note that the date in question is 1957 and I am not sure that it has been dealt with yet.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. In view of the representations made by lobster fishermen of Northumberland-Miramichi and Gloucester for a ten day extension of the lobster fishing season in their sections of area 7B, will the parliamentary assistant advise the house if a decision has been reached in this connection?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given notice of his intention to ask this question. Representations have been received from the areas mentioned by him, which are part of area 7B. Since those representations were received investigations have been carried out to see if it would be desirable to extend the season. Complete returns for the month of May indicate that the catch is up substantially over the same

period last year. For the counties of Gloucester, Northumberland and Restigouche the catch is up over 60,000 pounds as compared with the same month last year. Preliminary returns for the months of May and June would seem to indicate that the over-all catch for the season will be substantially higher than it was last year.
In addition, many fishermen have already taken in their traps and have started to catch other species of fish. If an extension were made at this late date I think considerable confusion would ensue both to the fishermen and to the processors. An extension into July would also mean that many lobsters which are moulting or have moulted already would be taken and this would result in heavy losses. For these reasons it was felt that it would not be desirable to extend the season and consequently no extension will be granted.



INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the report to him by the superintendent of insurance concerning the Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation, of Waterloo, Ontario? In view of these reports will there be any amending legislation at this session to prevent further improper and improvident practices such as are referred to by the superintendent of insurance?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: There will not be any amending legislation and I doubt if it would be necessary because the circumstances referred to in the report were, I think, sufficiently dealt with by the superintendent of insurance himself.

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
Supply-National Defence
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.


The Chairman:: The house again in committee of supply on Department of National Defence, resolution No. 236. This vote will be found on page 42 of the blue book and the details will be found commencing on page 306. For convenience in discussion we have been following the headings in the blue book, and we have now reached Canadian army-regular and general, on page 321. Is there any further discussion under this heading?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this is the first item of the army estimates, and I had deferred comment in regard to certain matters in connection with the army until we had reached this point. In the first place I wish to deal with something that has already been under consideration, that is, a subject that was brought up by the minister himself under the general item and which it was not possible for him to deal with at the time it was brought up. If you will permit me, I shall wait for a moment, because it will be convenient to wait until the members have readjusted themselves to whatever position they want, inside or outside the house.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I must say that I can entirely agree with the comment just made by the Leader of the Opposition. It seems that we always have a certain amount of confusion in the committee immediately after the orders of the day are called. I would ask hon. members to co-operate in giving order to the first speaker as soon as possible.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to a subject that was discussed before and which I think could be clarified as far as this house is concerned; that is, the situation in regard to the announcement of the retirement of the present chief of the general staff. Some attempt was made to create the impression that this had been suddenly raised, and I regret that amongst remarks which were put forward in a very courteous manner by the minister, he should have adopted a somewhat cheap and tawdry attitude in regard to this particular subject, when he imputed to me the thought that this had been brought forward simply as something to cause embarrassment to the government and then to be dropped. The remarks that I have made

Supply-National Defence stand. If there has been any embarrassment or misunderstanding, it was due to the way in which this was done. It was not I who first raised any question about this matter. The statement was given to the press at a time when, the minister well knows, considerable interest had been aroused because of other events. The statement was given to the press outside of the house, and very naturally the press called for comments in regard to this subject and were themselves already commenting on this subject before it was raised here.
I would point out that in no remark I made was there any suggestion of criticism of the press. The press dealt appropriately with the statement given to them. I recognize that in the ordinary course of events many of these statements are given direct to the press. I would point out that in this case, however, it was impossible that there could not be some particular interest in the public mind, and I should imagine very great interest in the minds of the members of parliament, in regard to the circumstances surrounding the senior positions in the army, the air force and the navy. It was impossible to escape the questioning that came from the press immediately in regard to this announcement. It was for that reason that I raised a question about the advisability of making a statement that manifestly must invite questioning on the way it was done. I indicated my belief that it would have been desirable to have it done inside the house. I still think that it would have been best to have done it in that way and that it would have avoided the very discussion which the minister deplores.
The minister brushed lightly over the suggestion there was any reason to make such an announcement here. Yet he had already established the practice only the day before in another case. Although the circumstances were entirely different, nevertheless it related to appointments within the armed service. I want to point out that since this matter was discussed further evidence has been given of the fact that this is not an ordinary procedure, that there is more to this matter, and that we are entitled to more information than has been given.
The chief of the general staff-and he is the chief of the general staff at this time- is recognized, outside of Canada as well as inside of Canada, as one of the most competent field officers who came out of the last world war in any army. His services at the age of 52 are still extremely valuable services, whether as chief of the general staff or in some other capacity. He has behind him years of training, years of experience and years of the most intimate knowledge of this

complex period in which we live. It is an open secret that it would have taken little in the way of suggestion by this government to have made his services available in some other capacity outside of Canada if not in Canada.
Not one of us, as a member of parliament, should disregard the fact that when a man has accumulated vast experience at the age of 52, we all have some interest in that accumulation of experience. If there is some post, either in Canada or outside of Canada, in the common cause in which we are all so deeply concerned, to which that skill can be directed, then it should be our interest that this be done. It is with that thought in mind that I would still hope that the government will reconsider the course which it apparently has followed and which we must assume it has followed unless there is any other explanation.
Since this matter was last discussed in this house there has been an announcement that an able and gallant officer employed in another service has had his period of service extended. There is no member of this house who has a higher regard or higher admiration for General Worthington than I have.
I for one greatly welcomed the announcement that at the age of 65 his period of appointment had been extended still further in the very important post he now occupies. It happens that I have known him intimately for many years, and my respect for him is based not only upon reputation but upon personal knowledge. I welcome the fact that he continues in the post which he now occupies, and a very difficult post it is. This fact merely indicates, however, that there is no automatic rotation on the basis of time of service which suggests that Canada must lose the services of those whose experience can be of value.
It may well be that the government does not think that the chief of the general staff should continue in that post. I simply submit again the earnest hope that reconsideration will be given to this subject, and point out that if he is not to be continued in service as chief of the general staff, there are other fields of activity in which that long experience can be employed to the advantage of the Canadian public. May I immediately say that this has nothing to do with any views he may have expressed or any particular aspect of his service as a soldier. It is agreed without exception by everyone who knows that in the field of military experience and military training this man stands high in the regard of our own armed forces and of the senior members of the armed forces of the other nations of NATO.

I would hope that at the very peak of his mental and physical ability we should find his services employed elsewhere. In emphasizing this point I would emphasize that there is an anomaly in the fact that we see a highly qualified soldier retiring at 52 and being replaced by another soldier, for whom we all have high regard, at the age of 58. All this raises questions in the minds of every one of us, questions based upon the value of the service that can still be performed, questions based upon the contradictions that the government itself has placed before us when it renews other appointments of men much senior in age and, without any reflection on any one of them, men who have certainly not gained higher recognition amongst the senior members of the armed services of other nations as well as our own.
I leave the subject there. I would hope that this would not become the basis of any attack on General Simonds or upon any other officer, nor that comments of this kind should be regarded as reflecting on any other officer. I have sought to bring the matter forward simply on the basis of the training that has been given to this man and the fact that for long years to come a pension wMl be paid of over $10,000 a year to a man whose life expectancy is 25 years at this time. I would think that, as a matter of good business and common sense, we should seek to employ his services rather than pay a pension of that kind without any immediate return from now on to the country which he has served so well.
I come back to the discussion of the army organization. I feel sure that all hon. members have read with interest in the past 24 hours of the moving of an engineering unit of some 300-odd men from western Canada to Gagetown by air transport. I point out that the transport squadron which has been carrying out this airborne movement is doing precisely the thing that we have already suggested should be regarded as the basis of the organization of a modern Canadian defence force. I hope there will be no confusion in the mind of any hon. member about our recognition of the fact that there are certain static units of a type that do not lend themselves to that type of organization. Certainly harbour defence units, heavy anti-aircraft batteries and other static units of that kind embraced in the general services of the army could not be brought within the scope of a reorganization of this type.
However, if we are going to ask ourselves the basic question, what must a Canadian unit be called upon to do in the light of the
Supply-National Defence declared purpose it now serves, then I suggest that large mass formations simply fail to comply with that demand. At the very outset we are told not only in the white paper but in the statements of the minister that we must now contemplate the possibility of direct attack upon Canada itself. If that is so, then the minister cannot be under any impression that on the scale of the warfare that would develop if that unhappy event should ever occur the number of men now trained as airborne troops would be in any way adequate for the immediate demands of such a war. If there is one warning that we have been given over and over again by those most competent to advise us in this respect it is that the major decisions in another war would be reached within a very short time, and that the best way for us to prevent that war happening is to have forces in being ready for immediate service, forces of a type that could be employed without delay to meet a situation of that kind.
We are witnessing at this very time the assembly of a division of the first Canadian division at Gagetown. On July 19 there will be a march-past of units which undoubtedly will be a tremendously impressive sight. Well trained men of the brigades of that division will march past in a way which will arouse the admiration, the respect and the confidence of all Canadians. But let us just remember that it is taking weeks to assemble those forces in Gagetown. Let us recall that all the plans for that assembly have taken some time to work out. Let us recall that there has been a great movement of ground transport. Let us realize that this single division has demanded an amount of time to bring it together which most certainly would not be available in the event of another outbreak.
The test of our strength in the collective NATO organization is the speed with which we can perform any duties we might be called upon to perform. Since an attack on Canadian soil is now regarded as almost inevitable in the event of a war of this kind breaking out, then I must repeat my plea that immediate and urgent consideration be given to the formation of compact units of conventional types but unconventional formations which, in combat teams suitable to movement by air transport, could be put down at strategic airfields through the north, which invariably are placed close to the critical points where trouble of this kind might occur. With only a few exceptions-and I concede immediately that there are notable exceptions- there are well-established airports near the danger points across the north. Therefore, with warning of impending danger, units

Supply-National Defence could be moved into position, if they were units of this type. It would however be impossible to improvise organization of this kind, training of this nature or the transport facilities essential for it in a matter of days or hours.
Then, if we came to an acceptance of the belief that we should organize a substantial part of our army on this basis of a strictly Canadian concept of combat teams, airborne, then we would ask ourselves whether that would fit into our partnership in NATO. Immediately the answer is given that we have commitments to NATO. I am not sure whether it is a brigade or a division, but I am rather inclined to think that it is a division. The minister said it was a division, but then qualified the statement afterwards when he was questioned upon it. If it is a division, then the government must tell us how it proposes to maintain that division; it is certainly not in a position to do so now. If it is a brigade, then that will be a relatively small formation in relation to the very large land formations which will soon be available in Europe, from the combined strength of West Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Spain and the other NATO countries of Europe.
For that reason I think we may well assume that the NATO staff and the members of NATO welcome the organization in Canada of a unique force unparalleled in any other NATO country, a force which by its adaptability to our own particular requirements would be peculiarly suited to special requirements in different parts of the world where NATO, or associated bodies, might seek its assistance.
The expression has already been used in this debate that such a force could be compared to a fire brigade and that is exactly what it would be. Or perhaps it would be a combination of fire brigades to put out fires in spots where there might be trouble, either in Canada or at some distant point. If some difficulty broke out at some distant point in Europe, in Africa or in Asia, in which we had a concern, such as we have already shown in Korea and in Germany, then I feel sure NATO would welcome the fact that we would have these fire brigades which could be put down in a place to deal with that fire. No other country would have equally mobile units.
The question then arises as to the expense. It is only necessary to look at the number of aircraft we already have to realize that we have a very large accumulation of transport aircraft. Let us consider new methods of using those aircraft. There are ways in which they could be employed on a rental

basis that would give an actual return through the use of those aircraft at times they were not in service. In fact it would not be dissimilar to the method that was employed some years ago when our militia, artillery and cavalry were fully horsed and able to go to camp as complete units. Those horses were used throughout the year for ordinary farm and other activities. Then they were brought to camp, and the units were given training with the complete horse equipment. It may seem far-fetched to draw a comparison between horse transport and air transport. I suggest it is no more farfetched than the developments which have taken place since the days of the 12-pounder, or the 15-pounder, or the 18-pounder, as compared with modern atomic weapons.
We are moving with events so fast that our minds must be adjusted to those events. I would hope we might have some indication of a willingness on the part of the government to expand the very type of organization which a flight, which took place only yesterday, demonstrated can be done so satisfactorily. That however was only with a single unit in a single branch of the service. Multiply that by all the conventional units required. 'And if the minister asks, "How would you work this out?" I would suggest a very normal and proper method. There is now a transport squadron of the R.C.A.F. with heavy transport machinery. Take that transport squadron and find out how many men in combat teams of infantry, artillery, armour, engineers and other essential services could be moved quickly by that transport squadron. Then you would establish your basic combat team formation in relation to your present air transport squadron, then convert some of your present transports. We have transports now that could be sold for commercial service, and we could acquire the type of transport known as the flying boxcar, and other similar transport machines required for these particular services.
Instead of this involving great added expense, I am satisfied we would greatly reduce the expense of our army organization and have an infinitely more effective force than we can have so long as we continue to retain the present organization of our permanent force and our militia. May I point out that it has never been questioned that the real backbone of our defence organization is the militia, whether it be the army, the air force or the navy. The feeder to the permanent force, the organization which stimulates interest in the permanent force, is the militia force. It is the training of these militia units much more than any advertising, more than any appeal by radio, or more than any appeal of

that kind which puts in the minds of young Canadians the thought of service in our armed forces.
Even if we have some airborne units at present in the permanent force we still have not extended to the militia the backbone of our whole defence organization, this modern concept of defence organization. The remarks I make in regard to a reorganization upon a concept of that type apply to the militia and I repeat once again that the way in which we shall best arouse the interest that will provide the manpower for these forces is to give to these forces the appearance of reality, the sense of reality, which has been lacking in a substantial part of our militia training. If anybody is in doubt about that, let him talk to rpilitia officers with pre-war experience who are still continuing their services in the militia. They will tell him that they have not been having the competitive practices that were such a stimulating part of the training in the years before the first and second world wars.
In so far as the training is concerned, give to the young men the idea that they are part of a unique Canadian force, and the justifiable pride of Canadians in their own country will assert itself in an increased interest in participation in those organizations.
There is another reason why Canadians of all people in the world should be thinking in terms of airborne forces. We need not have any sense of false modesty. There is something about the life in this large land of ours, something about the spirit of our youth, which lives so much in the open air, which has given our people special adaptability to air transport, to air service and everything connected with air development. In the first world war Canadians were supreme amongst all the armed forces of the world. In the second world war they continued that great tradition, and our great bush pilots of the north followed that tradition with equal valour and with tremendous success in the years of peace. With this tradition behind us we Canadians have the adaptability, have the spirit, have the natural qualification for this type of service. I do appeal to the minister to give us a picture of a positive plan for the use of the army which is certainly still lacking.
We have had a statement in the white paper which is really wholly uninformative as to any real developments in the future. I would point out that in Britain when their white paper was presented a few months ago positive statements of policy were enunciated which gave to their people confidence that the military staff was approaching the future 50433-3474
Supply-National Defence * with open vision. It was laid down as a positive statement of policy in the white paper in Britain that naval ships were now primarily regarded as bases for guided missiles. There is nothing in our white paper to tell us that already there has been a change in the attitude toward the artillery; that no matter how long it may be, the concept is now changing to the idea of an artillery weapon being a platform for guided missiles. The period of transition will be long, but already, through having seen the dummy that was included in the parade here not long ago, we know that the guided missile is contemplated here in Canada and actually is being experimented with and being used. It is a matter of common knowledge, and no secret, that the Canadian artillery has already fired a guided missile as a part of artillery training.
Why not challenge the imagination of the people of Canada by stating that the concept of the Canadian artillery is already in a transitional period from the conventional weapon to the guided missile, land to land, land to air, as well as air to air? Tell them also that, while the guided missile may become the most important weapon of the artillery, with certain obligations we have and certain essential demands, there will still be the conventional rifle weapon for certain specific services. None of this is yet given. Give to us the picture. Give to Canadians a challenge to their imagination and they will respond to that challenge.
As far as the navy is concerned, give us the broader picture there. As far as the air force is concerned, they definitely are in the future from the point of view of guided missiles, air to air and air to land.
We are on the army part of the estimates, Mr. Chairman. I submit that unless there is more than we have yet been told, a great deal more, then there is a lack of co-ordination and planning in regard to the army, which should be a cause of concern to every hon. member. I hope that the minister will indicate not only his willingness to approach this whole subject with an open mind, but also that instructions will be given to his planning staff to seek a strictly Canadian type of airborne organization, with compact, hard-hitting combat teams which could be moved to any distant point of the great Canadian north and be available also to NATO for such service as might be part of our common defence.
I submit that in relation to this suggestion there need be no question that NATO would gladly revise its arrangements to embrace within this combined organization a great modern military organization of this type.

Supply-National Defence


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, before we leave this item I should like to take a few minutes to emphasize once again the need for an integrated program of ideological training for our armed services. When I was organizing my thoughts on this subject I was beset by the usual temptation to cover the subject in some detail and to prepare a speech that would attract attention and look well in Hansard. But an ideology is a quality of life. It is not something merely to be talked about; it is something to be lived out in our daily lives.
We all realize that time is always precious. To members of parliament in the closing days of the session it is doubly so. There is also the uncomfortable fact that every unnecessary word, every minute wasted in this house, is also a waste of the taxpayers' money. Consideration of these facts drove me to the conclusion that I would not be living out my personal ideology if I did not endeavour to compress into five or six minutes what I would normally require 15 or 20 minutes to say. I assure hon. members that I would not take even these few minutes were I not absolutely convinced that this is a matter of urgent and vital importance. I say that for three reasons.
The first reason is that we are now living in an ideological age. We may not like it; we may not accept it; but nevertheless it remains a fact and we cannot alter it. For concrete proof we need only to examine the impact which the very word communism has today on our thinking and on our everyday lives.
My second reason is the experience of the United Nations soldiers in the Korean war. In former wars when a soldier was taken prisoner the war was over as far as he was concerned, but the United Nations soldiers who were taken prisoner in Korea found that the war was not over for them; in fact it was just beginning. The conflict in which they found themselves involved was ideological. I am not going to take time to elaborate on this point; instead I refer hon. members to a booklet published by the British defence ministry entitled "Treatment of British Prisoners of War in Korea". The fact to remember is that in future wars the prison camps must be regarded as battlegrounds in the war for men's minds and souls.
My third reason is that the continuous stockpiling of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, together with the means of delivering them over long distances, must inevitably lead to a stalemate where neither side can afford to risk a shooting war. The recent change in the tactics and strategy employed

by the rulers of Soviet Russia indicate that they accept this position of armed stalemate as a fact, but there is not the slightest indication that the men of the Kremlin have abandoned their objective of communist world domination. They have not forgotten their past ideological victories which enabled them to gain control of whole nations without firing even a single shot. Therefore as the likelihood of a shooting war decreases it is reasonable to assume that the ideological war will be intensified.
These facts have great significance and far-reaching implications. They call for cold, realistic appraisal and for immediate and effective action. Here I feel it is necessary to point out that we should never confuse ideological training with a program of information and education. There is a vast difference between the two. We must at all costs avoid the mistake of trying to substitute one for the other.
I know that some provision is made for group discussion as a part of military training. As one who has had considerable experience with group discussion, both with service personnel and civilians, I know that it can serve a useful purpose; but only if it leads to decision. Endless discussion without leading to any decision is futile.
An ideology is an idea in action, an idea that is out to change the world. Ideas in action imply decision. President Eisenhower stressed this fact when speaking to the West Point graduating class on June 11 of this year when he said:
Change is inescapable in human society. Since the beginning of history the quality of a nation has been measured by its capacity to meet and master these evolving circumstances. The capacity of man has been gauged, in part at least, by his flexible adjustment to the new and novel, without sacrifice of principle or abandonment of standards. But change in the leisurely days of the past was gradual and evolutionary. Now, within a single generation, a natural process has become a cataclysmic rush.
Mr. Peter Howard, a noted British author, voiced the same thought in a recent broadcast. Perhaps I should explain that Mr. Howard is a full-time member of moral rearmament and he is now accompanying a mission of 60 statesmen which is visiting the national capitals of Asia and the Middle East at the invitation of their national governments. This mission is headed by Mr. Ole Bjorn Kraft, the leader of the Danish Conservative party who was formerly foreign minister and chairman of NATO. When broadcasting from Taipei, Formosa, Mr. Howard had this to say:
We live in an age of hope and danger. The hope is that millions today are resolved to build a new kind of world. The danger is that, frustrated by delays and disappointments, or lured by promises or fears of false leadership, some nation may

resort to atomic force in an effort to enforce its will upon mankind and so destroy the world as we know it. We need a vast transformation of human society-and it can happen fast.
Those two speakers stressed two essential facts which we must grasp. The first is that change is inescapable and the second is that change in our social order will be brought about by one of two world forces. The world of the future will be shaped either by the communist ideology or by a positive democratic ideology. These are the two alternatives and we should be thankful that there is an alternative to communism. Otherwise there would be no hope for the world.
If the world is to be shaped by a positive democratic ideology we must start at once to develop that ideology and put it into effect. To do that we must have a program of ideological training for everyone, and for the reasons already stated the armed forces are the logical place to begin.
Referring to our defensive regional pacts at San Francisco on June 24, and replying to the charges made by Soviet foreign minister Molotov, our minister of external affairs said:
Our unity in this regard cannot be shaken by untrue and unwarranted allegations that such arrangements are aggressive and provocative. We know that they are not and we will not abandon them. They are a shield against aggression itself and from any state. We will not-we dare not- abandon them until our security can be assured on a broader, better basis by the United Nations- or until peace rests on something even stronger than force of any kind.
I suggest that the "something even stronger than force of any kind" is a positive democratic ideology. It cannot be anything else. The essence of this ideology is an idea great enough to unite humanity. This idea is moral change. Everyone changes; the communists change; the capitalists change; the whites change and the blacks change. The east can change and the west can change. Then they can all unite in remaking the world by living a quality of life based on absolute moral standards. Then and not till then will true peace be realized.
Our minister of external affairs emphasized this point when addressing the United Nations tenth anniversary session at San Francisco on June 26-just a few days ago. He said:
There will be no peace until national policies are based on the U.N. charter-above all until we live our own lives in accordance with its principles.
This brings it right down to the level of each individual and points up the need for absolute moral standards. There can be no democratic ideology without absolute moral standards, because the ideology that changes communists must be a moral force in action.
Supply-National Defence Trained communists are quick to realize that a moral standard must be absolute; otherwise it is not a standard at all.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote a few more words from Mr. Howard's broadcast to which I referred earlier. Later on in this broadcast to red China he used these words:
Attempts, however sincere, to make a new world must inevitably fail unless a new type of man is created to live in it. New systems crumble before the same old motives of greed, mistrust and exploitation. Those who use hate to gain control inevitably find that they have to use force to keep it. You cannot make a new world out of the same old people. You cannot make a good omelette out of bad eggs. A new type of world demands a new type of man. The ideology which produces the new type of man will win the world.
I could continue at some length, Mr. Chairman, but I think I have already said enough to make my point. I draw this need for an integrated program of ideological training to the attention of the Minister of National Defence and through him to his colleagues in the cabinet, the chiefs of staff and all others who are responsible for the training of our armed services. I know that some thought has already been given to this matter, but I believe the time has come when we must crystallize our thoughts and translate them into positive action.


Mr. Siewarl (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Chairman, I hope my hon. friend will forgive me for descending from the high spiritual plane to which he has exalted us to the more mundane level on which I have my existence. I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. What licences are paid for by the army for its transport drivers to the various provinces of Canada?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that with regard to the registration of vehicles we have arrangements with all the provinces whereby we pay a nominal sum that takes care of the cost of the plate and clerical expenses. Those arrangements vary to some degree in the different provinces, but in no province do we pay the full normal registration fee for the vehicle, as do civilians.


Alan Carl Stewart: Every
province is paid in some form, either for the trucks or for the drivers?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes; it is done by agreement between our department and the province concerned. My remarks were addressed to the registration of vehicles. In respect of drivers, we also have arrangements with the provinces. In some cases we pay for the licence and in some cases we make other payments in lieu. We have varying arrangements with the different provinces.

Supply-National Defence


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Could the minister tell me in which provinces the payments are made for licences?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have not that information here, but I shall be glad to get it for the hon. member.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Does your department pay gasoline tax to the provinces?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There are varying arrangements about that. I can obtain that information.


