1956-06-20

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that after careful consideration the government came to the conclusion that we should recognize the emergence to independent status of Tunisia and Morocco. I dispatched last night messages of felicitations and good wishes to the prime ministers of these two new independent states. I should like to lay on the table copies of those messages.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask if that indicates that the government contemplates the exchange of diplomatic representatives?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this time. It was merely a recognition of the fact that these two new states have now independent status.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 83-Mr. Reinke:
For a written copy of all C.B.C. news telecasts and radio news broadcasts, referring to the proceedings in the House of Commons and the Senate, during the period from May 8, 1956 to June 8, 1956.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister extend an invitation to the other commonwealth prime ministers meeting in London to attend a conference in Ottawa later this year to discuss trade and economic relationships within the commonwealth?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is apt to be a discussion of the question as to whether the prime ministers' conference should continue always to be held in London or whether there should be a change made
67509-330i
in that respect. No consideration has been given to the calling of a special conference of commonwealth representatives to discuss economic problems. It may be a question that will arise in the course of our discussions and if it does I shall be glad to report to the house when I return.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the statement has been made that this conference is not to cover trade and economic questions, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will raise this question and seek the concurrence of the prime ministers of the other commonwealth countries in a conference to discuss these vitally important questions?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The questions are certainly important, but very serious consideration will have to be given to the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRITISH COLUMBIA    INQUIRY AS TO ROUTE BETWEEN MOUNT EISENHOWER AND REVELSTOKE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the general public interest in British Columbia in the route to be followed by the trans-Canada highway between Mount Eisenhower and Revelstoke, can the minister inform the house whether he has received word of a final decision in this respect from the minister of highways for British Columbia?


Hon. Roberl H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in a letter dated June 12 the minister of highways of British Columbia submitted a new schedule A which defined that part of the route as proceeding from the west boundary of Yoho park, approximately 17 miles east of Golden, then northwesterly following the Columbia river basin to Beaver river, thence in a southwesterly direction to the east boundary of Glacier national park, thence southwesterly through the said park to the east boundary thereof-that I understand to be the west boundary, but the letter says "east boundary" -thence continuing westerly to the east boundary of Revelstoke park, thence either

Inquiries of the Ministry through the park or south of the park to Revelstoke. That, I understand, Mr. Speaker, is the Rogers pass.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Fraser (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I have given him notice. In view of a recent item in the St. John's Daily News which indicates a possibility of the extension of unemployment insurance coverage to Canadian, including, of course, Newfoundland, workers directly employed by the United States government on the United States bases in Newfoundland, can the minister now give the house any further information on this subject?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: For quite a long time members from Newfoundland have brought to my attention the importance of this matter. That also applies to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. We have spent a long time trying to get something done about it, and I am glad to be able to report that something has been done, which is as follows: Arrangements have now been concluded with the United States government for the insuring of all Canadian civilian personnel employed in Canada by the United States armed forces commencing July 1, 1956. Under the agreement, the expression "Canadian employees" of the United States armed forces includes all residents of Canada whether or not they are Canadian citizens, provided they are not insured under any unemployment insurance law of the United States in respect of the same employment. We are already in touch with the appropriate officers of the United States armed forces and have supplied them with full information and instructions with regard to registration and payment of contributions.
I should point out, as is indicated in my statement, that this applies to all parts of Canada as well as to Newfoundland and I should like to acknowledge the good cooperation of the department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in helping to bring this about.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he can tell me whether it has been

decided to discontinue the services of firefighting personnel at No. 37 ordnance ammunition depot at Kamloops? If so, can the minister give the assurance that implementation of this decision will be held up so that the whole matter can be reviewed while representations that have been made and the safety of the residents of the area concerned are further considered?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for mentioning this matter to me a day or two ago. I have looked into the situation and according to the advice I have received there is a permanent staff of five civilian watchmen at No. 37 ammunition depot at Kamloops. They are all well trained in fire prevention methods as laid down by the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps regulations. In addition, of course, the navy has a fire-fighting detachment on the other side of Kamloops which is on duty in three shifts 24 hours a day and is therefore always available.
I think probably what the hon. member refers to is that recently there was a fairly large amount of ammunition supplies being transferred to the depot at Rayleigh. A number of civilians were engaged on a temporary basis to assist in this movement and to ensure safe handling. They were classified as watchmen or firefighters. When the transfer was complete they were released. An on the spot survey was made by the army establishment committee who were satisfied that the permanent staff of five civilian watchmen at No. 37 depot is adequate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence a supplementary question. Can the minister tell me whether the magazines of the former No. 37 depot are to be left empty and whether all the ammunition has been transferred to Rayleigh, or am I right in my understanding now that large quantities of ammunition are to remain in storage in the magazines at the former depot? It is on that basis that the information came to me and my question was asked. I understand that the residents of the area are concerned because it appears that the ammunition will be left in storage with a very skeleton, and what is regarded as a most inadequate, fire guard.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I said in answering the first question asked by the hon. member, the situation has already been reviewed. As it is now, it is my understanding that some ammunition will remain in No. 37 depot. It is also my understanding that after reviewing all the circumstances the