Charles Edward Johnston: Perhaps the minister could get a little more detailed information. Just to say that there are varying arrangements does not give us very much information. Perhaps the minister could get us the detailed information in regard to each of the provinces respecting the vehicle licences, the drivers' licences and the gasoline tax. There are those three questions.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I should be very glad to get the information.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, the subject of the army in general is of intense interest to a great many members of this house and the people of Canada. I am not sure that in the course of the minister's remarks on June 16 and 17 he dealt with the army as fully as he might. I have been looking back at the record and endeavouring to fill in the gaps that escaped my memory. I find that the minister hurried over the army, so it seems to me, in the course of his remarks.
When he was replying to us on June 16 he gave a rather short statement-not that that was any new experience for me. With the former minister of national defence I was accustomed to being ignored completely or else brushed aside with just a very short answer. The present minister was somewhat more amenable to argument. When I was discussing the armoured corps, and particularly the armoured personnel carrier, he said I had almost persuaded him to look at it closely again. I am not going to deal now with that particular problem of the armoured personnel carrier but I want to ask the minister to give his attention to the armoured corps in general.
Last year I spoke on this matter at considerable length and marshalled all the arguments that came to my mind. As a result I entertained a faint hope that this year, with a new minister in charge, perhaps the armoured corps might receive the recognition that it deserves. To my disappointment, however, the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps was brushed aside by the present minister

in a phrase which is to be found at page 4863 of Hansard, a few lines from the top. That phrase is "together with supporting armour". That is all the minister could find to say with regard to the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps.
This is an astonishing decline in one of the great arms of the service. The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps is the lineal descendant of the cavalry; and the cavalry over a long period of time occupied an important position in the army. I am not suggesting that the armoured corps is of greater importance than is the infantry corps, the artillery or the engineers. An army is composed of groups of supporting arms which must work together in order to achieve success. But when the Minister of National Defence is dealing with the army in general, I think he should give due recognition to one of the great branches of the army and that he should not dismiss it in a phrase such as "supporting armour".
The minister might have mentioned the regiments which now are equipped with armoured fighting vehicles. He might have indicated their role other than, as it appears here, just simply in a supporting role to the infantry. He might have named the regiments but he did not do so.
Last year I was advocating that it was absolutely essential, in a modern army fighting with conventional weapons, that the armoured corps be maintained. We cannot ignore conventional weapons. The minister does not do that. As reported at page 4863 of Hansard he says this:
Our own best military advice and the advice of the highest military chiefs of NATO is that the need for ground forces of the highest calibre will be continuing and urgent throughout the foreseeable future.
We must not be misled by the tremendous threat of nuclear weapons entirely to ignore conventional weapons. Even at the present time when disarmament matters are being considered, no one has suggested the complete disbandment of the armed forces. If minor wars break out conventional weapons will be used as they have been used within recent years; and if you are going to use conventional weapons you must surely, in these days, have armour.
The history of the development of the tank is an extremely interesting one. It took years for people to understand the value of it. Even in the opening years of the second great war there was great misunderstanding as to the importance and the value of the tank; and I regret that, since that war, there seems to be a misunderstanding in Canada of the value of that particular type of armoured fighting vehicle.

As I pointed out last year, we have evolved a very efficient, highly-trained infantry fighting force, with artillery and engineers. They have had great experience in the course of the Korean war. They have had plenty of field experience in exercises in Europe with the NATO forces. But during all this period since the conclusion of the second great war, armour has been neglected. I advocated-as did others on this side of the chamber-that our contribution to the NATO forces in Europe should be armour and not infantry. The former minister would not consider that suggestion. The present minister says this, and I quote from page 4863 of Hansard:
Within the NATO system the role of the Canadian army is primarily, of course, an infantry role.
Why "of course, an infantry role"? I recall asking a year or two ago why our commitments to NATO should have been infantry and I think the answer was that that was what we were requested to supply. 1 am obliged to accept at their face value statements such as that made in the house, but I wonder whether that was not what we suggested we might supply. If that was the case, I think our suggestion was wrong. There are millions of men available on the continent of Europe to supply ground forces in an infantry role whereas the more specialized mechanized forces might well be produced here in Canada and trained with the NATO forces overseas. My suggestion last year and the year before was that our NATO commitment might better be a brigade of tanks, with a brigade of tanks at home in Canada to effect the necessary rotation of regiments. Had that been done or were it done now the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps would be as important a force within the Canadian army as it was during the second world war.
I went on to point out the great importance, with regard to an army, of the training of senior officers and that they are severely handicapped if they are not given troops of all arms to work with. How can an infantry commander of the rank of general, commanding a division or a corps, make use of armour if he has none to deal with? How will the infantry battalion commanders learn to work with tanks if there are none to work with? The result is that in the actual higher command of the Canadian army there must, of necessity, these last few years be a lack of training in the use of armour.
That is not the case with regard to the army of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is maintaining in the NATO forces a substantial contribution of armoured divisions. The United States is not neglecting its
Supply-National Defence armoured corps nor is Russia. Why Canada should be doing this is something that I do not understand. I do not understand why we should be just supplying infantry forces when we could have a combined fighting force of armour and infantry, with the artillery and the engineers, as we had in the second great war.
The tank has proved its usefulness ever since it was effectively brought out on the battlefield in the fall of 1917. Some misguided people who observed bogged down tanks in the first great war thought that they were completely useless. They were most effectively used in the fall of 1917, and again used effectively in the great campaigns of 1918, particularly from the 8th of August on.
Then you will recall that in the inter-war period the tank was neglected and came back into usefulness at the beginning of the second great war when the Germans so effectively overran Poland with an armoured force. Canada woke up to the problem after some considerable delay and produced tanks of her own which were not used on the battlefield as gun tanks. Finally she equipped her army with the necessary number of tanks to form armoured brigades and armoured divisions. The striking force of the Canadian army in the second world war was immensely enhanced by virtue of that fact. The striking force of the Canadian army at the present time is not nearly as strong as it should be because it is chiefly infantry. A balanced Canadian army cannot be produced under these conditions.
I would be interested to see what the manoeuvres will be during the immensely interesting training period that is now about to commence at Gagetown. To what extent will tanks be used in these manoeuvres? They will perhaps be used to as great an extent as is possible with two regiments, but there will be nothing in the nature of armoured brigade action or armoured division action. It will be a case of tanks supporting infantry. There will be press photographers there and I very much fear that in the closing days of the exercises at Gagetown we will see infantry going into action supported by tanks. Some of the infantry will be riding on top of the tanks, some will be walking behind the tanks and some will be walking along the ground with the tanks out on the flanks. This will be supposed to be a first-class infantry action with tanks, overlooking the fact that all the men on the ground could easily be cut down by machine gun fire, mortar fire and high explosive shells without the least trouble in the world. That will be the type of infantry plus tank action that I suppose will be produced in the exercises this summer.
5500	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
From the size oi the Gagetown area I judge that tank manoeuvres could be held there with the greatest of ease. Its terrain is suitable for that purpose, and I think the training of armoured formations could very-well be carried on there. If we could get back to a balanced Canadian army with its proper component of tanks we would have a much better striking force than at the present time. A force of that nature could be used along the lines that have been advocated in the house by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Es-quimalt-Saanich. We could have an airlifted striking force because it is possible nowadays to provide planes with the carrying capacity to transport tanks.
The tank is not out of the picture so far as present-day conceptions of warfare are concerned, but the tank is out of the picture so far as the Minister of National Defence is concerned because he does not even bother to mention it. He had nothing to say about the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps. It is for that reason I am making this protest now. I think the minister will have to adjust his thinking with regard to the Canadian army. He will have to engage in consultation with his advisers and suggest to them that a balanced Canadian army is the requirement for the present day. I grant that we have first-class infantry, artillery and engineers and give full credit to them. I think they are very highly trained. As I pointed out last year, when you consider the rotation that has gone on in Europe and the number of brigades that served in Korea, we have trained scores of senior officers, majors, lieutenant-colonels and brigadiers, in actual warfare in Korea or in simulated warfare in the exercises in Europe. We have also trained artillery officers and engineers.
The result is that there is available in army circles a highly trained group of officers of the rank of major, lieutenant-colonel or brigadier in those services. What officers of that rank have you in the armoured corps? The armoured corps has become, as I said before, the Cinderella of the Canadian army. What officer from the armoured corps is likely to receive promotion and advancement? Their numbers are too few. Has any lieutenant-colonel of the armoured corps received active service training since the second world war or simulated active service training in Europe with the NATO forces? Of course not. The command for any armoured corps grouping has only carried the rank of a major and, so far as my information goes, no major has even exercised a squadron in its entirety. They have


been handed out by dribs and drabs. After all these years here is the Canadian army highly trained and very efficient in one respect and neglected in the other.
I do not wish to leave the impression that the two regiments comprising the armoured regiments of the Canadian army are not highly trained within their regimental duties. I do not want to leave that impression. I think they are both efficient regiments, but they have not had the advanced training that has been made possible for other units in the Canadian army. We are not drawing officers for higher positions from the armoured corps unless they are men whose experience extends back to the second world war. I am thinking now of the years ahead of us. If the present Canadian army set-up is continued, then 20 years from now there will not be an officer of high rank who has had any real experience in the use of armour. I think that is quite wrong.
At the beginning of the second world war and for several years thereafter it was bad enough dealing with high ranking officers who had no understanding whatsoever of the use of armour. At this late stage after the second world war I can perhaps express myself with some feeling on this matter, and possibly I might be a bit unkind to some of the high-ranking officers of the second world war. Perhaps they did not have the opportunities, but certainly it was difficult for them to understand how armour should be used. We had plenty of trouble during that war until experience was gained. Let us not go through that again. Let us develop a balanced Canadian army so that all officers of senior rank may have the same type of training. That is my protest to the minister. He neglected to say anything about armour in the course of his remarks. Not much was said about it in the white paper. I notice this at page 42:
The regular force Is now equipped with the British Centurion tank. A British type of armoured scout car has also been issued to regular units.
In view of the discussion we have had in other years with regard to the equipment of the armoured corps, I think the minister might well have elaborated on this and told us the complete equipment of the present active regiments. He might have told us about the equipment for the militia regiments within the armoured corps, and let the house know whether they are fully equipped with Centurion tanks, or whether a new type of tank is under consideration. He might have informed us, too, about this British armoured car, and perhaps the Minister of Defence Production might have

asked for extended powers to produce a Canadian armoured car. I believe that is within his field.
Unless the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps is revived and put back into its proper place in the Canadian army we will continue to have an ill-balanced fighting force, so far as the army is concerned.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I should like for a few moments to deal with the request by the Canadian Girl Guides Association for the use of Connaught rifle ranges in Ottawa for the purpose of establishing a camp. I understand the request was made in March of this year by the association to the Minister of National Defence for the use of Connaught ranges in either July or August of 1957, for the purpose of holding an international girl guide camp under the auspices of the world association of girl guides.
As the minister indicated earlier, when the question was raised upon calling the orders of the day, this request has been made far in advance, and it is recognized that this is a rather long time ahead to make such a request. I think however the reason must be obvious to everybody including the minister. It takes a great deal of arrangement to make plans for a conference of this size, which will be attended by people from Europe, South America, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, they come from all over the world to this conference. In addition, while the conference itself would last only ten days or two weeks, it is the desire of the Girl Guides Association of Canada to arrange other programs for the entertainment of the visitors so that they could visit Niagara, Banff and other points in Canada.
The girl guides association is not asking for money; apparently they have their own sources and can make the necessary financial arrangements. But a conference of this kind does require a great deal of organization and arrangement, with the result that requests for accommodation have to be made well in advance. As a matter of fact, I have been advised by the association that if a decision one way or another cannot be reached by the middle of this summer the whole plan will have to be scrapped, because it is impossible to make the arrangements on shorter notice.
The request has been made for the use of the ranges in either July or August. While the actual conference would take only ten days or two weeks the association would require the use of the grounds for perhaps a week before for purposes of preparation, and a week after to clean up the area. All told, it would take about a month.
Supply-National Defence
I am told that, on the advice of one of his senior staff officers, who shall be nameless, the minister has turned down the request, and that the staff officer has advised that the date is too far in advance, and that the request cannot be considered at the present time.
My advice is that the Connaught ranges are not used for matters connected with vital national defence. There is little doubt that if between now and 1957 the international situation should worsen to the point where war, or something approaching war, might be expected, the whole thing would be called off anyway. At the present time the Boy Scouts Association of Canada have the use of Camp Niagara at Niagara Falls, which is a military camp, where a great deal of training takes place. My advice is that Connaught ranges are not used in the same way as the camp at Niagara.
It has been said that the attempt to make arrangements is too far ahead and that the department is not in a position to say what might take place at Connaught ranges at that time. It seems to me that this is a stronger argument favouring the request, because it will be known two years in advance that the ranges would be occupied in July or August of 1957, and the department could make the appropriate arrangements.
Someone might ask why some other place should not be used, because there are, indeed, other places in Canada. This point has been investigated thoroughly by the association and they feel there is no other place suitable. Their chief reason for saying this is, of course, that other places such as Camp Niagara have not the suitable sanitary facilities for a conference of this kind.
Another important point is that in an international affair of this kind, while the boy scouts are at Niagara Falls, nevertheless this is the national capital and it would seem suitable that young people from other countries who visit Canada should have the opportunity to attend a camp located in the federal district near the national capital. I think the reasons are obvious, without further elaboration.
My understanding is that in the past the girl guides have had the use of Connaught ranges. I believe they were located there no more than two or three years ago when they established a national camp. Apparently there was no objection on that occasion. In this instance it is to be an international camp, and it seems to me the reasons for having it at Connaught ranges are obvious. There would be considerable prestige for Canada, and it would do a great deal to improve international understanding, and at virtually
5502	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence no cost to the government. Indeed, in my opinion it would do much more to create international good will than a lot of the money spent by the Department of External Affairs from time to time in various forms of entertainment.
Here is a great opportunity for young Canadians to learn what the young people of other places in the world are like, and to learn about their problems. It must be remembered that the young people who will be attending this conference are in many cases likely to be those who in future will be the leaders not only in Canada but in other countries. It cannot help but give them a good opportunity to learn our way of life, and it seems to me this is most important.
More than that, for our own young people it is a notable adventure in citizenship. They will have the opportunity to know better the young people from other parts of the world. I understand there would be anywhere from 12,000 to 20,000 in attendance, the great majority of whom would be Canadians. Nevertheless there would be several thousand from other parts of the world, in those places where girl guide and boy scout movements are in existence.
I hope the minister will reconsider the decision, for the reasons I have given. If the opportunity to hold the camp at Connaught ranges is turned down, or if some decision cannot be reached soon, there will be many thousands of young people in Canada who will be greatly disappointed. This would be a great pity. The advantages of holding the camp in the Ottawa area are many, from the long-range as well as from the immediate point of view. It would seem a pity if this venture is scuttled on the advice of a brass hat. It is not as though the association were asking for an assignment to them of a military area of great importance such as the camp at Petawawa, at Camp Borden or at Gagetown. They are asking for the Connaught ranges which the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association uses from time to time, and I am told the local militia also uses it occasionally for shoots. I can see no reason why appropriate arrangements could-not be made to let the association have it in 1957 for this purpose. As I say, they have had it before. The department permitted the boy scouts to use Camp Niagara, which is considerably more important than the Connaught ranges, I would think.
The Prime Minister himself, and certainly the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, are very interested in young people. If the Minister of National Defence does not see fit to let the association use Connaught ranges, perhaps the Prime Minister or the Minister 

of Citizenship and Immigration might assist the Girl Guides Association in finding other suitable quarters with proper facilities for young girls.
As I said before, this is a very worthy effort on the part of the Girl Guides Association of Canada. It will enhance the reputation of our young people at home and abroad. I do hope the minister will reconsider the matter before long; otherwise, it will have to be dropped.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, I want to back
up what the hon. member for Oxford has said about complying with the request of the Girl Guides Association for the use of the Connaught ranges. I think it is a great compliment to Canada that this fine association is having this world meeting here. It is a grand chance for Canada to show off a little, to give those people an idea of what Canada looks like and particularly of our hospitality.
If the Girl Guides Association, which is playing host to these fine young people from all over the world, considers that the Connaught ranges would be the best place possible for this camp, then the government should do everything possible not to put obstacles in their way, but to comply with their request. The hon. member for Oxford has said that these ranges have been used before by this same association. It is not something new. If they have used this site before, then obviously the association knows that the facilities are satisfactory and that they consider, after a great deal of thought, -I am sure they put a great deal of thought into this matter-that this would be the best possible place for the meeting to be held.
For a senior army officer to put obstacles in the way of this fine association is to me simply stupidity. It is a sample of bureaucratic stupidity. Simply to say that this is not a military organization; that there would be a little trouble and they might have to make some arrangements; that it is a little out of the normal course to do this thing, therefore we just say no, to me is just bureaucratic stupidity.
To use the words of an hon. member, I was in the army, and I have had lots of experience with this same kind of bureaucratic stupidity. I hope that the minister will give this serious consideration. This is an important matter. I do not know of any two finer organizations in the world than the boy scouts and the girl guides. They have given this thing serious consideration, and if they feel that Connaught ranges is the best possible site for their meeting, then I should think the government would fall over itself to comply with their request and

back up a fine organization of this kind instead of snubbing them and saying no, we are just not going to let you have this area, you can find some place else.
I urge the minister to reconsider this decision, apd I hope that before this debate is over he will be able to tell the committee and the Girl Guides Association that their very reasonable request will be complied with.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is there any further discussion on the army, regular and general?


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do not intend to make any speech about it but I have a few questions I should like answered by the minister. In the army items on page 231 we notice an item set aside for professors and instructors at the Royal Military College. I understand there has been a pretty well complete integration as far as officer cadet training of all three services at the tri-service schools is concerned. I wondered whether the minister had taken any note of the action of the Royal Canadian Air Force Association at their last meeting when they requested that we return to the old system of having schools for each of the army services?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, we have examined the resolution passed by the Royal Canadian Air Force Association and also our policy in relation to tri-service colleges. As the hon. member said, we have integrated the three services in each of the three colleges. We feel that that is desirable and advantageous, and we propose to continue having all of the colleges tri-service.


John Borden Hamilton: Further than that, we have been talking about integration all along the line. In connection with the services, will the minister outline what steps have been taken, if any, in connection with the training of staff officers at the staff college, to bring together the officers of the three services? Has any attempt been made along that line, to train them at one school, or at least in all three schools for all three services?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The national defence college is tri-service, as the hon. member knows, and the three service colleges are tri-service. In the air force staff college and the army staff college there are sprinklings of officers from the other services, so that while the staff colleges are predominantly for the service to which they are attached, there is some intermingling of personnel in the national defence college.


John Borden Hamilton: I might suggest to the minister that serious thought be given
Supply-National Defence in the future to more than just a slight intermingling of personnel at these schools. If we are to achieve the maximum effort out of the armed forces we must move steadily toward the goal of having staff people trained to understand completely the use and the effectiveness of the other arms of the services. As a matter of fact, we can safely say that here in Canada we cannot even begin to afford a miniature pentagon. The earlier that we can put together all three services in a combined force of some kind the better our defences will be. The minister will recall the words of General Pearkes, who said that the question of the type of uniform that was worn or its colour was not of great importance to him. From the staff point of view, probably very much more use of the great number of personnel in the various services could be made if real offensive steps were taken along the lines of integration; I mean by that, the requirements for personnel in the far north in connection with the D.E.W. line. In the first instance, this personnel may be members of the Royal Canadian Air Force for radar duty. It seems to me that at the same time the ground forces of the Royal Canadian Air Force might very well be trained in the very latest of infantry type weapons and their use so there will be no duplication by having to have the army as another branch of the service handle the actual protective work for radar personnel.
As a matter of fact, if that course were pursued we might be able to avoid the embarrassing situation we find ourselves in now where we are seeing United States servicemen on the streets of many of the northern cities and towns, which indicates that they are the people who are manning those radar defence lines. Perhaps we could make use of the ground personnel of the air force if they were trained in the use of the latest infantry weapons, given the same type of tactical training that is given to the infantry. We might then be in position to handle all the personnel requirements for our northern defence lines without having help from an outside country. I urge strongly to the minister that the first step to be taken would be to see that the staff colleges do more than just intermingle, that they start a program which will enable each one of them to understand completely the responsibilities of the others.
Coming down the list of items starting at page 321, I notice again an increase in the number of administrative officers. As I indicated once before, I think it is quite logical to expect an increase in the technical officers of the army and most certainly that would be indicated if we followed the advice of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre,

Supply-National Defence but I fail to see why there should be a steady increase of administrative personnel. I might go one step further and note that this is along the lines of the question I asked in connection with the navy.
I notice a fairly large increase in the number of office appliance operators employed by the army. This would indicate the utilization of modern office equipment and it should forecast a decline in the number of clerical workers who are mentioned on page after page. There seems to be no indication that the mechanization of office work is leading to any decrease in the number of routine administrative personnel. Could the minister give an indication why in each of these two instances we have increases in personnel at a time when the use of mechanical means might be decreasing that type of work?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, dealing first with administrative officers of which there is a slight increase in numbers: for some years it was found to be most difficult to obtain this type of officer and we were very short of them. The hon. member will recall that in his report on the engineering services Mr. Currie deprecated the lack of administrative officers. We have been making that up as fast as we can get suitable people of that category.
With regard to the office appliance operators, I may say that we are endeavouring to introduce as much mechanical type work as we can into the administrative side. The expectation is that as it becomes effective and these different steps are linked together we hope to be able to cut down somewhat on the clerical staff. We are in the transition stage at the moment.


John Borden Hamilton: I gather from the^ minister that we can hope to see some savings in that respect.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would hope so.


John Borden Hamilton: I should like to refer again to the employment of architects. As far as naval architects are concerned,
I can understand that they might be used in the designing of ships or in connection with special work of that kind and therefore might require special training, but in connection with the construction of other types of buildings, even including hangars for the air force, I should like to know if any attempt has been made to integrate the services of the architects. Would it not be possible to have the architects operate from a central pool for all the armed services instead of each branch having its own group of architects?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, that is now being done; the architects of the three services 
are pooled. Of course in each service there are some specific types of work peculiar to that service and the duties of certain architects would follow that service line. Generally speaking, we are trying to use all architects in the most advantageous manner, which is, as the hon. member has suggested, by pooling them. It is working out quite well.


John Borden Hamilton: On page 328 the item for travelling and removal expenses is $19,127,000, whereas last year it was $16,397,000. The minister will recall that I asked for certain information in connection with removal costs for members of the armed services in Ontario and I found a return on my desk this morning. I have not had an opportunity to add this up, but it would seem to indicate at least 100 different moving companies. Could the minister give us any information as to what type of audit is made of this $19 million and of the utilization of approximately 100 companies in moving service personnel to and from Ontario? Is there any audit as to the cost involved, the time involved in moving, the merchandise or furniture that is moved and whether the actual removal is for straight military purposes?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The increase this year in travelling and removal expenses is due to the fact that the brigade now in Germany will be rotated and returned to Canada, which means a double movement of the outgoing brigade and the incoming brigade.
I might give the hon. member a statement as to how individual movements are handled, which I think is what he has in mind. When an officer or man is posted from one place of duty to another and is authorized to transfer his furniture and effects at public expense, it is the responsibility of his commanding officer to determine the most economical method of shipment and movement. It is the practice to call for at least two quotations and sometimes more in each case in order to get a competitive price. The officer or man who is being transferred then has the right to select the most economical of the tenders that have been received. If he exceeds the amount of the tender, then he must pay the added cost himself. In other words, there is a natural check in that way.
When the mover has been selected, he receives an order to move the furniture and effects. When the move has been completed, the moving company submits the invoice to the department including a certificate from the man that the services have been performed and the goods received. The officer who authorizes payment of the account must

also certify that the move was made under proper authority and that all charges are fair and just. In further support of the charges made, waybills, etc., are required to be submitted. These are used in checking on the sums involved. These procedures have been strengthened following some difficulties encountered last year, when there were some conspiratorial attempts to defraud.
The feeling of the departmental officials charged with this matter now is that, under the present system when a man is ordered to move, we have a fairly accurate and complete check on the cost of that movement. Of course, the cost of moving is pretty well established on a mileage basis, and there is usually not too much difficulty about that. The troubles we have had arose where a soldier conspired with a civilian. There were cases where movements had not been authorized or made and payments were made. It is as a result of this that we have tightened up the procedure and, so far as I know, it seems to be working satisfactorily.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


William Alfred Robinson: Department of National Defence, resolution 236. At one o'clock the committee had been discussing the Canadian army, regular and general.


John Borden Hamilton: At one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, we were talking about questions of travelling and removal expenses and the minister had been outlining the method used to check these individual items. I wonder whether the minister might be able to tell us whether the department has any estimate as to the amount lost during the last fiscal year in connection with-and I think he used these words-attempts by conspiracy to defraud the department in connection with moving expenses. Can he tell us approximately how much the department has lost, whether any prosecutions were launched and whether there were any convictions?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As nearly as we can arrive at the figure involved, it is slightly over $9,000. Prosecutions were launched against 36 non-commissioned officers and men. Three were tried and convicted by general court-martial. One was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and one to 18 months' imprisonment and dismissal from Her Majesty's forces. One was fined $150 and severely reprimanded. Of the 21 who were tried by disciplinary courts-martial, 20 received disciplinary sentences, one with dismissal from
Supply-National Defence Her Majesty's forces, and one was acquitted. Of the 12 who were dealt with summarily and disciplined, one is being detained by the civil authorities on another civil prosecution.


John Borden Hamilton: Can the minister advise us whether any prosecutions were launched in this connection in the civil courts against any of the outside persons involved in connection with these travel and removal expenses?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The single civilian who was engaged in this business was prosecuted or at least his prosecution is pending-I do not think it has been completed-in the civil courts. When that matter is completed we propose to take civil action against him to recover such of the moneys as we can which were involved in the series of transactions.


John Borden Hamilton: I gather that only one civilian was involved in this matter and that it covers fairly well the complete amount which is involved in the loss of $9,000.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the facts will show that the man to whom I was just referring was the originator of a little system of his own and that he operated a moving business, at least ostensibly so. It was a local situation and it is being completely cleared up. It has already been cleared up as far as service personnel are concerned and is in a fair way to be concluded on the civilian side.


John Borden Hamilton: I see that, as shown at page 322, there is an increase in the number of accountants that are being employed by the army. I trust that they might be used in cases of this kind. I wonder whether the minister could inform us whether any audit check is made. He has outlined for us the procedure used in connection with the ordering of the civilian company to move the service personnel and how it is passed on by the commanding officer. Can the minister inform us whether any spot check is made by the department auditors or accountants of the actual invoicing made by the civilian companies to the army?


Ralph Osborne Campney: In the quartermaster general's department there are teams of accountants who go about the country, doing spot checks from time to time. These checks are followed by further and other spot checks by teams from the chief auditor's branch of the department. There are two series of checks which are being carried out all the time.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few comments following on the speech made this morning by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I had rather hoped that the minister might answer his
5506	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence criticisms at once but that has not been done, and so I shall make my comments now.
I suppose it is no exaggeration to say that this job we are doing now is perhaps, in one sense, the most important job that we do all year because we are dealing with these vast amounts of money. I also take it that notwithstanding any misgivings we may have about the thermonuclear weapons, we are dealing with these estimates on the basis that what we have come to call the conventional army now must be regarded as worth while in itself and must be considered on its own basis.
We have had comments, notably from the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the Leader of the Opposition. I just quote one sentence from the speech of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich to be found at page 4870 of Hansard:
I do not believe in maintaining yesterday's establishments In order to fight the war of tomorrow.
In other words, there has been searching questioning as to the basis of our conventional army. This morning we had a speech by a man who I think we all concede has as good a right to speak on this subject as has any man in this chamber because he speaks of tanks, a matter in which he was at one time an expert and in which he has been desperately interested ever since, and on which he has spoken repeatedly in this House of Commons.
As I listened to him I confess that I was surprised. I have not followed military establishments as I should have but I was surprised to hear him say-as he did say-that our tanks had been neglected. That was the word he used. He repeated it. He described it in various ways. He gave instances. Then he went on to speak of what, of course, is a most important thing, namely the training of officers; and he said that senior officers had not had a proper chance. We all know what that means. He was sparing in criticism that I gather he could have made from what he had seen on the actual field of battle because of the fact that men in senior positions had not had the training in peacetime which they should have had. These warnings and others he has given us. Actually, as I listened to him, I could not help remembering another man of the same name who, 20 years ago, was trying hard to pierce the equanimity and lethargy of the British people; and we all know how dreadfully they suffered because he failed at that time, although he was much too magnanimous to harp on it afterwards.
I think that the speech made this morning demands the most searching and frank [Mr. Macdonncll.l

answer. I do not think it should be slurred over. Are these statements correct? It seems to me there are only three things the minister can do. There are really only two. First he could say that we should not take this too seriously because it is only the conventional army. I know he will not say that. The second thing he could say is that these criticisms are not valid. If he is going to say that, I suggest he has got quite a task on his shoulders in proving it. The third thing he could say is that these criticisms are valid and that he is going to take steps accordingly. If that is what he says, then I suggest it should not be left in the realm of vague generality but that he should try to convince us that he means business.
If none of these things is done, all I can say is that it seems to me that in dealing with these huge amounts we are not behaving like serious men but like children playing in the sand.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is one question I should like to ask the minister. In discussing the navy the other day there was an item in the naval estimates for a total of 322 chauffeurs. In reply to questions at that time the minister said it was much less expensive to employ civilian personnel to do that work than to have service personnel do it. If that is the case, I wonder why there is no provision made in the army estimates for civilian chauffeurs. Apparently service personnel are used for this type of work in the army and the air force. If the argument the minister presented in favour of using civilian personnel in the navy applies, I am rather at a loss to understand why the same system is not used for the army and the air force.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the analogy between the services as put forward by the hon. member is hardly tenable. Incidentally, I might mention that at the bottom of page 326 of the estimates he will see that the army provides for 529 motor truck drivers. Generally speaking, however, the army service corps operates with military personnel. The army is a more mobile service than the navy which operates from fixed establishments. Truck and car driving in the army is different from driving in the other services. I think that will be readily understood. To a large extent, but not completely, we use army service corps personnel as drivers.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I follow the minister's remarks with respect to the army, but the air force is possibly a little closer analogy to the navy than the army. In addition, I should like to know whether the very large item of 529 motor truck drivers for the army includes

personnel who drive staff cars and that sort of thing at various defence establishments. I presume that is what the large number of chauffeurs and truck drivers are required for in the navy.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Can the
minister tell me what control the deputy minister has over army personnel and army policy?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As far as control over personnel is concerned, I think I must assume that responsibility and not the deputy minister. But the deputy minister is reasonably familiar at all times with the personnel situation and, in fact, has an assistant deputy minister who deals almost solely with civilian personnel. There is a chain of responsibility that goes up through the department and finally, like any other responsibility, rests on the minister's shoulders. I do not think I should demonstrate in detail how the whole chain works, but it is a comprehensive system of keeping control of the staff through the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister, the director of personnel and various other branches of that part of the general administration.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Can the
civil administrative head interfere actively with the service heads of various departments and say that this shall be done in contradistinction to what they want done?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The position is that on the service side of each of the three services the chief of staff of the respective service and his officers are primarily responsible for the administration of personnel in that service. But senior officers, including the deputy minister and the chiefs of staff, confer with me with respect to the different service matters and matters on the civilian side from time to time. Generally speaking, however, internal arrangements with respect to personnel in any particular service rest with that service and the chief of staff of that service.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The permanent civil servant head really only has control of the non-service people in the department.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In detail, yes, that is so.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: And the
army and the other services have complete control over their personnel.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Generally speaking that is true, but the minister is in control of the service personnel as he is of the civilian personnel. The deputy minister is also familiar with all aspects of the department,
Supply-National Defence but under normal circumstances the actual administration of a service is left to the chief
of staff and his officers.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I grant that the minister is responsible. He is responsible to the house and to the country. How many civilian personnel are there in the defence establishment over whom the deputy minister has actual control?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Generally speaking the
deputy minister exercises control, under my directions, of the civilian staff, which is approximately 50,000.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: How many?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Approximately 50,000. He is concerned with their conditions of work, rates of pay, qualifications and other details, but from day to day the work is supervised by their immediate superiors and heads of branches. Therefore I think it would be fair to say that under me the deputy minister exercises a general control over all the civilian staff, and the detailed control is exercised by officials who in turn, of course, are responsible to him and through him to me.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: What happens in a situation where the deputy minister believes that something should be done a certain way and the army staff decide it should be done another way? Is the matter then sent to the minister for decision?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think it would depend, in large part, upon what the nature of the matter was. For example, if it had something to do with the firing of guns, or the provision of radar equipment for aircraft, or anything of an operational nature, the service view would obtain and it would be looked after by the responsible head of the branch concerned. But if it was a case of an amount of money to be spent for a certain type of radar equipment, or something of that kind, the service would make a study and would make a recommendation and ask for the necessary amount of money to be allocated to that purpose. But of course the deputy minister and I and financial officials on the civil side would look at the project carefully.
In other words, if it is an operational matter of a service, generally speaking we must rely upon the senior military officer in the particular branch of the service for advice. But if it is a question of finance or general administration, then naturally the deputy minister has to be consulted. He must be conversant with it, because the service and the civilian sides have to be integrated.
5508	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
So it is a question I cannot answer categorically, but I hope I have made clear the division I have in mind.


Mr. Gillis:: There are a couple of matters about which I have spoken to the minister previously, and on which I would like to have information.
The first of these was the matter of the separated family allowance. The minister knows how that works, of course. One lives in Nova Scotia and is posted to Vancouver; and unless his wife and family are also moved to and located in Vancouver the separated family allowance does not apply. In other words you have to be together to be considered separated. I think it should be just the reverse, because in the case of a serviceman who goes into the service and has a home established where his wife and family are happy and comfortable, and then is posted out to the west coast or somewhere else, the wife and family are obliged to leave the home they have established and locate themselves in some other part of the country if they wish to qualify for the separated family allowance.
In many cases, where families have been moved in that way, they have found upon landing in Winnipeg or Vancouver, let us say, that there was no accommodation available for them. The result is that, so far as I am concerned, there has been a constant stream of correspondence from different parts of Canada with respect to this matter of the separated family allowance. I know the deputy ministers, who have just been under discussion, must have got pretty sick of my writing letters to them on this particular point. And while I have the opportunity I should like to pay tribute particularly to Mr. Sharpe, a man whom I have never met, but for whom I have high regard for the efficiency and patience he has displayed in trying to get around what was obviously a badly arranged regulation. I am wondering if the minister has got anywhere on this subject, because a month or so ago he did tell me that he would take a look at it.
The second point, in my judgment, is just as crazy. I have in mind the young man who enlists in the service at perhaps the age of 19 years and who, after enlisting, wants to get married. This is particularly so if the young man is going to be posted to Germany, but has a girl friend in Canada. He does not want to lose her, so he marries her before he leaves. After the marriage is arranged, apparently with the blessing of the service authorities, he finds that he cannot get the allowance for his wife because he is under the age of 21 years.


I think that is a silly regulation. It is obviously wrong. In the first place, if he is not entitled to the allowance he should not be given permission to marry. Secondly, if he is old enough to enter the service and go to Germany to stand guard over there, then I say he is entitled to the allowance granted a married person under the regulations.
While I am on my feet, and just so that I will not have to rise again, let me direct the minister's thoughts to another problem that I think is worthy of consideration. I refer to unemployment insurance as applied to service personnel. The regulations today are to the effect that, up to July of this year, anyone in the service is protected by way of unemployment insurance if he happens to decide to leave the service and take civil employment. However, anyone coming into the regular service after July of 1955 will not have unemployment insurance available to him.
In view of the fact that in my opinion the services are going to be permanent as long as most of us will live, they can be looked upon today as occupations for large numbers of young men who come in and enlist for periods of three or five years and intend to make it their calling. At the last sitting of the committee on veterans affairs a presentation was made by the Legion asking us to take a look at this problem. The law of averages will operate so that a considerable percentage of these young people will leave the services before their term has expired. Some of them will not be found suitable, or will not like it. When that happens members will be plagued with inquiries as to why they cannot get unemployment insurance, because members of the Korean division were given entitlement to it. These are the regulations today. The recommendation by the Legion was that service personnel after July 1955 should be considered in the same category as those employed in industry. In other words they were to be brought under the unemployment insurance provi: ions on a contributory basis, in exactly the same way as persons employed in industry.
The committee decided that a recommendation would be made to the Minister of National Defence, because it is the business of that department. Previously, under the regulations, it came under the Department of Veterans Affairs, and contributions were paid through that department. However, we recommended that the matter should be brought to the attention of the Department of National Defence, and that some kind of interdepartmental committee should be set up to study the matter and to ascertain from service personnel themselves whether they want

to be covered by unemployment insurance on a contributory basis, or otherwise.
I know the minister cannot say either yes or no at the present time, but I think he should indicate to the house that a study will be made of the subject. I would be glad to have his comments on the points I have raised.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member for Cape Breton South and I have discussed the matter of the separated family allowance which is payable to married personnel where the husband has been moved abroad or to some point in Canada sufficiently far away that the family are left behind, or for some reason cannot go with him. Then there is the situation where housing cannot be obtained at the point to which the husband has been sent. That is the field in which most of the difficulty arises.
The man who has been moved is supposed to assure himself, either through his own inquiries, or those of his commanding officer, that there is accommodation available for his family. In many cases there are not places readily available for the families, and the result is that some families do remain separated, such as the one to which the hon. member has referred. There does not seem to be any better way of handling the question of separated family allowances than the way which has been developed up to this time.
Then, turning to the married allowances: that of course is a matter of long-standing differences of opinion. The reason the limitation is still in force is that it is felt that when a young man has enlisted and is spending his first year in the army, he ought to give his full attention to it, particularly as he is likely to be moved two or three times to different schools. It is felt that until the young man becomes assimilated in his job it is better for him, in the end, and better for him as a soldier, that this limitation be continued.
With regard to the question of unemployment insurance, we are giving this matter consideration, in the light of the recommendations of the committee, and, on general grounds, there is something to be said for it. Unfortunately, up until now we have not been able to discover any particular desire on the part of the men themselves to participate in a contribution arrangement. We are still studying the matter and we will continue to do so.


Clarence Gillis: I agree with the observations of the minister but with respect to the separated family allowance, it is a long jump from Nova Scotia to Chilliwack, British Columbia, particularly when a man has his own home. In one case I have in mind the
Supply-National Defence man had his own home and his wife and family were quite comfortable. It would be much better to pay separated family allowance and leave the wife and family where they are because usually that is where they want to stay. But in order to qualify for the additional allowance the woman I have in mind had to leave her home and take her children to British Columbia. When she arrived there she found there was no accommodation for her. The same thing applied in Winnipeg. The woman was obliged to take her two or three children to Winnipeg and live in one room in a hotel and pay terrific rates which certainly could not be met by the separated family allowance. The department should have at least some administrative latitude in dealing with a man in the circumstances I have described. If he were able to tell the deputy minister -I have not very much faith in the commanding officers because they have many other things to do; I have a lot of faith in the judgment of the deputy ministers on this particular matter-if he were able to write in and describe his circumstances and say that he has a home and that his family are happy, perhaps other arrangements could be made. Why shift a wife and family out to an area where there is no accommodation? When you have a soldier going out to a place where there is no accommodation for his family, and his family follows him, you are really demobilizing that fellow, so far as the service is concerned, if he has to go out and search for accommodation. Some latitude should be given so that the allowance could be paid under extenuating circumstances of that kind.
A boy under 21 who applies to his commanding officer for permission to get married should get the lecture that the minister just gave us on that particular point. If he received that lecture it might offset his desire to get married until he was 21.


Mr. Mclvor:: He would get married
anyway.


Clarence Gillis: No; they get permission from their unit commanding officer. When the boy gets permission to marry he has every right to receive the married allowance. Anyway, I hope the minister will take another look at it. I am glad the unemployment insurance end of it is being considered.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I should like to make one observation, Mr. Chairman. If the young man who wants to get married gets his commanding officer's consent, he can do so.


Clarence Gillis: He gets the allowance?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.

Supply-National Defence Mr. Gillis: Not in the couple of cases I have in mind.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot deal with specific cases, but it is my understanding that consent may be given. In other words, he has to have the consent of the commanding officer before he marries if he is to get his marriage allowance.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be permitted to make a suggestion to the minister. Since the salaries of civil servants and judges have been increased every four or five years, I would suggest that he consider increasing the $2,500 to the widow of a former minister of national defence. Fifteen years have now gone by and she has had no increase. I ask him to consider it.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman. When the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich spoke on June 16 he drew attention to the item in the white paper dealing with permanent home stations for the regular units of the Canadian army. The relevant point in the white paper reads as follows:
For regular field units of the Canadian army, permanent home stations are being developed across Canada. This development is intended to give greater stability to servicemen and their dependents, for as units complete periods of overseas service they will return to a permanent home location.
The item goes on to list the places at which the home stations will be established. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich commended the department for making this long overdue arrangement, because some units have no home stations at the present time.
I do not find that the minister subsequently made any reference to that when he was giving his limited answers to suggestions coming from this side of the house. Will he now indicate to the committee what regular field units are to have their home stations at the various points that are listed in the white paper?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Perhaps while I am getting that information I might answer the question asked by the hon. member this morning regarding the annual charges levied by provinces for motor vehicle plates and the annual charges for chauffeurs' licences, and with reference to gasoline tax. So far as charges in respect of vehicle registration are concerned, the following rates apply in respect to annual plates for these vehicles: Saskatchewan, $1; Quebec, $2.50; New Brunswick,
$2; Prince Edward Island, $2; Alberta, $1; British Columbia, $2; Nova Scotia, $1; and Newfoundland, $2. In Ontario, free; Manitoba,
$1; Yukon, $1. With regard to drivers' licences, 

no driver's registration fee is required in any province except Quebec where we will pay for armed forces personnel driving national defence vehicles a personal fee of $2.50 each year. In the other provinces we have been able to have the military certificate accepted and no civil card is required.
As regards gasoline, which I think was the subject matter of the third question asked, gasoline purchased on contract by the Department of National Defence is tax free; but in all provinces where emergency purchases are made which are not under contract the prevailing tax is levied, the same as in respect of all other persons.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: How long has a driver's licence fee been paid in Quebec?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Starting July 1 of this year.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: It has not
been operative in the past; why is it being paid starting in July?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is correct.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Why is it
being paid now? Has there been a change in policy? Has the government of Quebec asked for it?


Ralph Osborne Campney: This is the result of considerable negotiations that have gone on. The government of Quebec expressed to us some time ago the feeling that they were not willing to accept our evidence of identity of drivers, and the only way in which they could check under their own provincial regulation was to issue their own cards. We have agreed to that.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Would the minister care to comment on the constitutional aspect of it?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed that these are not drivers' licences in the ordinary sense, they are certificates of identity and competency which we are supposed to see that each driver possesses. I understand they are registered in Quebec and to register these certificates which we provide the drivers as of July 1 there is to be a charge.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: This seems to be a rather extraordinary situation where one province can come along and demand this kind of registration on the part of drivers of the Canadian army who drive in Quebec. I assume that if Quebec can levy this charge against the government the other provinces will have the same right.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is so.


Mr. Coldwell:: How many licences will be issued and what will it cost the government?


Ralph Osborne Campney: This comes into effect only tomorrow and I am sorry but we have not been able to make an estimate with any accuracy as to how many people will be involved.
I cannot give the hon. member even an approximate figure.


Major James William Coldwell: Is this not a dangerous precedent? Other provinces may come along and ask for the same licences and the same payments and so on. This may be extended to all government institutions. Is not this in fact a retreat from the position that has always been taken by the crown in the right of the dominion?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that our legal officers who have discussed this with the province of Quebec and arrived at this formula take the view that the crown is not liable to tax by a province. Generally they uphold that view, but they feel that in this particular matter we are paying the province of Quebec for registration certificates and not paying a tax.


Major James William Coldwell: I certainly think that this
is a dangerous precedent and it should be looked into far more closely, not just by the law officers of the department but by the law officers of the crown. The whole government should be advised of this new position that has been taken. This may have most serious consequences in the future. It may be extended and this could be cited as a precedent. Other provinces could come along and demand certain payments and cite this as a precedent. I think before this is approved a careful investigation should be made by the government of its legal rights and there should be careful consultation with the law officers of the crown and if necessary a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide just what are the rights of the dominion in matters of this kind.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I mentioned when I was giving the figures, we have paid licence plate fees for many years. Each of the provinces provides us with plates for which we are charged, $2 in some cases and $1 in others as in the case of Saskatchewan. I presume if we followed the same line of argument adduced by my hon. friend we could say that that is also a tax. In the one case a licence plate is provided to be put on the car and in the other case a certificate of identity and fitness is provided which must be carried by our drivers when driving in Quebec. I do not know whether there is any substantial difference between the two cases. I would not hold myself out as a constitutional authority however.
Supply-National Defence Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North): I think there is a difference and perhaps it should be referred to the department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to know if there have been complaints about the competency of service drivers from other provinces and, if so, have other provinces asked for the same certificates of fitness in relation to men in our armed services.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think they have set up an external affairs department in Quebec but I believe it was suggested some time ago.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Have there been complaints from other provinces about the competency and fitness of army drivers?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No. May I reply to the hon.
member for Winnipeg South Centre who asked for the names of the regiments and the different home stations which we are constructing for them. The home stations and the regiments are as follows: Gagetown: Black Watch, an artillery regiment, an armoured regiment; Valcartier, Royal 22nd; London, Royal Canadian Regiment; Peta-wawa, the Canadian Guards; Winnipeg, an artillery regiment; Picton, an anti-aircraft regiment; Edmonton, P.P.C.L.I.; Calgary, the Queen's Own, an armoured regiment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
interest and local support have played in fashioning these units, out of which their noble service has sprung. I hope it is not too late to reverse a decision which, it seems to me, is bound to result in a very serious loss.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, the regular forces should be located at the most desirable locations. The Queen's Own Rifles (regular) have never been stationed in Toronto.
As far as the militia regiment is concerned I would not take exception to the eulogy of the Queen's Own by the hon. member. They are a fine regiment. As a matter of fact, it is on account of their record and their seniority-and the same thing applies to the Black Watch of Montreal-that these two regiments were selected to provide names for the two new regiments. It was never intended that permanent units would be identified permanently with any particular city. We have had no difficulty in Montreal with respect to the Black Watch regiment being stationed in the maritimes. We have had some complaint from a number of Toronto members with respect to the Queen's Own, but our senior officers have conferred with the complainants and explained the situation; I have not heard anything further about the matter since, until the hon. member made his remarks just now.
The militia battalion, of course, remains in Toronto. Any person wishing to join the Queen's Own, if he is enlisting in the regular army, can designate the Queen's Own and will be sent to the Queen's Own. I was told when I was last in Toronto that many men pass through the militia regiment to the regular regiment. I would hope that the people of Toronto who have for long been active supporters of the Queen's Own militia regiment will continue to give that support.
Apart from having a home station other than Toronto, it must be recognized that the Queen's Own battalions as regular units are apt to be sent to Korea or to Germany or to any other point. They are regular units, and are sent where necessity requires. In addition, the costs of establishing a home station in Toronto or adjacent to it are very high as compared with smaller cities. Also, in this particular case the Queen's Own will have another unit of the regular army service associated with it for training purposes, which is something to be desired.
I do not think the hon. member or the people of Toronto should feel dissatisfied or hurt at the fact that the Queen's Own regular regiment is being located in Calgary. I think they should be proud that their regiment has such a record that its name was selected as the name of a new regiment. I would hope