establishment committee felt that five trained watchmen in charge of No. 37 depot were adequate.


INQUIRY AS TO SALE TO DISTRIBUTORS IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe asked a question of the Prime Minister. The question is as follows: ... I should like to ask the Prime Minister if a large quantity of 1955 surplus butter has been sold to large distributors in Canada at much less than the cost price to the government.
The Prime Minister at that time said a reply would be forthcoming and I would like to make a short statement on this subject.
The agricultural prices support board has followed their usual procedure of replacing part of their butter inventory at May 1 with butter of current make. This has been done annually for several years and although the amount sold is an average amount, it is somewhat larger than that sold last year.
All purchasers of government-owned butter during the past winter were given an opportunity to purchase 1955 butter and over 40 creameries and distributors across Canada did so.
A reduction of 2 cents per pound from the purchase price was necessary to cover costs of making this butter available to the retail trade in consumer-sized packages.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture how many pounds of butter were sold at 2 cents less per pound?


Robert McCubbin: Mr. Speaker, in the neighbourhood of 25 million pounds.


William Earl Rowe: Will the benefit of the 2 cents per pound less than the original cost price be passed on to the consumer, to say nothing of the storage charges? Have you any assurance of that?


Robert McCubbin: I hope so.


William Earl Rowe: You hope so but you cannot give any assurance of that.


INQUIRY AS TO REGULATIONS RESPECTING SALE TO DISTRIBUTORS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, referring to the sale of 25 million pounds of 1955 butter from storage, can the parliamentary assistant say whether there is
Inquiries of the Ministry any requirement upon the retail trade, in selling that butter, to indicate that it is 1955 butter? Is there any difference in quality between 1955 butter and fresh butter?


Robert McCubbin: Mr. Speaker, there certainly is a difference, as fresh butter is always a little better than butter which has been made for a year. We have followed this policy for several years of changing old butter for new. It costs money to take a 56-pound box of butter and remake it into pound prints, and the cost will be over 58 cents before it is ready to sell to the trade.


Daniel Roland Michener: My question was whether there was any requirement upon the trade to indicate that this butter is 1955 storage butter and not fresh butter?


Robert McCubbin: I understand there is, yes.


Daniel Roland Michener: Must the packages be
marked as such?


Robert McCubbin: It is rather difficult for me to go into that. I do not wish to enter into a discussion of what are the trade practices of different stores, but there is no doubt that a reputable store is not going to sell fresh butter for older butter.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Knowles:: You had "butter" restate that.


Daniel Roland Michener: I am sure they will do the opposite. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant should take this as notice and let us know tomorrow how it is being sold.


INQUIRY AS TO POSITION WITH RESPECT TO QUOTAS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister now in a position to say what proportion of grain delivery points will be on a 6-bushel quota by the end of this month, which is now only 10 days away? Further, what maximum quota will be in effect during the month of July?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would want notice of that question. A forecast for 10 days from now is quite a forecast. A move is being made to open up the 8-bushel quota. One railroad is well ahead of the other in grain movement; the Canadian National have

Inquiries of the Ministry moved a greater proportion of grain from its lines than has the Canadian Pacific. In order to keep both railroads busy and to equalize delivery opportunities some opening up of delivery points is going to be made; that is, points on the Canadian National will be made available to producers on the Canadian Pacific where less favourable delivery opportunities exist. The 8-bushel quota is to be opened up at certain points. Deliveries as a whole are well ahead of last year as of this date. I would assume that by August 1 there will be an average delivery of around 8 bushels but whether all points can be brought up to the 8-bushel quota is questionable.