they would not only give it every support in the future, as they have in the past, but that it would become more closely affiliated with the militia regiment and that it would be reinforced more and more by the people of the Toronto area through that channel.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I do not
propose to repeat what I said when speaking earlier. I should like to tell the minister, however, that I am aware of the discussions which have been carried on with him and his department on the part of those who represent the regiment. I would not wish him to think that he has satisfied those who have spoken to him on behalf of the regiment that his proposed location of the permanent home station of the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada in Calgary has met with their approval or that he has convinced them, as he has sought to do.
I should like to turn to one other matter of a different nature. I should like to ask the minister to say something to the committee as to the part the department has assigned to Maple Leaf Services, and the role that it intends that service to play with respect to men's army canteens. When he has done that, perhaps I should like to make some observations on the subject.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The Maple Leaf Services in the army has been incorporated, somewhat along the lines of NAAFI in Britain, to meet what we think is a need and to develop what we think will be a benefit to the men of the services. It is a corporate entity and a nonprofit organization. The benefits will accrue to army personnel. Up to the present time it has been within the jurisdiction of each commanding officer to look after the amenities on his station for the benefit of the men and their families, generally to make their living conditions much more pleasant.
This responsibility has grown to be a large and complicated matter because various commanding officers have different ideas, different problems, and different set-ups. The feeling has been that if this composite organization could be brought together under one merchandising head and staff, instituting standard practices throughout the units, the benefits which would accrue to the men would be greater in the aggregate. Second, it was felt that the profit which is made in the larger centres-some small portion of it at least- might be shared with other centres where there are now inadequate amenities.
The department, of course, is not involved in this. Maple Leaf Services is an organization which is for the benefit of army personnel. It has opened one store in Germany, as well as a club, and is now organizing to take
Supply-National Defence over facilities of the army in Canada. In taking this step I think it is following fairly well established practice such as that of NAAFI in Britain and PX in the United States. We think it is a forward step in the interests of the men themselves and of their families.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was not quite clear as to the relationship of Maple Leaf Services to the department as such. The minister indicates that it is established as a separate corporate entity, as a non-profit making corporation without share capital. But what part does the department play in this corporation and in giving it its opportunity to take over what was formerly the prerogative of the local commands?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The corporation is run as any other corporation, by a board of directors who are senior officers of the army. There is one other factor in the organization of Maple Leaf Services Limited, or rather there are two other factors which might be mentioned. Accounting responsibilities in relation to the larger military units, responsibilities which rested on the C.O., became very heavy, and frequently he was not able to give these matters the careful attention one would want. Further the department was faced with a very complicated and difficult scheme of audit to keep conversant with the affairs of all these small units. It was felt that by having them organized into one organization and on one basis, better results could be obtained. The experience of other countries which we have studied led us to establish Maple Leaf Services here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Am I to understand that the department does appoint the personnel of the corporation? It is really being operated by the department but in the convenient form of a non-profit making corporation?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The board is composed of the senior officers of the service. But the interrelation of regimental funds and departmental funds with the proceeds that come from these various activities will now be ended, and the picture will be clear by itself. It will be operated in that way and audited in that way. It will be an entity on its own although, as the hon. member says, as to final control, we have to keep our eye on it because after all it is dealing with all the personnel of the army.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I understand more clearly now. The department really controls Maple Leaf Services completely. It can appoint the personnel of the board of directors,
5514	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence and I suppose it can change those directors as it pleases. Am I correct in that assumption?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The composition of the board of directors is provided in the incorporation papers and they are senior army officers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But it is the department which will decide who are the future directors from time to time?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am speaking now from memory, but I think the positions of the officers who will be the directors are set out in the incorporation papers. From time to time different senior officers will succeed each other so there is continuity. But the army senior officers will have the responsibility of seeing that the scheme is operated properly. There is no question about that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Am I correct in my understanding that this is confined to the operation of the men's canteen in the army only, that it does not extend to the Royal Canadian Air Force or to the Royal Canadian Navy, and that it does not extend either to officers or sergeants in the army?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As of the present, Maple Leaf Services applies only to the army. It has no jurisdiction with regard to the other two services. It does not take in sergeants' messes or officers' messes. Its function is to look after merchandising, amenities such as bowling alleys and theatres and all the men's own perquisites which they develop either with the assistance of the department or on their own behalf.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who will establish the salaries of the senior officials? Will they be subject to approval by the department?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No. The board of directors has authority to fix the salaries and to engage the necessary civilians, because these operations are largely staffed by civilians and will be run as any other commercial enterprise.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But will the department have no concern about the salaries that are set by the board of directors of the corporation?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not think there is any direct responsibility. Of course we will from time to time-and that is one of the prime requisites of this set-up-have the benefit of complete audits and statements, something we have never been able to get before. I would expect that the directors of the corporation would be aware of any salaries paid which were out of line, or any charges that were made that were exorbitant, or any irregularities which might occur. But we are 

modelling this on a type of organization which has succeeded very well elsewhere. It is an experiment in our case, identified as yet only with the army.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do I take it, for instance, that the minister and his officials do not know what are the salaries that have been established by Maple Leaf Services for its senior officials?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, we do not necessarily know except as we have reports. We did appoint three officers at certain salaries to start the organization.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could the minister give us the salaries of those he knows?


Ralph Osborne Campney: What was done was to call out three officers to set up the organization. They are still on strength on a call-out basis, and as soon as the corporation is functioning properly they will become officers of the corporation. This was a temporary step which was taken just to get the corporation started.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the minister give us the salaries he knows? He said he knew several.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not have the figures of the salaries, but probably my hon. friend would be satisfied if I were to tell him that the senior official is a brigadier and that there are two lieutenant colonels who have been called out. If the hon. member will look at page 35 of the white paper I think he can find the information without too much difficulty.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it these officers, who are really on loan to Maple Leaf Services, are to be paid by Maple Leaf Services at their regular army rates of pay according to their rank. Is that the arrangement now?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Their call-out will cease as soon as the organization is completed, and their civilian salaries will not necessarily have any relation to their present call-out pay and allowances. Their salaries will be dealt with along with all other salaries. The idea is that it will be a civilian organization operated by civilians for the benefit of the men in the army. All the steps we have taken up to now have been purely temporary steps to get the corporation organized and working.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I take it from the minister's answer that on this temporary basis there are certain officers really on loan from the department to the corporation and that they are continuing to draw rates of pay according to their rank and that pay is being charged against the corporation. After the temporary period is ended salaries will be established by the corporation for these

officers and for employees, but that has not been done yet and the minister does not know what these salaries will be. Have I stated that correctly?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the statements of the hon. member are correct, with the exception that I should like to make it clear that until some cut-off date, which has not yet been established, the salaries of the three officers to whom I have referred will be paid by the army. After that they will go on the civilian strength of the corporation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope the minister will be patient. I have several more questions, because this is an interesting innovation, I believe, as far as the Canadian army is concerned. First of all, what is going to be the relationship between the local commanding officer and the operation of the canteen, no longer under the local command but under an arrangement under which that local canteen will be responsible to Maple Leaf Services?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that the local managers of these institutions will be civilians. Many of them will be local civilians. I think many of them are already in the institutions. So far as policy is concerned, general direction will come from Ottawa, from the directors of the corporation or the general manager who will in turn co-operate, of course, as they do in NAAFI, with the local military commanders who are naturally interested. But as a commercial organization, and to the extent that these institutions are commercial institutions, their policy will be laid down by the management of Maple Leaf Services.
I do not think it is anticipated that there will be any particular difficulty. As far as I know, there has not been any particular difficulty in connection with NAAFI or PX, but there must be co-operation between the army and the civilian management of the corporation. It seems to have worked out well in practice elsewhere, and we hope it will work out well here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister indicated that there will now be an opportunity for an audit, and that this being a non-profit making corporation the profits would be used, as I understood him to say some few minutes ago, for the benefit of the men. Will he enlarge on that and indicate how the profits are to be used? Are they to be used for local benefit or how are they to be distributed if not on the local basis?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The percentages have not been worked out, because they are related to the size of the operation, but I understand
Supply-National Defence the disposition of the profits will be twofold. First of all, part of the profits will go to the regimental funds, and part will go to the army welfare fund which it is intended to set up along the lines of the navy benevolent fund or the air force benevolent fund. The net profits of the corporation will be divided between these two objects in a proportion yet to be established.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are we to understand there is no idea yet as to the relative size of the two parts into which the profits are to be divided?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No. The corporation is just beginning to get organized in Canada. Such organization work as has been done up to now has been done only where it was felt to be more needed, in Germany. The organization stage here is just being initiated. There will have to be a good deal of study and assessment made, and I think there is going to be a disposition not to be quite as generous with the very profitable organizations as formerly and a little more generous with other units. Some sort of reasonable adjustment will be made in the case of units where these things are needed just as badly but where the turnover or volume is not as great. The idea is to provide from the profits of all the units, where needed and to the extent needed, the best possible division of amenities and assistance for the benefit of the men.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope the minister will not mind if I ask another question or two. I have some interest in the subject. I had the unpleasant duty at one time of having to supervise the operation of one of these canteens, and I can appreciate some of the problems involved.
What is going to be the buying policy, or has a buying policy been arrived at? The minister is aware, of course, that when the canteens were on a local basis under local command and local operation the buying was done through local jobbers. Is that going to continue to be the policy, or does the department contemplate that Maple Leaf Services will ignore the local jobber and attempt to deal with the manufacturer? Will it do its purchasing on a strictly national basis, without regard to any local supplier or jobber?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would say that the policy will be to do both. There are certain commodities that can be purchased much more economically in quantity, and many are of local origin. I think the intention will be to utilize both methods of purchase, in the light of cost and convenience. There is no intention to by-pass the normal channels of commercial activity or to cut unduly the prices
5516	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence at which other people are selling commodities. Nor is there any intention of centralizing all the buying at headquarters or of doing all the buying locally. Those are things which I think will fall into place when the studies are completed; and as the corporation takes over areas. I should think those things will adjust themselves reasonably well.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am glad to hear the minister indicate that he has some appreciation of the importance of not letting everything be centralized, because it strikes me that in connection with an innovation like this there are some very serious dangers connected with the possibility of the centralization of buying. I believe that centralization could have some very unhappy results, and one of those results could be a very dull uniformity and a lack of imagination in connection with local canteens and the commodities on sale there.
There is also the factor of service to be considered. By and large these local canteens have depended very substantially on local jobbers for service. I do not think that in a case of mass buying, or centralized buying, the factor of service could be expected to be as it would be if a serious attempt were made to use the services of the local suppliers and jobbers. I take it we may have the assurance of the minister that due regard will be had in the purchasing policy for the undoubted services that can be rendered by local jobbers and suppliers in respect of the very wide variety of commodities of all kinds that are on sale at these canteens.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall we proceed to the next item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the minister would wish to make some comment.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sure that when this corporation gets under way a good deal of responsibility in each case will rest on the local manager. And I would feel sure, too, that he, working with the community, and knowing the people from whom he might acquire the goods for his whole operation, would want to be a part of the community.
As I said some time ago, the way to be part of a community is to trade within it. However, I do not think I would want to undertake that there would be a hard and fast rule that all purchasing would be local, or a hard and fast rule that all purchasing would be done centrally, because I do not think either would be exactly right. I think there would be a combination of the two. In the last analysis I have no doubt a good deal will depend upon the good will of the local manager, because after all this involves


a large assortment of local commercial institutions, moving picture houses and the like, throughout Canada.
I think the central organization in Ottawa will be more concerned about keeping track of the funds, auditing those funds and seeing that everything is in order, something which has been very difficult of achievement in the past, as I think the hon. member knows. I do not believe there will be any disposition to upset a domestic market or to get into any local price wars. There is no intention of anything of that kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one further aspect of the matter on which I seek information. What Maple Leaf Services is in process of doing is the taking over of these canteens from existing establishments. What arrangements are being made in connection with the taking over? Undoubtedly there are stocks and inventories on hand as well as premises. What is being done about taking over; and in particular, what has been done with the profits accruing recently on the operation of the canteens, and in the course of the sale of their remaining inventories to Maple Leaf Services?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The procedure is that each locality is being studied and checked, and will be taken over when all the information that should be known is known. I would presume that each case will be adjusted on its merits. This is just beginning to be done now, so I cannot give an example. The idea is to deal with these local situations gradually, as fast as possible, and bring them into the main company.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then will the minister deal with the latter part of my question. I was talking about the profits accruing latterly in this period from the operations, and profits presumably that may accrue on the turning over of the inventory by the local units to Maple Leaf Services. Who will own them?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I speak subject to correction, but my understanding^ is that in any given local situation the first thing that will be done is to fix a cut-off date. Then they will make their adjustment as of that date as between the old dispensation and the new. I believe I am correct in saying that up to a certain point they will follow the old method of distribution or the old method of disposing of profits. After the cut-off date, whatever method is evolved by Maple Leaf Services would be followed from then on.


Mr. Schneider:: Mr. Chairman, to use a military term, I would like to break step in this rather serious discussion of national

defence matters and would speak for a few moments on a matter which most-


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member does not mind, and if he is going to turn to another subject, there are other hon. members who wish to develop further the subject now under discussion.


Mrs. Fairclough:: The minister has intimated that at least some of the purchasing will be done from a central point in connection with the supplying of stores to canteens. Does this mean that it is planned to operate a central warehouse? If so, from what point will goods be distributed; or will it be a case of purchasing for several units and then making individual shipments to the various units concerned?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I have already pointed out, the practical side of this operation is just now beginning to get under way. Except in a general way I have no knowledge of the exact procedure the directors of the corporation will follow. I should think they would follow the procedure of any corporation engaged in this kind of business; that they would study the local needs in the areas concerned, and would decide whether they should have a warehouse at a certain point, or whether the business there was sufficiently small that it could be served from somewhere else. There is a great deal of work to be done on this yet. We have not really got fully under way. I would think the management of Maple Leaf Services will be in duty bound to study those problems. They are going to try to operate in an efficient and satisfactory way for the benefit of the people whom they are serving. The questions the hon. member has asked I am sure will be very much in their minds. I do not think they have resolved them yet.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to point
out, Mr. Chairman, that it has been found, particularly in food distribution, that the established jobbers are in a position to handle merchandise much more efficiently and at a lower cost than even some of the largest chain organizations; so much so, in fact, that some chain organizations have themselves utilized the services of those jobbers. I just leave that thought with the minister and with the members of his staff who are interested in this.


John Borden Hamilton: I have a question along the same line as the last series of questions. I assume that Maple Leaf Services are going to take over the work that was formerly done by what was known as the volunteer services. I wonder whether this new system results from the fact that any 50433-348
Supply-National Defence of those four which were active during or since the last war has asked to be relieved of its responsibilities in so far as providing amenities to the troops is concerned.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, I do not think there has been any formal application from these organizations or from any of them to be relieved of this work; but it has been felt that as Maple Leaf Services primarily will be handling a peacetime situation within Canada in the main, the method that has been used in other countries would appear to be the most effective and the best to adopt.
So far as Germany is concerned-I think I am right in this; it was before my time-I believe the only suggestion that came from any of the organizations in the first place, and this is evidently what is in the mind of my hon. friend, was that the Salvation Army asked to be permitted to set up at Soest. That was given. They are still there. I recollect no other application, but I do not think with the situation as it is now in Canada, with home stations and with regular forces of substantial size, the question really will arise. I think the accepted way, which as I have said, has operated in other countries, is that we ought to be sure these things are provided; we ought to see that they are operated properly; we ought to see that their returns are audited properly and that the men receive the benefits from their operations.


John Borden Hamilton: The minister is not suggesting that all these things were not done by the voluntary organizations which formerly provided the services?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, I am not suggesting that at all. All I am saying is that it is now a peacetime proposition all over Canada, and its magnitude will be very substantial. I certainly would not reflect on the operations of any of these other groups during the time they were operating. If I implied that, it was entirely involuntary, because I had no such thought in mind.


John Borden Hamilton: Even if this service is carried on all over Canada, surely it will not be nearly of the magnitude of the service that was carried on during the last war by the four voluntary organizations, the Salvation Army, the Knights of Columbus, the Canadian Legion and the Y.M.C.A. What I should like to know is, were these people consulted on providing this service as was done before, or was this a unilateral action taken by the members of the general staff?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is one thing to have this service provided in a time of war when

Supply-National Defence everybody is volunteering to do the thing they can do best and to give the best service. There is a spirit of sacrifice and of interest that is very deep and very moving. The situation that we now have in Canada in the army is that we are going to have, presumably for quite some time, a reasonably large permanent force, and we feel the method we have adopted will serve the purpose continually over a period of years, but not on a voluntary agency basis.
The other factor entering into the matter is this. The institutions which did so well during the war had to be subsidized very largely by the federal government. We hope that Maple Leaf Services will not have to be subsidized, but that it will return in the aggregate adequate profits to perform what it is supposed to do without any assistance from the taxpayers.


John Borden Hamilton: Of course that results from the fact that most of the things that were provided through those services were given free of charge; whereas I assume that now the personnel in the services are going to have to pay for anything they receive. Will the minister tell us whether a start was made on this type of organization during the Korean campaign?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, this has followed the Korean campaign.


John Borden Hamilton: Do I understand that in the event of actual hostilities there is no definite plan to forgo the type of organization we had in the previous war?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No; no consideration has been given to that.


John Borden Hamilton: How does this type of organization work right down to the unit level that we are talking about, such as manoeuvres in Germany, at Gagetown or at other such places? How do the amenities under this plan the minister has in mind get down to the ordinary man who is carrying the rifle in the field, or in exercises that may take place here and in Germany?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not sure that I understand the hon. member. Is he referring to amenities such as tea wagons and things that go around to the troops?


John Borden Hamilton: As I recall it, Mr. Chairman, they were operating an assortment of many things that filtered down to the battle level of the forces. Whether it was tooth brushes, tooth paste or something else, it seemed to get through. What I am trying to get at is this. Is there to be a responsible army officer in the unit who will see that this Maple Leaf source of supply will get down to the level of the infantry soldier, or is it
[Mr. CampneyJ

going to stop somewhere along the line in the canteen, and if you can get it, fine; otherwise you do not get it? That is a very simple question.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Generally speaking, as I said some time ago, it will be provided in the canteen. The expectation is that there will be close collaboration between the army officers interested in these things, or who have some responsibility for their men, and the commercial organization which will have on its directorate senior officers in the army. It is felt that this relationship will characterize the two branches and that, as in other countries, they will work harmoniously together in the common interests of one group of people, namely the men in the army and their families.


John Borden Hamilton: I do not want to carry this on with any feeling of animosity, but the question of whether the general manager of Maple Leaf Services gets along with the chief of the general staff is not going to help the man in the field in providing him with amenities. Should there not be a properly designated officer at the company or regimental level whose responsibility it would be to see that the things made available through this organization get to the men in the field?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Officers must be responsible for the welfare of their men, as they always have been. This is not intended to supplant any proper interest that an officer should have in his men. It is hoped that this will make more amenities available, and perhaps an officer will not have the same difficulty in looking after his men. There is no intention of carrying this matter to the point where it becomes a predominant factor in operating the army.


John Borden Hamilton: I would suggest to the minister that that is not an answer to my question. I am not going to pursue the matter, except to say that if that is the type of organization that is intended, then the ordinary infantryman carrying a rifle and the ordinary tankman in a tank is not going to get the same amenities that he would have received from the organization we once had. Even if they are available at the level suggested by the minister they must seep down to the men in the field. If this is the system that is to be set up I suggest, quite apart from the responsibility of the unit officer for the welfare of his troops, that someone should be designated whose responsibility it would be to guarantee that these amenities are made available at the levels at which they should be available.


Norman C. Schneider: Mr. Chairman, I should like to break step, using a military term, for a few minutes in this serious discussion on national defence. I should like to deal briefly with a matter which some hon. members may consider trivial; but we should not forget that if we look after the small things, the large ones will take care of themselves.
You can purchase the best in arms, the best in tanks, naval vessels and aeroplanes, but the best weapon of all is the good morale of our personnel. There can be no argument against the need for cultural and social activities in the armed forces. There is much spare time in the barracks and camps and outposts and time hangs heavy for lonely men. Considerable funds have been expended in providing brass bands, bugle bands and pipe bands. They are all good and are providing a wonderful service to our army. They are a credit to the army.
Many of us have served in the army, and we know the lift that was given to our spirits when someone started a good marching song. I think it is high time the Canadian army learned to sing. I say that seriously. I mean it is time they learned to sing in parts; first and second bass, and first and second tenor, and when you have the ladies with you, soprano and alto. Of course the best lift of all is given by a military band. It is a real chin-lifter which relieves the monotony and boredom and fatigue which may face our men. I think there are times in this house when a good song would be most ^useful.
Brass bands cost money, and they are not always available. Bugle bands are excellent, but they are not always available. No investment is needed to have men sing together, and no transport is required to carry the equipment. Men stationed in distant radar stations and other outposts could participate with nothing more than a little training. We all remember the popular marching songs such as "Tipperary", "Mademoiselle from Armen-tieres" and many others. But we just shouted those songs, we did not sing them. We simply shouted at the top of our voices and there was no thought of harmony. However, they were great chin-lifters. I know we would be surprised at the satisfaction and benefit that would ensue if these men were given some training so they could sing in parts.
Between the wars I made several visits to Europe, and I attended the Olympic games in Berlin in 1936. When there I heard German boy scouts, workers, servicemen and others marching and singing, and it was really wonderful. I could not understand the words but you could see its effect and how it relieved fatigue. This cannot be denied.
50433-348J
Supply-National Defence Canadian soldiers could be trained to sing in harmony. All that is required is an organized effort to train our service personnel in male or mixed choir singing, singing in parts. Under proper direction this cultural activity would be of great value for recreational purposes and the building up of morale, and could be done at very little expense. Competitions in choral singing could be promoted among units in the armed forces. I am sure this would prove beneficial in times of stress and strain. I should like to see this developed to the extent where Canada's army would be known as Canada's singing army.


Mr. Purdy:: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Waterloo North has suggested, we should break step. I agree that we should, but I am suggesting that we should re-group and re-form. I should like to draw the attention of the minister and the committee to a problem with which we are faced in our part of the country. I have noticed that our friends on the opposition benches have been talking in dollars and cents. Dollars and' cents are one of the important things with which we have to deal. However, the morale-of our fighting men is not gauged at all times; by dollars and cents.
At this time I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the famous North Nova Scotia Highlanders. The North Nova Scotia Highlanders were not talking dollars and cents when they landed on the Normandy beaches on D-day. Under the new concept of organization of the so-called reserve army or militia, this famous regiment is to be in the land of the forgotten. There are many young Nova Scotians who have a fondness for the traditions of this great regiment.
Once again I urge the minister, as I have before on the floor of this house, to see that m his reorganization of the militia the name of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders is carried forward and not just absorbed into the name of the Nova Scotia Highlanders, first battalion (north). If he will do that he will be doing one of the greatest things that can be done to keep alive the traditions of this force of fighting men who have carried their weight in every war in which Canada has participated.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the remarks made by the hon member for York West as well as the observations made by the hon. member for Waterloo North. I think they are closely related, notwithstanding the fact that he suggested we were breaking step in the discussion.
I have been interested in this matter of welfare for the troops ever since I came

Supply-National Defence into the house in 1951. I agree with the minister to a certain extent, that in a continuing peacetime army an organization of the nature he has outlined here this afternoon is required. However, in connection with Canadian army personnel serving abroad a slightly different difficulty enters the picture. It has been pointed out from time to time that, particularly for single men in the armed forces, the social situation in which they find themselves is extremely difficult. They lack all the amenities of home and, as a result, from time to time we hear reports of behaviour problems amongst our men serving abroad.
I believe the minister compared the Maple Leaf Services arrangement with the NAAFI arrangement that was quite common in the United Kingdom forces during the war. Some of the Canadian personnel serving abroad, particularly those who served on R.A.F. stations, came into touch with NAAFI. It was a civilian organization designed to meet welfare and service problems. I found that NAAFI did a good job so far as providing tea and buns and that kind of service was concerned. However, I also discovered that it lacked the personal relations touch that was peculiar to the voluntary organizations that served the Canadian armed forces in such an outstanding way during world war I and world war II.
I believe the Canadian serviceman abroad needs more than tea and buns, chocolate bars, cigarettes and so forth. Those are essential, of course; but there is also the more elusive service that can be provided where the personnel providing those services have special qualities of heart and mind that help to bring the serviceman who is away from his native country more closely in touch with home. Therefore I would suggest very strongly that, in circumstances where Canadian forces are required to serve outside their shores, very careful consideration be given to the representations of the voluntary organizations.
In reply to a question by the hon. member for York West, I believe, the minister indicated that only one such voluntary organization made any such representation. I think he will recall that at the time of the Korean crisis all voluntary organizations were very active in their representations, and unfortunately their services were not made use of at the time. I should also like to suggest that, in the case of the organization already serving Canadian forces in Germany, every available opportunity be given to allow them to provide this extra kind of service right down to the unit level.
= There is one further question I should like to ask on this subject. I am wondering

whether the canteens that are being provided through Maple Leaf Services facilities are wet or dry canteens; that is, whether there are separate wet and dry canteens or whether those facilities are combined. I think that concludes the representations I wish to make on this subject.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Dry canteens and wet canteens are, of course, separate, though both will be operated by Maple Leaf Services. They will not be combined.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I should like to ask just one further question. In reference to voluntary organizations serving in what might be called peacetime theatres of operation in these cold war days, are any facilities provided to such organizations in the way of free conveyance in military transports and so forth, in order to bring their amenities to the field of operation?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As the hon. member probably knows, our transport to Germany is civilian. It is paid for by the Department of National Defence, the same as in respect of other people who travel. There is no free transport provided as far as the brigade is concerned.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I am rising at this time because of a statement the minister made a while ago in answer to a question by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre, in which he asked about the location of the various regiments in Canada. The minister stated that the Black Watch will be stationed in New Brunswick. I read in the press a while ago that one of those undisclosed and unknown prominent spokesmen in the Department of National Defence had said that the Black Watch might be moved, or probably would be moved, to Gagetown some time in the future, but after that the minister rapped all these unknown spokesmen across the knuckles.
I was hoping that those spokesmen had been wrong and had been disqualified, and I was waiting to hear my hon. friend say something about it. One battalion of the Black Watch is stationed at Aldershot, in my constituency, and it has been there for some considerable time. It was hoped and believed, until this unknown spokesman issued his ukase, that that battalion would remain there. I realize, of course, that this move is not going to take place now but at some considerable time in the future. I know the minister with his broadminded attitude and his deliberate judgment can resurvey the situation and perhaps change his mind and make sure that the Black Watch does stay in Aldershot.

The camp at Aldershot, which has been there for generations, maintains the name and the traditions of the old camp in Britain, with which the British army and the Canadian army have been so closely associated. It is something that is worth preserving. It would be unfortunate if that camp were left to be occupied by a few members of the reserve army in summertime or by boy scouts or girl guides or whoever it might be. The department has spent a good deal of money in rehabilitating that camp. I have been told by some officers who occupied responsible positions in the department that in case of emergency-and I use that euphemistic phrase not too loosely-there would be a definite place for Aldershot. If at some future time it is necessary to send troops across the seas, in the event that a war should come, Aldershot is essential as an embarkation point, a place that would have to be used in connection with the dispatch of troops through the ports of eastern Canada. Therefore I believe the camp should be maintained.
It would also be a good thing for the men to have it maintained. They could be located at no better place in Canada. I realize they have to go to Gagetown for summer training from time to time, but surely it is not necessary to have all the troops centred at Gage-town.
We have had a discussion in the last few minutes on morale and the general safeguarding of the interests of the personnel. We need training in motor transport. It is relatively a few miles, a nice day's trip, to move men by motor from Aldershot to Gage-town. Therefore, from the standpoint of the welfare of the men as well as from the standpoint of the department I hope the minister did not mean to be quite as direct as he was this afternoon. If he did, then he had some other unit in mind which will be coming into that camp.
So much for that. Somebody has said that we are getting out of step. We are not only out of step here but we have beaten the gun. The hon. member for Colchester-Hants was speaking a few moments ago not on this item but on the next one, the matter of the reserve army. I have something to say on that subject, and I hope the minister will reserve any comments he has on that matter until we come to the reserve army.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there any further comment under army, regular?


Mr. MacLean:: I have just one brief question. My understanding is that at the present time the policy in the case of army personnel is that those who are absent without leave
Supply-National Defence for a period of one year are then struck off strength. If that is correct, can the minister give us how many personnel of the services have been struck off strength under those circumstances?


Ralph Osborne Campney: If the hon. member will look at page 4092 of Hansard of May 25, I think he will find those figures given in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: With regard to the regular officers' training plan, there is a question I should like to ask the minister. It is my understanding that about six months ago, or possibly a little less, an army order was put out setting out that if R.O.T.C. cadets at the Royal Military College failed in their examinations in their last year, and they had had three phases of summer training, they had to repeat their year at their own expense. In other words they could not leave R.M.C. but had to remain. If they had taken their three years' training they had to do their fourth year or had to repeat it at their own expense. I should like to know whether that is correct.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have not heard of this specific ruling in the case to which the hon. member has referred. I know we have had some difficulties with third year students who decided that they did not want to go into the service and did not make the grade in their third year examinations, but I am not aware of the ruling at RM.C. to which the hon. member has referred. I will check and find out whether it is so.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It is my understanding, and I believe my informants were correct, that at the present time it boils down to this. If a fourth year student under the R.O.T.C. plan at R.M.C. fails in his final year he still must remain in the service for three years after he finishes R.M.C., and he must pay his own tuition. Not only does he have to stay in but he has to pay his own tuition, which I understand amounts to $300. For people who get only $55 a month that is a rather severe hardship if it in fact exists, as I understand it does. I should be obliged if the minister would look into it as he has indicated he will.
It is also my understanding that last year particularly at R.M.C. there was a great deal of dissatisfaction about this matter. It is my understanding that this dissatisfaction was fairly well organized, to the extent that a formal letter was prepared. I believe it never got very far. Certainly it never got to the minister. I do not believe it got much further than R.M.C. However, it seems to indicate that there has been some dissatisfaction. If the minister would look into the matter I think it would be beneficial.

Supply-National Defence Mr. Campney: I am not aware of the attended R.M.C. I do not know that I have situation to which the hon. member has any figures on that basis, alluded, but I shall certainly look into it.	Mcivcr; Carried


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder whether the
minister will enlighten the committee on some factors in reference to all three of the colleges, not only the Royal Military College and Royal Roads but also College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean. Would he say something about the qualifications for admission to the three colleges? Are they uniform? What has been the experience with cadets passing through these institutions, as to the number of those who have carried through and graduated, and the number who have either dropped out or who have not been permitted to continue their courses?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As to the first question, the qualification for admission, of course, to R.M.C. and Royal Roads is senior matriculation or equivalent and for College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean it is junior matriculation. As to the number of students-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that the only difference in the qualifications for admission?


Ralph Osborne Campney: So I am informed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As between the two, R.M.C. and Royal Roads on the one hand, and College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean?


Ralph Osborne Campney: On the question of passes and failures, I think if the hon. member would look up the department's annual report for the current year at pages 20, 21 and part of 22 he will get a fairly full report on the matter. I think it is more clearly set out there with regard to all three colleges than I could hope to do within a reasonable time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not wish to take up time unnecessarily but I am interested in something more specific. I am interested in knowing how the records of the three colleges compare as to the success of the cadets entering those colleges.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is a rather difficult question to answer because of the fact that, as the hon. member knows, both with respect to Royal Roads and College Militaire students go to R.M.C. to finish. The students do not just follow their course directly through one college. In order to make proper comparisons I suppose you would have to follow Royal Roads students through their term at R.M.C. and the same thing with respect to College Militaire students, and compare them with students who had only


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it is not carried. There ought to be figures available on an important matter of that kind. It seemed to me that the hon. member for Oxford asked some important questions on this matter, and I am very much interested in learning how the students are progressing through these three colleges.
In any institution of the kind one naturally looks for a certain number of casualties. There are some who are not able to carry on for one reason or another and some who fall by the wayside; but I think it is important, in testing both the efficiency of the institutions and the sufficiency of terms of admission, to know the rate of cadet casualties in these institutions. I am sure that in any nonmilitary academic institution that would be one of the things that would be watched very closely. I would have thought the department would have watched with the closest vigilance over the number dropping out and the degree of success on the part of those completing their courses.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I said, those students from Royal Roads and College Militaire who finish do so at R.M.C., and there are of course a large number of students who go through R.M.C. from start to finish. I cannot answer in the general terms in which the hon. member has asked the question. I cannot say that so many students at Royal Roads passed at Royal Roads, that so many failed at R.M.C., and so on. If the hon. member could ask me something specific with respect to one or other of these colleges we have some statistics here, but the type of statistic he is asking for is very difficult to obtain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall try to be more specific if that will assist. The minister has indicated he has statistics there. Let us take the figures for the last complete period for each of the colleges. Take the length of the course and tell us in the case of each how many of those who started the course completed it within the period named. Let us have those figures for each of the colleges.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I will have to get those figures for the hon. member. I find we have not got them here.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to direct the attention of the minister to another problem. I refer now to the paragraph on page 22 of the white paper headed "Women in the Services". I think it is well worth while considering this matter. The paragraph reads:
As at December 31, 1954, there were 6,600 women in the regular and reserve forces of the three

services. Of the 3,346 women in the regular forces 64 were in navy, 203 in army, and 3,076 in air force. Of the 3,314 women in the reserve forces 928 were in navy, 1,558 in army, and 828 in air force. The R.C.A.F. continues to recruit women for the regular force for clerical, stenographic, radar, telecommunications and other duties. Except for nursing and other allied services and a few key personnel, the army continues to recruit women for the reserve force only.
I suggest to the minister that the department should reconsider its position with regard to the employment of women in the services. It is not right that in the one service, the regular air force, women should be employed to the extent of 3,076, and in the regular army only to the extent of 203. Women could be employed in the regular army for duties similar to those for which they are employed in the R.C.A.F. It is not necessary to dwell upon the useful services of women in both wars, particularly in the second world war. They fulfilled all the tasks allotted to them in the services with distinction. They are very competent, very conscientious and most reliable. There is no question but that they could be employed now in the peacetime organization of the regular army, just as the air force employs them.
I am well aware there are many women now serving in the reserve force who would welcome the opportunity of employment with the regular army. The employment of perhaps 3,000 to 5,000 women in the regular army would at the same time assist the army in its organization and help it to reach the -quota that has been set for it. Women would also, quite naturally, occupy clerical positions and do things of that nature which they can really perform better than men, and would thus release men for more active employment in the field.
I think we are making a mistake in not enlisting more women in the army. If the air force can do it, why cannot the army do it? What are the objections? We have been all through this in two wars. The experiment entered upon so timidly in the first war was accepted as a proper procedure in the second and was carried on very successfully. Recently in the reserve force I happened to have command of a manning depot for a three-year period, and these manning depots enlist quite a number of women.
Now that I am no longer connected with the militia I do not feel restrained in commenting upon anything with regard to that branch of the service. My experience with women in the manning depot, as well as from having observed some of their work during the course of the second world war, is that it is all to the advantage of the country to use these people who are just as willing to serve
Supply-National Defence as men, and who can perform just as useful a service as men in certain branches of the service.
It is a mistake to employ able-bodied men for clerical work and other types of activity within the army when that same work can be done just as well, and often more efficiently, by women. They perhaps take to service work better than some men do, and are often more dependable and more interested in their work. They seem better fitted on occasion to do some of the tedious tasks that men find frustrating. The general experience of Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States is that women in the services are filling a Very useful purpose and should be so employed.
I should like the minister to inform the committee whether or not the policy of the department will tend toward the employment of more women in the services, and particularly in the regular army.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As the hon. member has said, the air force is more actively engaged in the recruiting of females into the service. It has of course a wider range of positions and activities in peacetime where the services of women can be utilized. It has been, as it were, leading in this particular tendency.
I think it is fair to say that the experience has not been wholly satisfactory, because the losses from the service through marriage and people who have left the service have been higher than we had anticipated. The air force is now assessing the success of its recruiting policy with respect to women. While that is being done, and until it is completed, no serious thought has been given, as the hon. member has suggested might be done, to recruiting women generally and in greater numbers in the other two services.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister say that the losses due to marriage and for other reasons exceed the losses in manpower the army has suffered from the desertions referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for Queens?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that in the case of women in the air force the wastage is about 45 per cent. I do not know what the ratio of desertions and absentees is in the army, but it is a good deal lower than that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: At page 329 of the estimates under the heading dealing with the major procurement of equipment, I notice that under that subheading which deals with tanks and armoured fighting vehicles the amount to be expended next year is very materially reduced which, I presume, indicates that we have met our requirements in

Supply-National Defence that regard. The second subheading, which refers to mechanical equipment, including transport, still stands at more than $26 million, and is not much reduced from the amount for the preceding year. What is included in the item for mechanical equipment, including transport?


Ralph Osborne Campney: 
Gordon Minto Churchill: When the minister was speaking on June 16, referring to planned expenditures for army equipment amounting to approximately $100 million, he said-
-including tooling lor production in Canada of the FN rifle for which standardized drawings have already been prepared.
Last year I had occasion to draw the attention of the then minister to the FN rifle, and we had a rather pleasant exchange of opinions across the floor. What is the situation now? To what extent do we propose to produce the rifle, and what countries have adopted it as the standard arm? Last year it was pointed out that trials were still under way to ascertain whether or not it could be used in northern areas and under very cold conditions. I presume those trials have proved satisfactory. Would the minister enlighten the committee now with regard to the FN rifle? What is the present stage of development, and what are the commitments for the future?


Ralph Osborne Campney: So far as Canada is concerned I might just mention that the expression I used, to which the hon. member referred, when I said that during the present year we planned expenditures for army equipment of approximately $100 million, including tooling for production in Canada of the FN rifle, has been interpreted as meaning that tooling for the FN rifle was to cost $100 million. I should point out that the tooling for the FN rifle was just mentioned incidentally in connection with the general equipment figure.
As to the production of the rifle, detailed plans translated into our system have been completed, and the Department of National Defence has placed with the Department of Defence Production an order for, I believe, 72,000 of these rifles. I understand tooling will commence immediately, and we will begin to receive them as fast as they can be produced. I have no dates in mind, but I think the details are pretty well settled.

With regard to the other question, as to what nations have adopted the FN rifle, of course Belgium-naturally, because it was originated there-and also the United Kingdom, as well as ourselves have adopted it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is our production of FN rifles based solely on providing our own forces with it, or have we orders from other countries for the rifle.


Ralph Osborne Campney: So far production is based entirely upon our own requirements. We have no orders in Canada for the provision of these rifles to any other country.


Mr. Hahn:: I note in the details an item for the construction of buildings and works in the amount of $67,500,000. How much of that is for British Columbia, and where will it be spent?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The information is not broken down by provinces. However, I could probably have that done and give it to the hon. member.


Frederick George Hahn: Is there any intention of using part of this amount to replace the armouries at New Westminster?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The armouries program, which has fallen into arrears in recent years because of more pressing needs to use money for other purposes, is now being reviewed. There is no decision as to any armouries being initiated this year, but I hope to be able to initiate construction of a few. As yet no locations have been chosen.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does that complete the army, regular and general?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; the minister was going to give me information about the three colleges.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot give it to the hon. member here. I shall have to get it from my department.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would it be available today, while we are on these estimates?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall try to get it. I shall do my best. I shall see that the hon. member gets it afterwards.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I want it on the estimates. There may be comment arising from it. Let me endeavour, if possible, to clarify what is required in the hope that it may narrow down any work entailed on the part of the department. I should like to see the complete period taken, say the complete four-year period, in each of the colleges. Take the class which started four years ago and let us see how many dropped out each year

and how many completed the course. In the case of the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, we can take it from the opening of the college. It has been open now for three years. We can take it from the beginning of the first class enrolled and have the number who have dropped out each year so we shall have a complete picture of the three colleges, showing the number of student cadet casualties and the number of survivors.
In the case of the two older colleges it will be for the last complete span of the course. In the case of the College Militaire it will cover the period during which the college has been functioning, since September, 1952. I want that on the estimates, Mr. Chairman, because questions and observations may arise out of it. I think we shall wish to know, so far as that information is helpful, how it reflects upon the efficiency of the colleges, on the selection of the candidates for the colleges, and other pertinent questions that might suggest themselves in relation to the appropriations for the three colleges.


John Borden Hamilton: I notice on page 328 of the blue book that the appropriation for food supplies shows a decrease of approximately 25 per cent. I think we should be very grateful for that. Does the army supplement the mess fund of officers' messes in connection with purchases for those messes?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The rations are the same for the officers as for the men, but I understand that in practically all messes the officers supplement their rations from their own funds.


John Borden Hamilton: In other words that is separate and apart from the amount that comes from the army purchases?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is correct.


John Borden Hamilton: Would the same officer be doing the purchasing both of the army stores for the mess and from the separate officers' fund?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The rations for the officers' mess are issued periodically by the army service corps. The supplementing foods, when purchased by the mess, are purchased, I presume, by the mess president or some official designated by him in the mess.


John Borden Hamilton: There is no natural over-all control of purchases of that nature at all? That would be entirely within each individual mess?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is right.


John Borden Hamilton: Is it purchased from stores by any chance, or is it purchased from outside sources?
50433-34#
Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is purchased from outside sources.


John Borden Hamilton: Before we close off this section I should like to refer to another matter, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre raised some serious questions dealing with the over-all army command in connection with its use of armour and its relation to the other arms of the army. As a matter of fact his remarks were also pointed up by the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood. I do believe we are entitled to expect from the minister some answer to the criticism of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. If there is anyone in this house who is qualified to speak in connection with the over-all army picture and the use of armour it is that hon. member. He has been very strong in his condemnation of the over-all picture, and we should hear from the minister before we close off this section.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not wish to engage in a theoretical discussion about the merits of the different services, or the extent to which one should be developed, say, at the expense of the other. The establishments of our services, including armour, change. We try to keep in touch with late information, and we are watching the studies that are being made at NATO, in Great Britain and in the United States as to the relative strength of the different elements of the forces.
. Until now nothing has been static. There is no finality in these things. But when one is changing an establishment and changing a set-up, one must do a good deal of study because you do not do these things precipitously. Such changes usually come gradually. Until the present time the establishment of our forces reflects the very best thinking in our services and the most advanced thinking of our contemporaries abroad.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, to whom the hon. member for York West referred, disagrees with the judgment of the military advisers who advise me, and I do not know that any good purpose would be served by continuing a theoretical discussion at this moment. In the army we are endeavouring to produce the most effective, up to date and modern type of fighting man we can, in the light of our own experience and the experience of other countries. As I say, nothing is static. These things are always under review, but up to the moment the present establishment reflects our best thinking.


John Borden Hamilton: Can the minister answer the question that was raised? Is there any high-ranking officer in a position with

Supply-National Defence the over-all command of the army or connected with training who does come from the armoured corps?


Ralph Osborne Campney: If I recollect correctly the deputy chief of the general staff comes from the armoured corps.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not want to get into this again, but I am not sure that I was pleased with the suggestion of the minister that this is a theoretical matter. I think it is an entirely practical matter. The development of an efficient army is dependent upon experience of the past. Certainly a little theory has entered into it at some stage, if you are going beyond the experience of the past; but to term this a theoretical matter, or as something beyond the competence of this house, is to say something that has no practical effect.
. 1 think it is a wrong approach to the subject. There is nothing at all theoretical about suggestions that have been made from this side of the house with regard to the better employment of armour in the Canadian army. The whole purpose is to develop not only an efficient fighting force but, as I pointed out before, to provide adequate protection for the men who do the fighting.
I have adduced evidence from the records of the last war to show that tanks saved lives. That was the experience of the Germans. _ If you read the book published by Guderian, who was one of the most skilled tank commanders, you will discover that. If you will read the material published by our official historian, Colonel Stacey, you will discover that armoured troops suffered fewer casualties than did the infantry, yet achieved the objectives desired. Far from being theoretical, this is an intensely practical subject. I hope the minister will not dismiss it as just a theoretical discussion on the floor of the House of Commons, but will give it his earnest attention.
I grant that it may come into the realm of conflict with his advisers. That may well be; but the function of the Minister of National Defence is to assess problems of this nature and make decisions. He has only to review the development and use of armour by the armies of the world to discover the conflict with the high command that went on for years with regard to whether armour was effective on the battle field. There was the greatest division of opinion in between the two wars and that applied here in Canada, to the extent that we were operating cavalry regiments in the thirties when we should have been training light tank regiments.
IMr. Hamilton (York West).]

The cavalry disappeared on August 8 and 9, 1918, in France when cavalry horses were mowed down by machine gun fire. I walked over the battlefield and saw dead horses lying there in hundreds. Once the machine gun dominated the battlefield, as it did in the first great war, the doom of the horse cavalry was evident. But it took the military mind another 20 years to realize that fact.
What I am afraid of is that here in Canada we are neglecting to give full consideration to the lessons learned in the second world war in regard to the use of the armoured fighting vehicle on the battlefield and the practical saving of lives which is involved. I would not refer to the use of the armoured personnel carrier if it were not for the fact that it is the best known means at the present time of saving the lives of infantrymen. The armoured personnel carrier was operated by the Canadian armoured corps.
The function of the Minister of National Defence is not only to develop an effective fighting machine, but to do it in such a way that the lives of men are spared. That can be done by the proper use of armour under conditions of warfare such as we have known in our time. That is why I say it is not theoretical; it is practical, and my only hope is that before my time is concluded as a member of this house I shall have impressed upon the present minister of defence and those who hold high office in the defence department that more attention should be given to the use of armour.
I shall continue to deplore having infantry advance across open ground. As I said earlier today, I am sure that will be the exercise at Gagetown in a few weeks. It was slaughter in the first war, as anyone who survived that war knows. It was slaughter in the second great war. We lost thousands of Canadian soldiers in 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918 because they had to move across open ground and through wheat fields on their own flat feet. We lost thousands of infantry soldiers in the second world war who had to do the same thing. Most infantry casualties after the landing on the Normandy beaches and in the subsequent fighting up to the battle of Falaise were due to the same causes that produced infantry casualties in the first great war, machine gun and mortar fire, against which the human body has no protection whatsoever.
Give these infantrymen the protection of armour, either by the use of the armoured personnel carrier or by using them as armoured corps troops in tanks, and you will save lives. What is so theoretical about that?' It is highly practical, and it should concern the Minister of National Defence and his

advisers. If his advisers do not understand this problem or do not see it-and I cannot for the life of me apprehend why they cannot see it-then it is up to the Minister of National Defence to determine for himself, to examine the record.
There is no use talking to men who hold high command and are not familiar with the use of armour. How can such men possibly know the situation. If such a man has not served on the battlefield how can he possibly know? The Minister of National Defence does not have to be dependent upon just half a dozen advisers. My respect for generals is very great, but they are human beings like the rest of us and can make errors. They have made them in every campaign that was ever conducted.
I suggest to the Minister of National Defence that if he wants to get the complete picture on this he does not have to accept my word for it. I quite appreciate that the former minister did not. Let the minister consult with men who had actual experience on the battlefield. Let him consult with lieutenants, captains and majors who went into battle in tanks or in armoured personnel carriers. They are the men who can give him the proper picture. Let him talk to the officers who commanded the Royal 22nd regiment in March and April of 1945 about the use of the armoured personnel carrier. Let him consult with the surviving officers of the Lake Superior regiment who used the armoured personnel carrier at the Hochwald forest. Let him consult with the officers and sergeants and privates of the 54 battalions of British and Canadian regiments who became familiar with the use of the armoured personnel carrier on active service. Let these men give the minister their conception of what it meant. Do not take the word of anyone who did not have that type of experience.
People who were in high command and saw these actions performed from a distance may have a different conception than I have, or some of the men I have mentioned. It is up to the minister if he has, as I am sure he has, the interests of our defence services at heart to the extent that he will not only make them an effective fighting force but will save their lives, to investigate this matter as fully as he can and get the experience of other countries.
He may find a conflict of evidence, because for the 20 years between the two wars the use of armour was brushed aside by those in high command. They did not understand it. When the time came in 1940 to make use of armour they did not understand it and misused it on many battlefields. I do not want 50433-349J
Supply-National Defence to delay the house, but I could name the engagements in which armour was misused. You cannot go by the statements of some men who saw armour misused and therefore would say it is useless. In 1916, in the first world war, the tank was used in the wrong way at the wrong time and on the wrong ground, and was dismissed as a proper weapon for war. It was used properly and successfully at the battle of Cambrai in the fall of 1917. From that experience the use of the tank was developed in 1918. There were many actions in the second world war when the tank was improperly used.
It is the summation of all the evidence that has to be arrived at before a person can reach a conclusion. I cannot see how anyone presently in the army can deny that armour established itself in the second world war, can deny that armour has become a large part of the armies of the great powers of this world, can deny that armour should be maintained within the Canadian army as a component of that force on the basis of equality with the other parts of the service.
If that is not being done-and I believe it is not-the matter should be investigated. I do not wish to pursue this subject here year after year and cause distress to ministers of national defence, but I feel compelled to do it because of the knowledge I have that it is through the use of armour that the lives of men are saved. If there is another war in the near future and Canadian troops are committed to that war, travelling on their feet as they did in the first and second world wars without the protection afforded by armour, my voice will not be stilled.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall we proceed to the next item?


George Alexander Drew: Is the minister going to say anything on this subject?