HEALTH INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister anything further to report in the matter of replies from the provinces with respect to the federal government's proposals for hospital insurance? Has he heard from any other province than British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) asked me a similar question the other day and I indicated the provinces that had already accepted the proposal made by the federal government. I indicated also that I had hopes that the other provinces would be able to give an expression of their views as quickly as possible. I am glad my hon. friend shares the view of the government that there should be no unnecessary delay in this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you have been delaying for 37 years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has just said, that three provinces have accepted the proposals, may I point out that in answering a similar question two days ago he said that they had accepted in principle. Are we to infer from that that there has been some further communication?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, there has been no further communication and there is no need for my explaining what I said because the three provinces in question have accepted the proposal put forward by the federal government for a scheme of hospital insurance in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In full detail? Is that the meaning of what the minister said?


Mr. Marlin:: If there is anything my hon. friend can do to hasten action by the other provinces I hope he will do it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What does "acceptance in principle" mean?

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
235. 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 $143,000,000, 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 are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $3,470,423,461 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,675,484,744 will come due for payment in future years), $1,722,797,717.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In this committee each year it is our serious responsibility to concern ourselves with the proper level and disposition of Canada's defence program, but before proceeding with that task this afternoon I feel we might pause a few moments to remember that our defence depends in the final analysis on the Canadian serviceman individually and on his resolution and courage. In this one-hundredth year since the Victoria Cross was instituted, I know that the thoughts of Canadians everywhere will be with the holders of the coveted decoration and their immediate relatives as they now journey from Canada to England to take part in the centennial celebrations.
We are proud that two distinguished members of this house, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and the hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), are numbered among this valiant company. They leave, I believe, tomorrow morning for England to attend the Victoria Cross centenary, and I am sure that every member of this committee will join me in wishing godspeed to them and to all other Canadian holders of the Victoria Cross who are journeying to England upon this important occasion.
A year ago, when I opened my remarks on the defence estimates, I did so by referring to the profound effect that nuclear weapons and

fast, far-ranging jet bombers to carry them were having on all our thinking about defence. This, again, must be my opening thought today.
It is now 11 years since the first atomic explosion marked a new departure in warfare-more startling perhaps than any other since gunpowder first came into use some 700 years ago. And then, almost before we could begin fully to comprehend the terrifying possibilities of atomic weapons, the H-bomb added a vastly more far-reaching formidable dimension of terror and destruction -so comprehensive indeed that we cannot yet begin to assess its full magnitude.
No simple, clear-cut, complete answer to the defence problem thus poised has yet been found; and, frankly, as far as I can see, none is yet in sight. Is it any wonder, then, that throughout the free world there is dispute and controversy as to how this problem can be resolved? Is it any wonder that protagonists of this view or that, of this service or that service, of this defence element or that defence element, are so eagerly and at times vociferously projecting their particular views on a confused and worried public?
This active preoccupation with finding answers to the new weapons may ultimately bring us to the point where defence catches up with the offensive, which is now so far out in front in the race. I suppose that, if this balance is redressed, as it has been from time to time over the years in the past, war must then become an even less attractive adventure to aggressively-minded nations than it is today.
No nation ever wants to risk defeat; and that revulsion is made so much the stronger by awareness of how terrible defeat in thermonuclear war could be. And yet the threat of war continues. As long as this is true, our best hope is, undoubtedly, in the maintenance of a strong compelling deterrent. Primarily, of course, this deterrent at present is based on the strategic air force of the United States, now being augmented by that of Great Britain. But, to be effective, such strategic air forces must be supplemented by warning lines to enable their retaliatory planes to get off the ground immediately an attack is launched on the free world anywhere. They must also be supplemented by fighter air power to blunt the edge of the thermonuclear attack. They must also be again supplemented by well trained, efficient ground forces to form a shield to prevent Europe being suddenly overrun by ground forces of an aggressor. All these factors are just as much part of the deterrent as the thermonuclear retaliatory forces themselves.
Supply-National Defence
To maintain the deterrent power of the free nations will not be an easy task, essential though it is to our survival. Paradoxically, as the existence of the deterrent continues to protect the peace, the continuance of that peace itself may tend to soften up the very deterrent force on which it depends, for it tends to give credibility to smiling assurances and friendly, folksy visits, all propagating the view that the day of world brotherhood has dawned at last, and suggesting that we can now safely set aside our defence programs, with their heavy costs, and concentrate on the much more pleasant task of raising our material standard of life.
To thus relax our defence effort might be an inviting policy for the free nations, but it would be a very dangerous policy. We would be foolish indeed to neglect those defensive measures that have created the deterrent that has so far kept us all safe from a major war. Rather, we should, I think, make sure that those defensive measures are kept bright and strong.
Our opponents have a very keen understanding and appreciation of the importance of strength. This we have reason to know. They also have perhaps a better understanding than we of the subtle, insinuating effects of persuasive propaganda. If we must sup with the Kremlin, we should always be careful to use a very long spoon.
Today I should like briefly to touch on a few of the more notable ways in which Canada is building and maintaining a defence effort that is really out of all proportion to our status as a middle power. Hon. members have in their hands the white paper in which Canada's defence program is spelled out in greater detail than I could hope to do in the time at my disposal today. My main purpose today, therefore, is to supplement what is in the white paper by drawing attention to some of its highlights, and by telling hon. members something of the changes taking place in our own defence system. In the discussions to follow, hon. members' questions will, I hope, enable me to give a more complete picture of that program, and their suggestions will as always, I can assure them, receive not only my own consideration but that of my service advisers.
Change has been operative in many fields of defence activity in Canada, but particularly so in our air defence arrangements. Arising from continuing reassessment of Canada's part in the joint United States-Canada air defence program, I can today