Ralph Osborne Campney: This is the third time the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has made a speech on this subject. He raised it on the first day of the debate, and in reply I told him that I had listened to his arguments closely and would be glad to review the circumstances and look into them. Today on two occasions he has repeated the same argument. I do not suppose I can do better than to repeat the same answer.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, whilst it is difficult to conduct an argument against complete immobility, nevertheless there are reasons why there should be further emphasis on what has been said in the hope that some of this at least will leave its effect upon the

Supply-National Defence advisers, if not upon the minister himself. I hope it will leave its effect on the minister, but there is one aspect of this situation which is truly alarming.
Here we are in the year 1955, at a time when we have been told, in relation to another discussion, of the ominous events that could happen. Yet in regard to one of the most vital features of any modern fighting force, whether airborne or otherwise, we have really no information at all as to the intention of the government, and particularly as to the intention of the Department of National Defence.
As was pointed out by the hon. member who has just spoken, tanks can now be airborne. As far as the European armies are concerned, and particularly the army of the United Kingdom, the plans contemplate airborne armour being used to a considerable extent. The remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre are made with all the depth of feeling of a man who in two wars has seen the impact of armour upon modern military history. They are made by a man who probably knows more about armour from his own personal experience than anybody in this chamber. In fact I am sure he does.
He made one remark that bears consideration. He spoke about the difficulties confronting the minister if he were in conflict with his advisers. Let us hope the minister is going to be in conflict with his advisers. If there is one fundamental proposition in our whole idea of defence in the democracies, it is that the elected representatives have the responsibility and must accept the responsibility. In that respect there is no question about the right and the duty of the government at any time to make sure that statements of policy shall not be made by senior army officers or members of the staff. But here we have the perfect example of where the minister should assert himself if, in fact, his advisers are suggesting that he go slow in regard to armour.
There could be no more illuminating example offered us in regard to this very subject than the use of the first tanks in 1916. Before the war Churchill, with the imagination which characterized his approach to public affairs at all times, saw the possibilities of tracked vehicles. He did his utmost to persuade the professional soldiers that they should inaugurate a construction program of armoured vehicles using the track system. This was turned down as theoretical and impractical. Later he did succeed in actually having a model built, which was submitted to tests by the army which could not have


been met by any tank built during the first world war. Again the army experts turned down the tank as being impractical for the second time.
Then Churchill, with the ingenuity that has characterized many of the things he has done, himself started the construction of tanks. At that time he was the civil lord of the admiralty. He did a rather irregular thing, which I assume might have got him into trouble. He created a department of land battleships in the navy, and gave instructions for the construction of 18 tanks. Those were built on the basis of plans worked out by the navy. It was as a result of this that the most decisive weapon of the first world war was actually put in the field. It was because he disregarded the advice of the experts that Britain was able to turn the tide with the tanks. People today should reread Ludendorff's "History of the First World War" and recall that he described the 8th of August, 1918, as the blackest day of all, when the British supremacy in tanks decided the fate of the whole battle.
That came from the decision that it is the job of the civil authorities to assert their judgment, having due regard to the advice of their experts. I should like to hear something said here today that would suggest that we are going to have an assertion of that authority by our civil authorities, because it would appear that the things that are being done are too much of an acceptance of the unchallenged advice of experts with whom, apparently, the government has not agreed on a number of occasions on other matters.
I think it applies not only to armour but to everything else we have been discussing. We are still left completely in the dark as to what the plans of the government are with regard to armour. Reread the white paper. There is nothing in it that informs the members of this house or the people of Canada what this government really intends to do. There is confusion of policy; and where there is any sign of policy it has obviously misled the officers themselves, because we have seen the conflict of statements by senior officers in the different services.
As an example, the talk of the trend toward a single continental command undoubtedly represented the thinking of some part of the staff. Other public statements that were made unquestionably represented the thinking of other members of the staff. All this is the result of the absence of any clear policy which will guide either the armed forces or parliament, to say nothing of the public generally. I think what we need above

everything else now is a clear statement of policy by the government as to what it proposes to do to bring our armed forces up to date and in keeping with the demands of the times.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, a gallant soldier-a man who has been a professional as well as an amateur soldier-has pointed out that in a large measure we are still organizing and training our army in the same formations as those employed in the battles of the first world war and again in the battles of the second world war. What clearer statement could there be by the most highly qualified soldier in this house that we simply have not moved with the times and that the government is giving us no indication whatever that there has been an adjustment of the thinking of the Department of National Defence and of the government which would assure us that the dollars that are being spent are being spent appropriately?
The discussion which has taken place here today has indicated the difficulty of dealing effectively with estimates in committee of supply here in this chamber. I hope next year the Minister of National Defence himself will urge that the estimates of the Department of National Defence be placed before the committee on estimates, and also that he will urge that the committee on estimates be permitted to deal effectively with this question and not subjected to the limitations that were imposed upon it this year. I would hope that the committee on estimates would be permitted to deal with the estimates of the Department of National Defence with the same authority that is given to a similar committee at Westminster, where the members can bring senior officers before it and where they can call for the production of books and other information not actually subject to the terms of official secrecy. In that way we would meet here with some opportunity to pass judgment with real facts in our possession. As the situation is now, we must admit frankly we have nothing but generalities to support the figures before us.
The hon. member for York West asked a question with regard to the item for travelling and removal expenses found at page 328, and which shows an increase from $16,397,000 last year to an estimated $19,127,000 this year. He asked why this increase was taking place. The minister said this was because of the fact that the brigade would be moved back from Germany this year. There was a tremendous movement to and from Korea during the past year, and Korea is a great deal further from Canada than is Germany. Since the beginning of the last
Supply-National Defence fiscal year-that is the beginning of the fiscal year in 1954-these units were moved from Korea: The third battalion of the R.C.R., the third battalion of the Royal 22nd regiment and the second battalion of the Royal Highlanders of Canada. There was a movement from Korea that involved substantial expense. In addition to that there was a movement of NATO units and of other units back and forth.
Mr. Chairman, as evidence of the fact that the figures are available, I think we should have some breakdown of these figures to show why there has been an increase of approximately $3 million in this item for travelling expenses, in view of the fact that two-thirds of the forces are now back from Korea and that we had that substantial movement within that period. I would hope the minister would give us that as evidence that, at least in regard to this item, it is possible for us to get some measure of information.	,[DOT]


Ralph Osborne Campney: First, Mr. Chairman, to deal with the specific question the Leader of the Opposition has just asked with regard te travelling and moving expenses, I would point out these factors. First, the Korean movement was only a one-way movement whereas the rotation of the brigade is a two-brigade movement. Second, the estimate of last year was not adequate by about $1 million to meet the movements of last year. Now, there has been a continuing movement of reinforcements to the brigade in Europe and of wastage from the brigade. The cost of the brigade proceeding to Europe is estimated at $1,176,000, and of the returning of the brigade $1,235,000, which make a total of around $2,400,000, plus the fact that last year's estimate was exceeded by about $1 million. I think that makes up or more than makes up the difference.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, if ever a wand was waved without producing any positive answer, it is being done at this moment. I want to point out to the minister, when he talks about it being a one-way movement, that it could not have been entirely a oneway movement. Actually I omitted one unit that was moved during that period. It was the fourth battalion of the Canadian Guards, which came back in December of 1954. In addition to that, the second battalion of the Queen's Own Rifles came back in April of this year. It is perfectly obvious that there must have been some movement the other way as well, because obviously you were moving units there, not just bringing units back. So that does not answer the question at all.
5530	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence Mr. Campney: I have answered most of the question. I would say with regard to the movement to Korea, perhaps I am wrong as to the date of movement of one battalion there. But in the movement to and from Korea, if there were movement to Korea as well as from it, there were no dependents. In the movement to Germany the number of dependents being moved adds very substantially to the cost.


George Alexander Drew: I have pointed out how unsatisfactory it is to deal with this matter in the committee of supply. Surely we can get a better answer than one saying it is very expensive to move dependents there. Surely we can have some figures that really show exactly how this increase of approximately $3 million is made up. If we cannot get that, then we might as well admit that we are being called upon to deal with this enormous expenditure without the figures available in this house at this time.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The figure provided for the movement of dependents to and from the United Kingdom and the continent is given as $3,512,000. I have not it broken down as between outgoing and incoming movements.


George Alexander Drew: Were dependents not being moved the year before?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No. They rotate with the troops. The brigade in Europe is rotated every second year. So far as the Korean movement is concerned, dependents are not affected.


George Alexander Drew: I am not talking about Korea.
I am talking about Europe.


Ralph Osborne Campney: With respect to Europe, the movement of dependents does not operate in the off year. It is hardly noticeable. It is in the year when one brigade is coming home and the other brigade is going overseas. You have a double movement, and they each take their dependents.


George Alexander Drew: Is it not possible for the minister, ill approximate figures of say hundreds of thousands, to tell us what is involved in the movement of the units and in the movement of dependents, so we can at least see how this additional $3 million is arrived at? Otherwise we are simply voting in the dark.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I can give these general figures which might be of interest to the committee. With respect to the reinforcement and rotation of overseas formations, last year the amount for movement to and from Europe was estimated at $1,732,000. This year it is $5,410,000. Last year the amount for movement to or from the Far East was estimated at $3,797,000. This year it will be under 

$2 million. These are the major differences that make the figures greater this year than last. I gave the house the general figure for dependents, but I do not have it broken down as to the brigade going out and the one coming home.


George Alexander Drew: I point out this does not explain it at all. The net difference in the figures that are given here amounts to about $1,700,000, so it does not explain in any way the increase of approximately $3 million. Either the minister is in a position to give us a simple breakdown of the figures that make up these component figures or he cannot. I would have thought that in relation to every one of these figures there would have been a set of figures as a breakdown that could have been given to the house immediately. Otherwise we must simply admit that the failure is not on the part of the opposition but because of a flat refusal on the part of the government to have the information available which we should have when items of this size or of any size are before the house in committee of supply.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there any
further discussion on the army, regular and general?


George Alexander Drew: If we are not going to get an answer on that, then I have another item with which I want to deal.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I gave the Leader of the Opposition the chief figures which made the differences. There are other subitems which also affect the total. I did not give the full breakdown of all the details because I did not think it was desired or needed, but I could mention one other item which perhaps has some bearing on the difference. I refer to movement within Canada due to the exercises being staged at Gagetown and the more extensive exercises at other places. Movement expenses in connection with these exercises this year are anticipated to be $1 million greater than last year. I assumed from the opening remarks of the Leader of the Opposition that he was concerned with the expenses of movements overseas, both to and from Europe and to and from Korea.


George Alexander Drew: I cannot make it any clearer than I have tried to make it, but I would have thought when there is an increase of this nature in one of the larger items it would be possible to say this is the way the figures were made up in bulk last year, this is the way they are made up this year, and this is the difference and the explanation for it. Obviously I cannot get that information

so I shall proceed to see if I can obtain any better information with regard to an item on page 329.
Under the general heading of "acquisition and construction of buildings and works" I see an item for construction of buildings and works amounting to $67,500,000. Last year the amount was $48 million. I should like to know what the circumstances are that call for an increase of $19,500,000 in the construction of buildings and works. I would point out this is only one of the several items for the construction of buildings and works, because similar items are also included in the air estimates and in the naval estimates. It was not so very many years ago that this amount was more than we were spending on the whole defence program in Canada. I should like to know what the nature of the change is and what it is that makes up the additional $19,500,000.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The army construction program is approaching its peak. There are two principal factors involved. The first is the construction of Gagetown. For that this year we are estimating $15 million. The remainder of the increase is largely due to the fact that a great number of the home stations, which I mentioned this afternoon, are at their highest point of construction. For example, we are estimating that for home station and other development we will spend at Valcartier this year $4,980,000, at Barriefield, $4,630,000, at Borden, $3,270,000, at London, $3,570,000, at Petawawa, $5,500,000, at Winnipeg, $4,800,000, at Edmonton, $5,600,000, and at other locations lesser amounts amounting in the aggregate to a substantial sum.
Included in the work are station development programs, barracks, the necessary buildings for the home stations, plus married quarters for the troops. Out of a total expenditure of $67,500,000 estimated for army construction, $17 million represents permanent married quarters.


George Alexander Drew: What was spent on Gagetown last year?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I will get that figure in a moment.


George Alexander Drew: There is an item of $10 million here with regard to army pay and allowances. I notice it was also an even $10 million last year. I am struck by the fact that it is an even amount both years. Does that represent the actual amount paid or is that simply a broadly estimated figure?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is a broadly estimated figure for those two years.
Supply-National Defence


George Alexander Drew: Can the minister tell us what was actually spent last year? It was estimated at $10 million, I understand.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The actual expenditure was $11,040,000.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to labour the point, but if that amount was spent last year, what is the reason for an estimate of $10 million for the coming year, in view of the increased activities?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It was anticipated-and it is understood that this is in the militia section-


George Alexander Drew: Yes, that is right.


Ralph Osborne Campney: It was anticipated that there would be as a consequence of reorganization a temporary falling off in numbers and that the figure which had been estimated for the previous year would probably be adequate this year.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: For the assistance of the committee, I wonder if all members would be kind enough so far as possible to confine their questions at the moment to the army, regular and general. Then when that has been disposed of we can go on to the army, reserve, and so on. We could deal with the subheadings in the order in which they come. I believe this would be easier for all members in the committee, and we would be more likely to get answers from the minister because, as I understand it, as the various items are called there will be a rotation of officials. Is there anything further to be said on the army, regular and general?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Perhaps one of my reasons is that, like many other hon. members in the house, I was able to share with him some of the experiences he mentioned. I saw the things that happened in August of 1918. I saw what happened to infantry when they had to go against machine guns unprotected, and I could hardly believe my ears when I heard this afternoon that this kind of thing could happen again. In my ignorance I thought we had gone beyond that stage.
Earlier in the day I suggested that in answer to the powerful statement, as I thought it was, with regard to tanks, made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, there were two courses open to the minister. One was to say that the statement was wrong, and give his reasons for saying so. The other was to say that it was right, either in whole or in part, and indicate what steps were going to be taken to meet it.
5532	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
I was wrong in suggesting that those were the only two alternatives, because apparently there is a third-which is to do nothing. As I understand it, the minister says he will consider the matter. That is all we are to get. Does that make sense, Mr. Chairman? Is this an unexpected thing? Is there something new that has cropped up that the minister has to think over, or is it something that is before him and his advisers, potentially at least, every day of the 365 days in the year?
This is a problem which stands out. Surely no one will suggest for one moment that this is not something the minister has had to discuss often, and no doubt very often. Does it make sense? Should we in this committee accept the suggestion that when a powerful statement has been made and questions asked on this very important matter, a matter of first-class importance, all we are to get is that the minister, with all the array of talent he has at his command, with all the expert assistance he has, will only consider it?
Mr. Chairman, that just does not make sense. I do wish to use moderate language. I do not wish to talk about being insulted or flouted or anything like that. I shall content myself by saying that it just does not make sense. This committee should not be sitting at all if it is not going to persist in the demand that it be given some kind of answer on a matter of this importance.
If I am doing the minister an injustice, let him say so. But I still hope, and I urge most strenuously, that before the estimates are passed he will give us a statement, from information which I am sure must be available to him, as to the views of the department on this question.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there anything further on the items for the army, regular and general?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is about three minutes to six. I am waiting for information with regard to one matter which the minister said he would obtain. Perhaps he would let me have that at eight o'clock. That is the last matter I was going to discuss under this section. I suggest that we now call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Alfred Robinson: Order. We have been dealing with resolution 236, under the heading IMr. Macdonnell.1

Canadian army, regular and general. Have we completed our discussion on this portion of the estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister was going to bring forward some information in reply to questions I had asked concerning the enrolment and record at the three military colleges.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I have some statistics here which I think might answer the hon. gentleman's question. I have had a statement prepared reviewing the results of each of the colleges for the last year. I should like to read it. All these figures are for the year 1954-55. I shall deal first with the Royal Military College.
In the first year there were 103 students entered. Eighty passed and one withdrew. There were no supplementaries; 22 cadets, or 21-4 per cent, failed. In the second year there were 83 entered; 71 passed; there were no supplementaries and no withdrawals; 12, or 14-5 per cent, failed. In the third year there were 120 entered, of whom 98 passed; 15 had supplementaries. There were no withdrawals; 7, or 5-8 per cent, failed. In the fourth year there were 94 entered, of whom 77 passed; 15 had supplementaries to write; one withdrew; one failed, or 1 [DOT] 1 per cent.
At Royal Roads, in the first year there were 100 entered, of whom 66 passed; 4 withdrew; 30 failed or 30 per cent. In the second year there were 52 entered; 48 passed; no supplementaries; 2 withdrew and 2 failed, or 3-8 per cent.
At College Militaire Royal de Saint Jean, in the preparatory year 129 entered, of whom 71 passed; 24 had supplementaries to write; 8 withdrew; 26, or 20-2 per cent, failed. In the first year at College Militaire Royal 110 were entered, of whom 84 passed; there were no supplementaries; 2 withdrew; 24, or 21-8 per cent, failed. In the second year 36 entered; 28 passed; there were no supplementaries and no withdrawals; 8, or 22-2 per cent, failed.
That is the complete picture of the service colleges as of the last academic year. I might also give these figures which may be of interest to the hon. member. The over-all wastage of the three colleges for 1948 was 27 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Since 1948?


Ralph Osborne Campney: For 1948. For 1949 it was 26-5 per cent; for 1950, 27 per cent; for 1951, 24 per cent; and for 1952, 23-5 per cent. I have not the figures. I am informed that the average record of passes and failures of our three Canadian service colleges is almost

identical with the average of the major Canadian universities during the same time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this information has not been given on the basis on which I asked for it. I asked that the minister take the span covered by the course in the case of the Royal Military College-that would mean four years for the class-and follow it through the four years so we would see from the beginning of that class until the end of the four-year course what the record was, and the same way with the others. In the case of College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean it would mean starting with the class that entered in 1952, in the preparatory year, and following it through the subsequent years. May I have that information?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am advised by my officials that information in that form is not kept as a matter of course, and it would take a considerable time to work it out, tracing each individual through the two colleges he attended, because most of them go to R.M.C. finally. In the time at our disposal during the dinner hour it was quite impossible, I am advised, to prepare the exact information in the form requested.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This information is of interest so far as it goes. However, information prepared on the basis I asked for will give us, I think, a complete picture. Take a class and follow it through. I thought the basis I suggested was quite fair; that is, take the span of years covered by a course. Assume that the class would have graduated this past month. Let us see from the official registration-in the case of College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, three years; in the case of Royal Roads, two years, and in the case of Royal Military College, four years-what happened to the classes year by year.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member realizes the difficulty involved in trying to get what he wants. For example, a man goes to College Militaire Royal in his preparatory year. The next year he may go to Royal Roads; he may go to the Royal Military College; he may stay at College Militaire Royal. These colleges are integrated. What would have to be done to give the hon. member the analysis he requires would be to take every individual in every college and trace his career for four years.
I suppose it could be done, but it certainly cannot be done in such time that would be of use here because of the fact that the three colleges have different lengths of courses; three years at College Militaire Royal; two at Royal Roads; four at Royal Military College; and the students do transfer a good
Supply-National Defence deal. I merely state this as a fact. It could not be prepared in the time available because they would have to make a complete study of each student for the whole four years for each of the three colleges. While nothing is impossible, this is impossible within any reasonable time limit.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask a question with regard to the figures we have? What is the minister's feeling in regard to the preparatory year at C.M.R? The figures he has just given for the last year seem to indicate that 24 had supplementaries, 8 withdrew, and 26 failed out of a class of 129. I am wondering whether, on the basis of figures like these, any consideration is being given to the qualifications required of applicants, because that seems to be a year that does not compare favourably with the others, either in the same college or in the other two colleges.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The preparatory year-and College Militaire Royal is the only one that has this preparatory year preparing for the equivalent of senior matriculation-and I think any educational institutions will bear this out, is the year where there are a high proportion of failures. However, the prep year, which was a large class, showed 20.2 per cent failures, whereas in the first year at R.M.C. it was 21.4 per cent and at Royal Roads it was somewhat higher.
I would like to observe that the C.M.R. is just getting into its stride. It is an experiment which is working out extremely well. It is the first military college where we have had a prep class to prepare men to enter, as it were. The feeling of the educationalists in my department is that while there are some matters that should be adjusted, and some things that might be improved, as far as we have gone with this college we have done extremely well. That is the view of the experts who advise me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the minister speaks of its being an experiment, is he referring to the introduction of the preparatory year?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The introduction of the preparatory year. Neither of the other colleges has a preparatory year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am aware of that, but I am just wondering what support the minister finds for his contention that this experiment of a preparatory year has been successful in the face of these figures. The figures for all three colleges for the other years are much more favourable, I think, than the figure for that one preparatory year.



S534 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Defence
Ralph Osborne Campney: I do know that as a result of this experiment we get a very high percentage of French-Canadian students who ordinarily would not proceed to senior matriculation. Under this scheme they proceed to junior matriculation and work their way through this college and ultimately to Royal Military College and graduation. I cannot agree with the hon. member that a percentage of 20-2 per cent failures in a junior matriculation preparatory class is out of line when compared with the other educational establishments.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not wish to prolong this questioning, but the minister is not taking account of the fact that you had only 71 who passed, whereas there were 24 who had supps, eight who withdrew and 26 who failed.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have no record of how many of the 24 supps in the case of the C.M.R. will ultimately pass and therefore would be added to the 71 who passed in the first instance. We will not know the answer to that until this fall.


Mr. Green:: I should like to ask a question about a matter which was brought to my attention this week in a letter from a responsible businessman in British Columbia. He tells me that he met a young man from the United Kingdom who had been recruited into the Canadian army in England. Is there some plan under which the Canadian army recruits in the United Kingdom, or how would that English lad get into the Canadian army in England?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that applicants in Great Britain are accepted for our army but only if they have done their compulsory service there and wish to join our service as a volunteer. Such cases are not numerous.


Howard Charles Green: This young lad intimated that he had enlisted at a Canadian recruiting station in England. Is Canada maintaining a recruiting station in England for the Canadian
army?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No. We have in England an office where anyone may obtain information about the services. It is similar to an immigration or other government office. We are not carrying on any active recruiting in Great Britain, but if a person who probably wishes to settle in Canada comes to us and wants to know what are the conditions of service in our forces, we have an office in Britain which is in a position to supply any information that may be required. I understand also that an interested person can have the desired medical examination, to see whether he is physically acceptable.


Howard Charles Green: In effect that is a recruiting station in England, because you have a Canadian officer there and medical officers to examine potential recruits. I presume they are signed on or give some kind of undertaking before they are brought to Canada. Can the minister confirm that such is the case or, if not, what are the actual conditions?


Ralph Osborne Campney: If a man who has completed his service in the United Kingdom comes to our office and says he would like to enlist in one of our services, and if he passes his medical examination and other tests and is found acceptable to our armed services, he is brought out to Canada on the basis of his enlistment. I understand that his fare is paid. I have not the number here, but this is not an incident of great importance. However, the mechanics are as I have said.


Howard Charles Green: How long has this plan been in effect, and what number of men have been recruited in this way?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that the arrangement which now exists has been in effect for four or five years. I have not the number at the moment but I am endeavouring to get it.


Howard Charles Green: Is a similar plan in effect on the continent? Is it possible for a young man in any of the continental countries to enlist in the Canadian forces?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that where it has been indicated that there are a sufficient number of men in friendly countries on the continent who would like to enlist, arrangements have been made for medical examinations and the obtaining of the relevant data from them. I understand this happened a couple of years ago in connection with the recruiting of bandsmen in Holland. But these are isolated cases and are not of any particular moment as to the number involved.


Howard Charles Green: I am not worrying so much at the moment about the number. I simply would like an explanation from the minister as to why the Canadian government has adopted a policy of enlisting recruits for the Canadian army in the United Kingdom and on the continent.


Ralph Osborne Campney: If persons of a friendly nation wish to join the Canadian forces and they are eligible there is no reason why we should not accept them. That has been the practice, as I say, for the last four or five years. An officer has been established in England continuously. In other places arrangements are made whenever there seems to be a group of suitable persons wishing to join the Canadian services.


Howard Charles Green: Does that not mean that the Canadian army is recruiting mercenaries?


Ralph Osborne Campney: You can use the word "mercenary" in a number of senses. The reason we are anxious to accept these people who offer themselves voluntarily is, first of all, that we believe they will make acceptable soldiers and, second, they will in all probability become settlers in Canada and part of our own Canadian people. If they want to join our army it is usually because they have an interest in Canada. Of course, they will probably not stay in the army all their lives and we hope they will locate ultimately in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Are they under any obligation to remain in Canada once they have completed their term of service?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No.


Howard Charles Green: Then surely they are mercenaries pure and simple. Why is the Canadian army not filled with Canadian citizens?


Ralph Osborne Campney: For all practical purposes, it is. I do not want to have this minor feature of the Canadian army magnified into a major one, because it is not. And I do not particularly like the word "mercenary". I suppose that every soldier is a mercenary in the sense of being paid. He is paid and he has a right to be paid. I do not know whether the word "mercenary" should be applied to these cases. Our immigration department is looking for good citizens. If a man wants to join the Canadian army and he is physically fit and passes whatever tests are applied, there should be no opprobrium either on him or on the Canadian army which accepts him. After all, we are all in NATO together. We do not seek to persuade these men to join the army. They come of their own volition or they do not come at all.


Howard Charles Green: The Canadian government
apparently is facilitating the enlistment of people from other countries in the Canadian army. It seems to me this is a policy which should have been announced in this house when it was first adopted. Is it possible for a young German to enlist in the Canadian army?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed it was not the case prior to the entry of Germany into NATO. I have no information that the question has arisen since.


Howard Charles Green: Is the government policy such that it would be impossible for a young German to enlist in the Canadian army in the same manner that young men from other continental countries have been enlisting?
Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is not impossible now, I would say, but I have not had any application or any suggestion of that sort come to my attention. It certainly was not possible before the admission of Germany into NATO. But now that Germany has been admitted to NATO, if the matter came before me it would have to be considered.


Howard Charles Green: Would young Germans be accepted now?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That would depend on the circumstances of the case and, I presume, to a certain extent on the attitude of the German government. I am not going to make a hypothetical decision because, as I say, the matter has not arisen. If it does I shall have to deal with it, but I would not want to give a categorical answer to a hypothetical question.


Howard Charles Green: I presume one big attraction is the fact that the Canadian pay is considerably higher than these men could get if they enlisted in the forces in their own country. Is that an accurate summing up of the situation?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would think the principal reason for any person in Great Britain or in Europe approaching us with a view to joining the forces would be that he would want to come to Canada. That would be, I should think, his first motive. One of his reasons for feeling that way would be that if we accepted him into the army or into any service, it would facilitate the movement of his family to Canada. In other words he must have a motive other than just money, I should think. It is true that the pay of Canadian soldiers, as in the case of other wage rates in Canada, is higher than it is in continental countries, but we feel that one of the prime motives for people who wish to join the Canadian forces from abroad is that they want to come to Canada and bring their families to Canada.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall we pass to Canadian
army, militia, at page 329?


George Clyde Nowlan: On a matter of Canadian army, militia, I have a few comments I should like to make. The hon. member for Colchester-Hants spoke briefly this afternoon on the wrong item in connection with that matter, but I should like to refer to what he said and perhaps amplify it a little.
We are dealing here with a situation in the reserve army which is of paramount importance to many people in the province of Nova Scotia. For a moment I wish to give the background of the situation so the committee can properly appreciate what is being

Supply-National Defence done. We have had in Nova Scotia, which of course maintains the highland tradition, being of Scottish origin, three highland regiments, the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, the Pictou County Highlanders and the Cape Breton Highlanders. Of those the North Nova Scotia Highlanders and the Cape Breton Highlanders both served overseas in the last war. As the hon. member for Colchester-Hants said this afternoon, I do not suppose there is any other battalion with a better record than the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, who went ashore on D-day in Normandy.
The department-and quite properly, because it was urged from all parts of the house-felt that there should be some reorganization of the reserve army. With the principle of reorganization as such no one can have any quarrel whatsoever, but in Nova Scotia the officers and men of these reserve battalions were faced with a problem. They were told by the department that instead of there being three regiments which had heretofore existed with their long traditions, there would have to be ultimately only two. Incidentally the Pictou County Highlanders, although they had not been overseas as a unit, are one of the oldest units in Canada, are associated with the Seaforth Highlanders in the old country, and have a tradition and a record running back over a century.
It was put up to these three battalions that there had to be this reorganization of the reserve army. Many discussions went on among the officers of the battalions, the people in the communities in that whole northeastern part of the province of Nova Scotia who were interested, and officers from the eastern command. It was understood, rightly or wrongly -and apparently wrongly-that if some system could be worked out whereby we could merge with only two battalions instead of three, that would be satisfactory to national defence headquarters and to the officers representing the department in the eastern command.
So the men and officers of these various units worked out what they thought was a satisfactory compromise whereby instead of having the three which had heretofore existed there would be only two, and we would have the Cape Breton Highlanders maintained practically intact with their tartan, their badges and all the rest of it. That would be one of the two regiments which were left. Then you would have the second regiment, which would really be a combination of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders and the Pictou County Highlanders. They were to amalgamate. They would maintain the name of the 
North Nova Scotia Highlanders, which as I said had served in France in the last war, and they would adopt the tartan of the Pictou County Highlanders with the Mackenzie plaid and a lot of the traditions of that old regiment.
That proposition was put up to the Department of National Defence and they said they thought if they could get two regiments, that was all that was required. But later they were told that was not good enough, that we had to scrap the names of the units, we had to scrap the traditions and the badges and everything under the sun, and we were going to end up with a first and second battalion of Nova Scotia Highlanders. They were given the privilege, I think, of choosing a plaid. I see my friend the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough nodding his head. They were given the privilege of choosing a plaid, and I think it was suggested that perhaps they could choose the Nova Scotia plaid.
I have on a tie tonight which closely resembles the Nova Scotia plaid. One of the objections which the officers and men took to it was that about the only description you could give it was that of baby blue; and they thought baby blue was hardly a fair description to give the plaid that would be adopted by these three battalions with these ancient traditions and these old names.
It is something the same as if you took, shall I say, the 48th Highlanders of Toronto, the Toronto Irish and the Toronto Scottish.
I wonder what would have happened if Department of National Defence headquarters had said to them, "You are going to scrap those names; you are going to scrap the traditions; you are going to scrap the badges; you are going to scrap everything, and we are going to clothe you in Hudson's Bay blankets". I think the reaction in Toronto would not have been one of entire, enthusiastic approval. Yet it is exactly the same proposition which has been put up to the men of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, the Pictou County Highlanders and the Cape Breton Highlanders.
-^s I said, the proposition originally was, "You have to reduce from three to two", and they were prepared to do so. They made the proposition for the merging of the Pictou County Highlanders and the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, which would have meant one regiment in Nova Scotia and the Cape Breton Highlanders would have remained virtually intact in Cape Breton island. But they were told "no".
I think there has been a great deal of doubt about this matter and I am raising it now because I believe the minister can perhaps

still deal with this situation. I doubt whether any firm decision has been made with respect to it. There has been a great deal of "waffling", to use a slang expression. There has been a great deal of indecision and a great deal of uncertainty. No one knows just where he stands. The officers were told, for instance, "You can wear your old uniforms; you can wear your old badges; you can wear your old plaids; we are not going to change those at all; just keep them". In the end you are going to get a battalion which will be clothed like Joseph in coats of many colours, because apparently you can maintain the traditions if you were there previously but if you came in afterwards you are going to have something else.
To say the least it has caused a great deal of uncertainty and a great deal of dissatisfaction in so far as the officers and men of these units are concerned. I think the minister will agree with this. We were talking here about traditions a little while ago. If there is one element more important than another in the maintenance of interest, loyalty and enthusiasm in the reserve army, it is the maintenance of the traditions of the past, the loyalty of the units and all the other matters which are interwoven in the history of battalions and regiments which have been acting together throughout many years. All these presumably are to be scrapped, and we are now being told that we are the experimental ground for a regimental team, whatever a regimental team may be. We are going to have the first battalion of a regimental team and we are going to have the second battalion of a regimental team; but the traditions and the rest of it, as I said, are largely gone.
As a result of this the men in these units are feeling very unhappy. While I am speaking about traditions of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, may I say that during these last two years the citizens in the towns which are served by that particular regiment have raised over $16,000 for the purchase of uniforms for the officers, N.C.O.'s and the men of that battalion. Now that is to go for naught if this reorganization goes through in the way it was originally proposed. Pictou county, with its record of enlistment, with its traditions and with the money which has been raised there for the support of the Pictou County Highlanders, would lose all that. As I say, you end up with a first and second battalion of a Nova Scotia regiment, but the names and all the matters which have gone into the background have been lost.
I should like to know just why the maritime provinces have been compelled to go through this experience. I think the hon. member for Saint John-Albert has a similar
Supply-National Defence story to tell about New Brunswick. I should like to know in how many other places in Canada this has been done. My understanding-and I could be wrong-is that only two battalions that served overseas, other than those in the maritimes, have been compelled to go through an experience such as this. The minister can tell us how many there are, and before we get through this item I expect he will tell us in just how many places in Canada these so-called regimental teams have been improvised to take the place of old battalions and regiments which served in the past.
You have now a picture of a North Nova Scotia battalion or regiment merged with the Pictou County Highlanders and stretching from Amherst all the way to the strait of Canso, over 200 miles. They have six companies, and the Department of National Defence says it will be perfectly all right if they can organize a couple of more companies. That is fine; they would welcome the companies. We are going to have a regiment with eight companies, and we are going to have a paymaster for them. When my leader was talking today he spoke about having a flying box car to transport troops. The paymaster will have to fly in a helicopter in order to get from company to company to pay them, because they are widely separated.
If you are setting up battalion teams with eight companies stretching over an area of over 200 miles, why in the name of common sense could you not maintain the two battalions they had originally, and which have been there for years and years? But even if that cannot be done I submit that the suggestion of the officers of these units should be accepted. At their own expense, with the great sacrifice and inconvenience which reserve officers put into these units, they have worked out a proposition for merging these two battalions, maintaining the name of one and the tartan of the other, thereby at least keeping alive a semblance of the traditions and records of which all Nova Scotians are proud, particularly those in that area stretching all the way over the northeastern part of Nova Scotia, including Colchester county, Cumberland county, Pictou county, Anti-gonish and Guysborough counties and the island of Cape Breton.
That is a matter which I think should be reconsidered by the minister. I know he will say, as he has probably been advised, that a commission of generals interviewed the reserve officers and got their approval. I am told by those same reserve officers that they never saw this commission of generals at any time or at any place, and that this thing was done without their knowledge and without their consent. I can tell you that it is
5538	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence disapproved of 100 per cent by the officers and men in these units, and by the public who have supported them. Surely if the minister is going to make a success of the reorganization of the reserve army he has to conserve the traditions, the records, the uniforms, the badges and all the things that go with the intangibles to create sentiment, loyalty and patriotism. That is all being scrapped for this rather mechanical device of a first and second battalion of a Nova Scotia regiment.
I am sure there is no documentation to prove it, but I am even told that somebody thought-one of these nebulous suggestions that come down through the grapevine-that if the officers of the two battalions would accept this they could even get the word "royal" so it would be the Royal Nova Scotia Highlanders. I thought, of course, that "royal" was a word which had gone out of fashion and was in ill repute, but apparently it could be obtained by these men if they were prepared to enter into this so-called regimental team.
That, Mr. Chairman, is for the moment the background of this matter. It is one I have no hesitation at all in raising because, though I do not come from a constituency directly affected by it, I have had representations from scores of officers who are involved in these battalions, and it is a matter of interest to the whole province of Nova Scotia.
I am told by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert that the same experience has been had by the battalions in the province of New Brunswick. Before this item is passed I want to know just what has been done in other places, where this matter stands at the moment, and what the minister thinks might be done to maintain the esprit de corps which, as I said, I think is the most valuable part of any unit, particularly a defence unit and which, I suggest with all deference to him, is going to be largely lost if this mechanical reorganization being insisted upon by certain people is carried into effect.


Mr. Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting all afternoon and evening for this item in order to say what the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has said. He has said it so much better than I could have that I am not going to take the time of the committee to repeat much of what he has said. I probably would have said it with adjectives which would not look good in print and which the hon. member contained himself enough not to use, but I do say emphatically that things are in a bad way in north and northeastern Nova Scotia,
TMr. Nowlan.]

which takes in Cumberland, Colchester, Anti-gonish, Guysborough and the island of Cape Breton.
I happen to have been associated with the Pictou Highlanders, an outfit which, according to rumour, is going to be scrapped, and I can tell the minister that by word of mouth from those living in my riding and by letters -I suppose I have a file as thick as my fist- I have received complaints not only from the Pictou Highlanders but from the northern portion of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, and so have other members from those areas.
I have taken up the matter with the minister by letter, but I do want to endorse most emphatically what the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has said, and said so much better than I could. I am not going to take any more time to try to impress upon the minister that this is something to which he had better give a second look.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support what the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough have said. I rise particularly at this time because I had some contact with the North Nova Scotia Highlanders during the war, and I think to do such a thing to a regiment with traditions as fine as it has and which fought as gallantly as it did is just unbelievable. I had some experience in the militia before the war and after the war.
I know, I am sure the minister knows, and anybody who has been in the militia knows, that the whole strength of a militia regiment lies in its traditions. The pay is insignificant. It is the traditions of the regiment, the spirit, the esprit de corps, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has said, that make or break a regiment. If you have it you have a regiment. If you do not have it you have nothing. They do not go there for the pay. They do not go there for any other reason except that they believe in the spirit and the traditions.
I believe it is utter stupidity to make these two fine regiments into the first and second battalions of the Nova Scotia regiment. What does that mean to them? It means nothing. You might as well call them X and Y battalions. It is like putting numbers on a can of beans. The things that have meaning to a militia regiment are their uniform, their battle honours, their traditions. Once you give them a new name they lose all these things. They do not carry them along with them. They become a new battalion and the traditions and esprit de corps vanish.
I was a member of the 48th Highlanders of Toronto. I can imagine what would happen

to the esprit de corps of that fine regiment if they were called the first, second or third battalion of the Ontario Highlanders. There would be utter disgust, and you would lose what makes one of the great regiments of this country.
I am also disturbed about what appears to be happening to another great Toronto militia regiment, the Queen's Own. I understand that their recruiting base has been shifted to Calgary, which to me sounds absolutely fantastic. The Queen's Own is a Toronto regiment and has been for many many years. It is one of the really old battalions of this country. Its roots are in Toronto, its spirit is in Toronto, its alumni are in Toronto, and if you want to raise men for the Queen's Own you had better leave the recruiting base in or near Toronto so the traditions of that regiment can remain intact.
I think the treatment of the militia by the government at the present time and the creation of the first, second, third and fourth Guards battalions is stupid. Why not leave these fine regiments intact with their traditions and names that mean so much to them? Why not leave them with the most important things they possess, their uniforms, their names, their traditions? Why do what bureaucrats are always trying to do, streamline or simplify, and in so doing complicate and lose what originally was possessed?
As a former member of the militia and knowing how much these things mean, I appeal to the minister to stop what I consider to be this stupid process of destroying the really important things that keep a militia regiment going, and the only things that do. Leave them intact. Let our regiments remain the fine regiments they are, with the fine traditions they have had for many years past.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on the same subject with particular reference to New Brunswick. I am a little hesitant, in that my sole contribution on the defence estimates has to be directed to a new minister who is perhaps not entirely responsible for the action that has been referred to; nevertheless it is still within his powers to remedy the situation.
I took the opportunity to refer to the discrimination against maritime units during the throne speech debate, and I do not wish to go over the details of the story, but there are one or two pertinent facts that I think should be mentioned this evening. You know, when these various discriminations take place against the maritimes, quite often we are told when we approach Ottawa, "Oh, you should have told us that before. We would have been glad to accommodate you at the time,
Supply-National Defence but it is too late now." First of all I would like to point out that we were in this thing, very early, in the beginning, and we foresaw this discrimination and these changes that were coming.
Last year on May 6 I placed a question on the order paper, before the so-called Kennedy report was published. In fact I doubt whether at that time the entire investigation had been completed. These were the questions I asked on May 6th:
1.	(a) Are reserve force Infantry units classified A, B, C, etc.?
(b) What are the classifications of the respective-reserve force infantry units in Canada.
2.	(a) What were the strengths of the respective reserve force infantry units in summer camps in 1953?
(b) What were the strengths of the respective reserve force infantry brigades in summer camps in 1953?
3.	What are the strengths of the respective reserve force infantry units in Canada at the present time?
The point of placing those questions on the order paper was that we knew these changes were coming up, and we suspected from the very beginning that there was going to be the usual discrimination against the maritimes. We decided to get our oar in first, this time. So that question was placed on the order paper, at the suggestion of many of the reserve force officers in the Saint John area who wanted to point out that their units were up to scratch. They had always been told their recruiting and their strength at camp was good. Perhaps the true test is the fact that the appointments and the other space that is given to units in the various orders and military journals always contained a large proportion of members of these New Brunswick and other maritime units.
That was all they had to go by, except the word that had been given to them by visiting, colonels and the like. That question was not answered. It went to the head of the order paper, and it was at the head of the order paper for one full month; then died at the end of the session.
I suggest tonight that perhaps there was; some reason for not answering all the details, because the report was still in process of examination. But I want to point out that the idea was to establish our position early, in the beginning, so we would not hear the same old story, "Oh, you are too late." We did not want to have that levelled against us again.
Well, what happened? We found out from various sources, through the dribble-drabble of information that comes down our way,, that these major generals-Kennedy, Letson and Renaud-did visit New Brunswick, and they were there for two hours. And it is on
5540	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence record, at least among the officers around my area, that they spent the two hours in a mess talking to the other officers who were there. There is no possible way they could have obtained first-hand information. But they did visit New Brunswick. 1 do not know whether they got as far as Nova Scotia. I do repeat that they were in New Brunswick, but only for two hours, enjoying the pleasantries of the mess.
The report came out, and there is a point I would like to stress, because it has not been carefully explained in the letters we have had from the department. There are thick files in the messes in New Brunswick, and I have a thick file here, myself. The story is not that we object-and we did not object at the time-to the reduction in the number of battalions. We had three battalions in New Brunswick, and three reserve force battalions were in existence in Nova Scotia.
If the department can produce figures here this evening to show that our strength, our recruiting, and our activities at camp do not warrant three battalions when compared with all the other units in Canada, that is perfectly all right with us. We do not object to a reduction from three to two. But, Mr. Chairman, the thing we do object to-and may I say no note has been taken of it in any of the replies I have had from the department -is that there was no need to discriminate against us in the names of the regiments in the maritimes. To my knowledge it was not done anywhere else in Canada.
Tonight I am going to throw some questions to the minister, and I do really wish he would take time this evening, if he has the information, to clear the air on this entire reorganization scheme. For example, I would like a statement telling me how long the generals were in New Brunswick, and the information they obtained. I would like a statement on the strength of the units, classifying them under the old A, B, C system or any other way he likes. I would like to know why it was necessary to wipe out completely the three regiments.
As I have said, I do not know of any other area, other than Nova Scotia, in which this was done. We do not object to the reduction; it is simply the fact that we lost the names of two of our oldest, historic regiments. Mention was made in the discussion this evening of the Queen's Own Rifles. I do not think anybody would say anything against the fine record that regiment has had. One hon. member referred back as far as the Fenian raids.
Mr. Chairman, we go back to 1793 with our regiment; and the ironical fact about the whole thing is that in 1793 we had a regiment called the New Brunswick regiment. So we IMr. Bell.]

are right back to where we were in 1793. And that is so because the department, or whoever was responsible for this decision, in its wisdom has decided that they will wipe out the names of all our old regiments and call them first New Brunswick regiment, brackets, Carleton-York, and the second New Brunswick regiment, brackets, north shore. Why all these brackets? Is the idea just to ease us into the situation and kid us along about the whole thing? Already I have had my mess bill from the first New Brunswick, Carleton-York regiment-and you cannot even see the "Carleton-York", it is in such small print.
I saw a letter the other day from the department about dress, what the regiment will do with the kilts which arrived on the boat from England on the day they disbanded the unit. I had a letter from the department, and in the letter to me they have called it the New Brunswick regiment; and either they forgot or purposely they did not put in any of the brackets.
It just does not add up, so far as I am concerned. The only thing I can see about it, the only good that could come out of it, in changing our regiment every ten years, or whenever it happens, is that you give us a chance to fill our churches with old battle colours. We are proud of our traditions down there, and we still would like to be able to hold on to some of our names. There is no sense making a report about the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia men, their units, their decorations and all that sort of thing. Everybody in this place knows about the enlistments and all those other things we are so proud of down our way.
But I do want an answer to all these questions. I want to know why it was necessary to wipe out the names of our units when the other units-the Queen's Own, the Black Watch and all the rest of them-were not even touched. I would like to think it was not the result of lobbying or politics, but I am just afraid somebody in the department said, "Oh, the maritimes-they are away down there, out of sight. Maybe there will be a kick or two, but we have to worry about these powerful messes around Toronto and Montreal."
I do say, Mr. Chairman, that we want an explanation about this. The matter is in the hands of the new Minister of National Defence, and we ask him to clarify it, to clear the air. Perhaps we do not have a united stand on the changes as in Nova Scotia, but we are entitled to a complete reinvestigation of the whole matter, and a statement on it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: If nobody else wishes to speak on the militia reorganization, perhaps

I might make a few observations. In the first place, the militia reorganization was instituted at the request of the conference of defence associations in the belief that it was desirable to review the whole situation in Canada and make such adjustments and changes as the facts might warrant. This was not a particularly new departure; it has happened in Canada and probably will happen again. At the request of the conference of defence associations a commission was appointed by the chief of the general staff under the chairmanship of Major General Kennedy to examine the situation and make recommendations. They made that examination and they made their report.
They discussed all their problems with the conference of defence associations, and they discussed specific changes with all general officers commanding and the chairman of the conference of defence associations. Let me say at once that there were no politics whatever in connection with these discussions and these decisions and there was no suggestion of politics that I ever heard of until it was implied here this evening.
I should like to say also there has been no discrimination against the maritimes, as I think I shall show in a moment. One of the things the committee recommended was that we should have fewer infantry regiments, and that we should have more of certain other arms of the service. As a matter of fact they recommended the conversion of three infantry regiments to armour. That might be regarded as proof that some of the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had registered. In any event, after reviewing all the facts they decided there should be across Canada 13 fewer infantry battalions.
Then, after a study of all of the factors that were relevant, three battalions which had theretofore been infantry battalions were as I have said converted to armour; and ten lost their identity. The location of those regiments which lost their identity was as follows: one in Alberta; one in Manitoba; four in Ontario; three in Quebec; one in Nova Scotia; and one in New Brunswick. Therefore I do not think any person in any part of Canada can properly level a charge of discrimination, because the changes that were made were made generally across the country, and in a general way somewhat in accordance with the population of those areas.
Now, as to the two provinces whose representatives have made representations here this evening, I think a parallel situation exists in respect of each. It was the feeling of the general officers commanding and the chief of the general staff that, having regard
Supply-National Defence to all the relevant facts, the two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick could each adequately support two battalions. So far as Nova Scotia is concerned, I would hesitate to get immersed in the battle of the tartans. I have only a very remote claim to the use of the Crawford tartan, but it is not involved in this particular struggle.
The reason it was felt there should be two battalions in each of these provinces, each battalion having in part the same name, that is a name identified with the province, was that in the event of a war it would be far better to have two battalions in which the personnel would be interchangeable and which would be known, in one case as the Nova Scotia regiment and in the other, the New Brunswick regiment. It is well known,
I think, to all members that in both the last two wars the transfer of recruits and of men from one regiment to another and the disbanding of certain regiments during the war presented real difficulties. When the war was over certain battalions from local areas had great numbers of personnel from other parts of Canada acquired during the war.
There is a feeling in the general staff that if we could have, as we have in the regular army, two battalions to one regiment, or three battalions as the case may be, where it is possible, it would be an excellent idea from the point of view of identity of the fighting troops with the areas from which they come and from which they would draw recruits.
The feeling was that there should be one battalion for Nova Scotia on Cape Breton island and one on the mainland. The two-battalions perpetuate the names of the two battalions which went overseas. In the case of New Brunswick the idea was to have two battalions of the New Brunswick regiment, and in doing so the identity of the old battalions was lost in part. There was some discussion about this at the time, but not a great deal. As a matter of fact there was some discussion about several battalions across the country, because every time you change the accepted order of things, there are people who are not inclined to favour such changes. But I must say that since I came into office a year ago the changes that were made-and they were quite numerous-have been very well received throughout the country. I can think of only two or three cases where there was any particular agitation.
As I have said, representations were made-from New Brunswick and from Nova Scotia. They were all reviewed. I understand various meetings were held locally but in the end, so far as I have known, until tonight, the arrangement that was made in these two provinces was not seriously questioned at
5542	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence the time. It seems to me that, since the battle honours of all these battalions will be retained, and since the net effect of these changes is to consolidate provincial feelings around two battalions of a provincial regiment, that if the supporters of these battalions would do as they have done in almost every other case in Canada, and get behind those battalions they will really be amazed at what they can do to build two strong, active battalions in each province.
I feel that the matter has been very thoroughly studied and considered. Views have been received and have been considered. It seems to me that perhaps we are putting too much emphasis on battalion names. After all, the spirit of the people and the record in war of these people in the different provinces are the things that make for loyalty to their own provincial or local regiments.
I must reiterate what I said at the beginning, that there was, so far as I know, no attempt or thought of provincial discrimination or of any other type of discrimination that would be to the detriment of the regiments being established in these two provinces.
While I am on my feet perhaps I might refer to some of the observations made this morning about the use of the Connaught ranges. I must say to the hon. member for Broadview that I do not appreciate at all his continual reference to the stupidity of bureaucracy in connection with the requested use of the Connaught ranges by the girl guides.
There was a real reason why this request was not acceded to. I am doing my level best to get the Canadian army extricated from Long Branch. We are studying now what we can do at Camp Borden, to meet the Long Branch situation. We anticipate that for the next year or two the Connaught ranges will be used much more than they have been used in the past. We maintain these ranges primarily for the use of rifle associations and troops. The dominion rifle association meets there in July, and we have had a number of requests for the use of the non-shooting part of the range, which would be involved in this large visitation of girl guides, by cadet units which are growing in number and are receiving fuller training.
On the basis of what we know now we believe that the Connaught ranges will be required to a greater extent in future years than they have been in the past. It may be that we could consider moving up the date of the girl guides' camp. I certainly want to co-operate with the girl guides and with any other national organization which might 

desire our facilities, but I must put military needs first. It was not stupidity of bureaucracy that led to this decision, but the possible military requirements.
Another point was raised by the hon. member for Broadview about recruiting. As he knows, there is a major recruiting base in Toronto and recruits enlisting from the Queen's Own militia regiment or from any other source may specify the Queen's Own regiment, which is now a regular regiment, as the regiment of their choice. That regular regiment has never been stationed in Toronto, as a matter of fact. I should think the people of Toronto might be proud to have the name of one of their militia units, which is favourably known throughout Canada, selected as the name of a regular regiment. There is no disposition not to encourage people from the Queen's Own militia regiment or from the Toronto area indicating that they desire to enlist and be sent to the Queen's Own regiment. People have the choice when enlisting as to the unit in which they wish to serve.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the minister has so many matters to deal with that I can appreciate his reference to the Connaught ranges, the Queen's Own regiment, and the rest of it. For a few minutes I should like him to keep his eye on the ball as far as the maritime provinces are concerned and the references made by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and myself.
The minister says he never heard of any suggestion of politics until tonight. I am not suggesting for one moment that there were politics with a capital "P".


Ralph Osborne Campney: I absolve the hon. member; the reference to politics was made by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member for Anti-gonish-Guysborough spoke on this matter, and I want to say that I have the proof in my hand. When you get reserve army officers of the rank of brigadier who are ready to go to the public press and make statements with respect to this matter, one of them a candidate in the election before last, I think it can be said that in Nova Scotia at any rate there is no suggestion of partisan politics.
I think there is a suggestion of politics with a small "p", and that is probably what the hon. member for Saint John-Albert had in mind.
Despite what the minister has said, we in the maritimes feel that there has been some discrimination. I want to have the minister clear that up before we pass this item tonight or a week from tonight or whenever it is

finally passed. The minister referred to the fact that there was a commission which suggested that in so far as Nova Scotia was concerned there should be only two battalions. I am not quarrelling with that at all at the moment. I think the officers in the different regiments felt that perhaps that had to be so. If they had to be reduced to two no one was going to take issue with that.
The issue is, what was the solution? I want to say frankly that I do not think the minister is wholly conversant with the situation. I hope that after this discussion tonight he will review the whole position. The officers and men accepted the proposition that there should be two battalions. They regretted that, of course, but they finally accepted it. But then came the question of how the composition of the two battalions was going to be determined, how the two would operate where hitherto there had been three. That is where the quarrel arises.
The officers and men of these three battalions worked out a solution which met the requirements of the two, and quite frankly they thought that was acceptable to the Department of National Defence and the officer commanding on the east coast. They went away from those conferences feeling that while this was an unfortunate situation, the best solution had been arrived at and they would be able to maintain, as I said, the name of the North Nova Scotias, who had gone overseas, as well as the name and emblem of the Pictou County Highlanders, which was the oldest regiment of the three, and also preserve the name and emblem of the Cape Breton Highlanders. That was their proposition and it met the problem to which the minister referred, that of reducing three to two.
I want to know why that regimental proposal was not accepted instead of having it brushed aside by some person or persons at the top. This commission apparently spent some time at some places in New Brunswick, but I am told they did not spend any time in Nova Scotia. They probably could not find one of those places in Nova Scotia to which my hon. friend referred in New Brunswick. I am advised by the officers commanding these battalions, as well as the other officers, that none of them ever saw this commission or any of the three generals concerned. In fact they never heard of them and did not know they were there except that at Camp Utopia there was a casual conversation about them. That was all they knew about it.
I want to impress upon the minister that our quarrel is not with this reduction from
Supply-National Defence three to two, but is with how the reduction was effected. The minister says that ten regiments in Canada have lost their identity, or 13 as three of them went into another branch of the service. I should like to know the names of the ten, and how many of them had service overseas in the second or the first war. Our information, right or wrong, is that the only ones which had service overseas which have lost their identity were those in the maritime provinces, one in New Brunswick and two in Nova Scotia, and possibly there might be two others in all the rest of Canada.
That information may be wrong, as it is most difficult to get such information. It is unpleasant for any officer associated with the reserve army-I am not suggesting for a moment that any active officers had anything to do with it-to give out information of this kind. The minister says there was only one in Nova Scotia that was reduced, but I say there were three. I suppose you can say there are two left but, as the hon. member for Saint John-Albert said, we lost the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, we lost the Cape Breton Highlanders and we lost the Pictou County Highlanders. Now we have the first battalion (Nova Scotia), and that is in brackets, in fact very small brackets just like the Union Jack in the South African flag. You need a microscope to find it. As the hon. member for Saint John-Albert said, the brackets soon disappeared.
Why should the regimental proposal not be accepted in relation to what is called a regimental team? The minister says there is a provincial tradition. My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre says perhaps there is a historian in the Department of National Defence. I have sometimes thought the hon. member for Twillingate and I were the only historians in the house, but perhaps we have one in the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not mind my interrupting, just to correct the pronunciation of Twillingate.


George Clyde Nowlan: After you get that ferry in Newfoundland you can make the second discovery of it. But I find now to my surprise-[DOT] and my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre showed me a history of the regiments of Canada-that there was a Nova Scotia regiment way back around 1750. Apparently the historian is trying to make us feel good by making us adopt his old historical names.
There are various regiments all over the province, but there is no provincial tradition attached to any one regiment. To call it the Nova Scotia regiment does not meet
5544	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence any purpose whatsoever. Therefore I suggest again that I should like an explanation from the minister, and I am not blaming the minister for this at all if it was instituted before he took over this department. Many protests have come in and I think they have been dealt with at other levels, but it is time for the minister to deal with them at the ministerial level. You have a ridiculous situation where to make people feel good you let them wear a uniform. You say, "We will adopt another uniform. If you cannot decide on that, we will decide on it". You get a situation where you destroy the esprit de corps. Perhaps the minister can clear this up tonight. If they have not been discriminated against and this has happened to every battalion, let us be told that.
The officers who were commanding these battalions said the difference between what the national defence department wants them to do and what they want to do is that the national defence department wants to disband all existing units and start off with two new units, with new names and new badges. The officers propose retaining the present unit, with the badges of two of the battalions and the tartan of the third. It would seem to me that this is a reasonable proposal. We feel that the department's proposal abandons all the traditions of these three battalions. On the other hand the regimental proposal maintains all these traditions whilst meeting the requirement to which the minister referred a moment ago, of having only two battalions. That is their suggestion, and the minister can perhaps prove them wrong.
I shall not speak longer on this subject.
I am looking for information, not trying to create a forum where we can declaim about the traditions and the pride of these three battalions. But we want to get more information from the minister before this item finally carries.


Thomas Miller Bell: Before the minister replies to the questions asked by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, I should like to make two points I did not make clear earlier. First,
I did not want to indicate any sort of partisanship in the sense of political parties, in my complaint against the different messes.
I simply meant to indicate that the larger units, which have been in existence for many years, in Montreal and Toronto have people who are active in the city and have traditions that go away back. Their fathers, grandfathers and so on were in those units, and if anything had been done to them there would have been quite a hue and cry.
I think everybody will admit that in our case we have had the names of our regiments changed so many times since the


Boer war that if your father or grandfather was in one of them, it was a different regiment even though it had a local connection. So there is not the same continuity of history and background at all in our part of the country. If the minister expected that there would be any great outcry from an organized, powerful group over the loss of identity of any of these regiments, he would really be mistaken. The names have been changed so recently that there is perhaps not the same objection to it.
Second, the minister perhaps inadvertently gave a clue to the point we are trying to get home when he said there were ten losses of identity in Canada among the regiments. I believe there were 13 reductions. Our point in New Brunswick, particularly, is that the loss of the names of the regiments is so unnecessary. I myself think today that the officers of the reserve army in the province are probably quite satisfied with the new set-up as regards the location, the new training plans, etc. But we have unnecessarily lost the names of our old regiments.
When he was reporting the fact that there were ten losses of identity in Canada, the minister came to the maritimes and said there was one in New Brunswick and one in Nova Scotia, and then he added "in part". That is the key to the whole thing. We have lost three units in New Brunswick, as far as their names are concerned. It is the same in Nova Scotia. There are eight other changes in Canada. I wish the minister would correct me on this if I am wrong, because that is the whole point of our argument. There were eight other losses of names in Canada besides those in the maritimes, and under this new plan we have lost six. That is my point, Mr. Chairman, and when the minister answers the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings perhaps he could answer that.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I take it you are referring to the names of units, and not to units as such.


Thomas Miller Bell: The identity of the units as applied to their names.


Gordon Minto Churchill: While the minister is ascertaining that information, may I say on the same point that this is a very interesting evening, in that emphasis has been so effectively placed upon the importance of tradition in the army by the two hon. members who have recently spoken, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. After hearing the remarks of those two members I think the minister and his officials will be very careful in the future with regard to interfering with the traditions of units within the forces.

Tradition means much more to service people than some have imagined. Tonight we have had that emphasis very properly placed.
I think part of the trouble has arisen because the report of the commission, which I think was received by the department in January, was not announced to the press until after the House of Commons rose last year, and the fact that the question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert was not answered while the house was in session. We were waiting all last session to hear the report on the reorganization of the militia, but it was delayed.
Some of those who have spoken here tonight have suggested that the present minister bears no responsibility. But it occurs to me that he was associate minister of national defence, and perhaps this was the very section of the Department of National Defence that came under his supervision. It would be extremely interesting if that turned out to be the case.
I think we all recognize that reorganization of the militia units in Canada has taken place frequently ever since confederation and is occasionally censured; but when that reorganization takes place, greater attention should be paid to the tradition of the units concerned. The historical members of the house who have been named tonight-and who I think are rather fragile reeds on whom to lean- might direct their attention to the book "Canada's Soldiers, 1604 to 1954" by Lieutenant Colonel Stanley to which 1 have referred previously. There they will get a history of the Canadian militia. I recommend it to the Department of National Defence.
There you will find that Colonel Stanley says that in the various reorganizations which have taken place in the Canadian militia, attention has not been paid to tradition. We would find our present militia regiment battle honours extending much further back than they do had earlier reorganization been done carefully. It is still not too late for someone interested in the project to link the present militia regiments with Canada's past history in so far as the militia is concerned. It is indeed a glorious history of service and sacrifice for this country.
I have one other point to make. The minister said that in this reorganization that has recently taken place people appeared to be satisfied, that they had had no serious complaints, and so on. The minister surely is familiar with the chain of command in the army. It is extremely difficult to get a complaint to the minister. Suppose a lieutenant, a captain or a major is dissatisfied with what is happening to his battalion or his regiment.
Supply-National Defence How in the world is he ever going to get word to the Minister of National Defence? He must go through the chain of command. His colonel must approve of any complaint that goes forward. Then it has to go to the brigadier, to militia headquarters or something like that; and of course it ends up in the waste paper basket, or the man who wants to make a complaint is even eased out of the service. The Minister of National Defence is completely insulated in so far as hearing reports from the militia is concerned.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is why we are trying to break through and get the minister's attention.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It will take a supersonic plane to pierce the barrier and get through to the Minister of National Defence. You just cannot get through. Consequently he will never hear anything about it and will be able to tell us in the house that everything is all right, that no complaints have been received.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is what the hon. gentleman thinks.


Mr. Montgomery:: A great many more think the same thing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is only because of freedom of speech in parliament here that the opportunity is given to bring complaints of this nature to the ear of the Minister of National Defence. I felt handicapped when I was in the militia, just about a year ago, and I did not even speak about the militia here in the house. I did not want to run afoul of the general commanding out in the district around Winnipeg. My unit might have suffered. Eventually we parted friends, however.
Nevertheless, that is the real difficulty. Unless matters of this kind are brought to the attention of the minister he will never hear of them. Consequently if he will now proceed with his answers to the questions raised by the two members from the maritimes, I think we will get the desired information. It will then go out to those who are so greatly concerned with regard to the reorganization of the militia. Unless the matter is explained by the minister and is given consideration by him it will cause a bit of trouble within militia units across the country, including those that have been compelled to disband and those that fear being dealt with in the same way.
Will the minister now reassure the regiments across the country that if any further changes are to be made, full attention will be paid to the tradition and the origin of those regiments?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Clyde Nowlan: Oh, no; it is not carried.

Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: As to the information the hon. member requested, namely the names of the ten units disbanded and the information as to which of those units had been overseas in the last war, may I say that I am waiting for it. It is being prepared, but I do not have it here at the moment.


George Clyde Nowlan: When the minister is dealing with the matter a little later on, either tonight or at some other time, will he tell the committee why the so-called regimental proposal was rejected in favour of the command proposal, when they both achieve the same result? I refer to the getting of the two battalions, but in one case maintaining all the very best that could be preserved all through and in the other case scrapping everything. I think the minister should give his explanation as to why that was done, for the benefit not only of the committee and of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough who raised the same matter, but of everyone who is interested.


John Borden Hamilton: We have heard about the investigation that was made by the three officers before their findings were put into effect, wiping out the identity of some of these regiments. I wonder whether the minister might inform the house what type of investigation they carried out. That is, will he tell us where they held their meetings, whether they did the investigating here in Ottawa in an office in front of a blackboard or whether they visited the various areas concerned, to whom they talked, and whether they gave an opportunity for the various people interested in those militia units to appear before them and discuss the situation before their findings were made known to the department?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot give my hon. friend the details of the trips and investigations made by the committee. I know they spent several months, most of it in travelling from one side of Canada to the other. I cannot say that they visited every unit or the site of every unit, but I can say that they made a comprehensive survey having been thoroughly briefed before they started and having a good deal of background knowledge of their own with respect to the different areas, the different regiments and the different units.
I can say that it was a thorough and detailed investigation. I cannot go beyond that into a day by day description of where they went and what they did.


John Borden Hamilton: In the preamble to the report there must be some record of the places they visited and the number of people whom they interviewed, and something to show whether they called witnesses 

at all in connection with the survey with regard to any individual city or locality in which they held the hearings.


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is a fairly substantial volume of minutes, observations and data on what they did and where they went. I do not have any of that material here, but what I said generally was based on what I have seen in the report. I think that is a fair summation of the activities of the committee.


Thomas Miller Bell: There is one other question I should like to have answered, in addition to the statement the minister is going to make later about the report itself and the training of the units, along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. After the original announcement was made of the reorganization plans as outlined in the Kennedy report, in other words after all the units were renamed, redesignated and reduced in the way it was done, were there any other units which applied or wrote to the department or lobbied and received further consideration as far as names or amalgamations were concerned? Was the plan outlined in the report carried out exactly, or were there one or two further changes made in Quebec or Ontario along the lines of the changes requested by the maritime units?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There were some representations made by some units. It is my recollection that although representations were made, it was a good while before there were any from Nova Scotia or the maritimes generally. I recall one case in Alberta, one in Ontario, and there may have been one or two others, where representations were made and where the local military people got together and worked a compromise which was acceptable to the department. But there were very few such cases. I can think of only two at the moment.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister says there were no representations made by the maritime units. There was considerable correspondence, if that can be looked upon as being representations.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Not, I think, for a very considerable time. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have correspondence of July, 1954. I am sure the minister and the Minister of Labour both got letters at that time. That was just after the announcement was made.
I remember that the units were at camp in the first week of July of 1954 when the announcement of the implementation of the report was made. I hope the minister will reinvestigate the matter, make a further

statement, if possible, and perhaps try to get together with some of the unit commanders to see if something can be done. We certainly feel that the names of our units are going to be discarded unnecessarily because of red tape. It has been admitted by the minister that two concessions at least were made in Ontario and Quebec after the original announcement, and if that was done we certainly feel that we are also entitled to some concession.
Tha Deputy Chairman: Is there anything furtiier under army, militia?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I believe the administration of armouries comes under this particular heading, and I should like to ask the minister a question concerning the use of armouries for general community purposes. More recently, as new armouries have been constructed in Canada, emphasis has been placed on designing them in such a way that they can be used for general community purposes. If that is the case, I should like to ask the minister on what terms are these armouries made available for such purposes?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The disposition of armouries for civilian use in the community rests with the G.O.C. of the district. Where it is a local, community, non-profit effort we collect no rent. We insist that the place be kept clean and tidy, that any expenses necessary for that purpose be met, and usually that fire insurance be placed on the building for the period during which it is being used. Inasmuch as these armouries are primarily built for military purposes, we are anxious to limit other use to community purposes. For noncommunity profit-making uses, we would make a substantial charge.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I should like to place a
specific example before the minister. Would he consider a flower show by a horticultural society a legitimate community effort open to the concessions he has outlined?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would not like to express an opinion on the case the hon. member has put forward, because there would be other facts that would have to be known. If it was a local institution which the whole community was supporting and there was no thought of some party or parties making a profit, it would seem to me it might come within that category. On the other hand, a flower show might be held with the idea of making some profit and with only a very small section of the community having any interest in it. In that case I think the G.O.C. would have to look at the matter.
Supply-National Defence
Each case that arises-and we have quite a number of them-has to be looked at sensibly on its merits. On the one hand we do not want to encourage the use of armouries for private, money-making purposes. And we must keep them available for such military needs as require to be met. But I think generally speaking we get on pretty well with the people who wish to use the armouries for community purposes, and we try to be cooperative and work with them.


Mr. Herridge:: I was interested in what the previous speaker had to say on this item, and I want to make a few comments. The newer armouries that have been built in recent years are of a good type and design. They are of excellent construction, are spacious and permit exercises under cover and things of that sort. In some communities there are excellent corps of naval cadets, army cadets and air cadets, and a great deal of interest is shown by some people in building up these organizations. I know that in my own district those responsible are entitled to a great deal of credit for what they have done.
The armouries come under the entire jurisdiction of the unit commander in the area, of course. I have noticed that in some cases there are many nights when the armouries are not used. What is the policy of the department with respect to making the armouries available to naval cadets, army cadets or air cadets when they are not being used by the militia in the district concerned? I think everything should be done to assist these other groups and provide this service. There is a janitor on hand at these armouries, and they have to be maintained and heated in the winter at considerable cost.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As the hon. member will know, the various cadet corps are sponsored by local committees, and one of the duties of these committees is to see that the corps have some suitable place in which to meet. However, I think it is fairly generally recognized that at many points there are not suitable places where these cadet corps may meet, except in armouries. The tendency has been-and in my view properly so-to use the armouries for cadet training, when this can be done without interfering with militia training.
Mr. Pallet!: Can the minister tell me how many are on strength in the militia forces of Canada at the present time? How many officers and men are on strength at this time, and how many attended summer camp last summer?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have not the breakdown as between officers and other ranks, but as
5548	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence of April 20 this year the total effective strength of both officers and men was 45,828, and 16,500 attended camp last year.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I would like to ask a further question about attendance at summer camp. Does the government obtain a reduced rate from the railways for the carrying of reserve militia to summer camps across the country?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, we have a reduced travel rate for military personnel, and this includes members of the militia when on duty.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have been disappointed that we have had no reply from the minister to statements which have been made, notably by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in the matter of tanks. I think the only recourse is for me to make a speech on it, myself, which I would like to spare the minister, or to ask him some questions arising out of what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
Does the minister agree that in the present state of our equipment and our tactical thinking, in the event of having to put forces in the field the situation would now be that unprotected infantry would be expected to go against machine guns in the field, as happened in the last two wars?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that we have two armoured regiments of three squadrons each. We have six armoured squadrons which work with our brigade groups. As I said before the dinner adjournment this evening, the composition of the brigade group represents the reasoned result of studies and assessments made by our experts in those fields. I also said we are quite cognizant of the fact that weapons, establishments and formations are changing, and probably will continue to change even more rapidly. Studies are being made of the various arms of the services. A very extensive study is being made of ground forces and the appropriate disposition and size of formations, by NATO, by the United States and by Great Britain, and we are following those studies. We are also making independent studies.
But one does not change policy hastily. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is the very able exponent of a point of view.
I am not disparaging his point of view, but I do say that what he has said is not the whole story. One must assess the larger picture and correlate the various arms of the services, having in mind their importance. That is- what ; we are endeavouring to do, and what 

we will keep on doing, because there is no finality in these things. They are always changing. However, changes should be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
I think that is the only way the basic question can be handled. One cannot say, "We are going to scrap all this, and have a lot more of that." One cannot do that unless he is very sure that that is the thing to do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not quarrel with the generalities the minister has just enunciated. Nevertheless what we are asking is that we be allowed to see behind the curtain. I am sure what the minister has said is sensible, and represents the facts as he sees them.
No question of security arises; we are just asking that the curtain be drawn aside so we may be allowed to see what the thinking is. We do not want just to be told that questions are being thought about.
That is why I have been disappointed when the minister appears to content himself with these genei-alities. It would seem that the only way to get information is to ask definite questions. I am not a technician, and it is not an answer to me when the minister makes general references to the brigade groups. I am asking a question bearing on the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who, I am sure, is well informed on the subject.
I think the minister can answer that question I asked, because I was staggered today [DOT]-perhaps in my ignorance-when I heard what the situation is. Does he agree that if we had to put a force in the field our infantry might well be in the lamentable position of infantry in the first world war and, I understand, in the second, of having to go unprotected against machine guns? We know the result of that.
I have asked a simple question, and I think I should have an answer to it. What the hon. member said shocked me as I am sure it shocked a lot of other people, and we should have an answer.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not know just what the hon. member means by "unprotected". No man is wholly protected in battle. Men could only go into battle with the proper protection in the light of circumstances of today, so far as we know the battle pattern.
I cannot say more than that. No one wants to send troops into action until they are adequately prepared and protected, but there is a great difference of opinion as to what degree there should be of any particular type of protection.
I am not going to express any detailed opinion on these Various matters, because

they are very technical and very serious. I am not going to express any snap view as to whether one type of protection is better than another; because, after all, there is a great deal of technical knowledge involved in the consideration of all these things.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, no, that is not any good.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, that is all I am going to say.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope the minister will not stick to that, because I do not think it is fair to do so. He should not treat us like children. These generalities-


Ralph Osborne Campney: And I don't think it is fair to the committee for a member to ask such questions as you are pressing, either. So maybe we will just disagree.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps we may be able to come nearer together because I think the minister can, if he will, give us a statement of the position which would be satisfactory. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, as I understood him this morning-and the minister may correct me if I am wrong- said that as things stand, we have not undertaken to move all our men in armoured vehicles, and that we would have a considerable number-I do not know how many-who would have to go the old and painfully dangerous way with which we are all familiar.
I think, again, that it is fair to ask the minister-certainly I hope it is-the question I have asked him, and that he ought not to be content, as apparently he has been up to now, merely to tell us that these are problems which are being thought about. We
Supply-National Defence want to know what is being thought about at the moment, because after all they are our problems.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Before calling it ten o'clock may I say this. I do not want to intervene in the course of this discussion any more than is necessary for the benefit of the committee as a whole, but it was generally agreed that this part of the estimates would be discussed under the various subheadings. The subject of Canadian army, regular and general, was, I think by unanimous consent, considered completed at about twenty minutes past eight. At the present time our discussion really is supposed to be on the Canadian army, militia and C.O.T.C. I mention this because I think we all realize that members come in and out of the chamber during the course of a discussion and sometimes do not know what has gone on. It is not like our regular numbered resolutions where there is something before the committee to show at what stage of the discussion we are.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall begin by considering the suggested changes in the rules. The report being unanimous, it may be that the discussion will not be very long. I should hope it would not be, but in any event we shall not go beyond one o'clock with that discussion. We shall begin in the afternoon with public works and take justice afterwards.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes past ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
-350
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 1, 1955