Supply-National Defence announce two major developments: the reorganization of our auxiliary air force and an increase in the number of our regular interceptor squadrons.
Last year I drew the attention of hon. members to the studies being undertaken by the Royal Canadian Air Force to determine whether it was practicable to expect the part time air crew of the Royal Canadian Air Force auxiliary, however skilled and devoted, to operate all-weather jet interceptors of the complexity of the CF-100 in the role of air defence. This important question, in relation to the over-all problem of air defence generally, has continued to receive thorough reassessment by the Royal Canadian Air Force in the light of the thermonuclear air threat to this country.
This threat is such that defending forces must be able to operate in all conditions of weather by day or by night, must be on immediate alert status, and be trained to a very high standard of proficiency; and must, in peacetime, be deployed at their war stations. Our experience now forces us to the conclusion that these conditions are far too exacting to impose on auxiliary forces who are engaged on their civilian duties throughout the week and whose flying therefore is limited mainly to week ends. Consequently, the ten auxiliary squadrons that were to have been re-equipped with CF-100 all-weather fighters will no longer comprise part of the first line forces in the North American air defence system.
Other highly important duties will be assigned to these auxiliary squadrons, the personnel of which have constituted such a useful and active reserve force to the Royal Canadian Air Force. Six of these squadrons will be re-equipped with Sabre day fighter aircraft and T-33 jet trainers, and their personnel will progress from the T-33 to mastery of the Sabre jet. These six squadrons will continue to operate in pairs on the established Royal Canadian Air Force bases at Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, and will constitute an effective and economical means of providing a reserve of fighter air crew, ground crew and aircraft, at a minimum of overhead cost.
The squadron at Calgary will become a light transport auxiliary squadron, while the flying squadron at Winnipeg, backed by facilities of the regular force navigation school located there, will undertake the task of providing a reserve of trained air navigators. The auxiliary squadron at London will become an aircraft control and warning squadron and thus provide an important augmentation to the trained reserve manpower required for the air defence control
[Mr. Campney.l
system. Finally, at Hamilton, already the home of a very good aircraft control and warning squadron as well as other auxiliary air force units, the auxiliary flying squadron will not be continued, and personnel will be able to concentrate on these other important auxiliary roles. This decision, made with some reluctance, has been influenced by the fact that to support this flying squadron a costly air force base has had to be maintained.
The conditions that have brought about the withdrawal of these auxiliary flying squadrons from the first line air defence force necessitates increases in the regular force units assigned to this role in Canada. Accordingly, I can now announce that steps will be taken to establish, over a period of time, three new all-weather interceptor squadrons equipped with CF-100 aircraft. This increase, with the 12 squadrons in Europe, will bring to 24 the number of regular force fighter squadrons. The size and composition of Canada's contribution to the continental air defence system continues, of course, to be under review.
Towards the end of this year we will replace one of our Sabre squadrons in Europe with a squadron equipped with CF-100 allweather interceptor aircraft. And at intervals thereafter, during 1957, three more Sabre squadrons will be thus replaced. This will fulfil our undertaking to NATO to provide four squadrons of all-weather interceptors. Throughout, our commitment in Europe remains at 12 squadrons.
As for new equipment, the air force, working in conjunction with the defence research board, is making good progress with its new supersonic delta wing all-weather fighter interceptor, the CF-105, being developed by A. V. Roe, Limited which, with the very advanced and powerful PS-13 engine being designed for it, is expected to constitute a very fast and formidable fighting plane.
The development and preproduction work at Canadair Limited on the CL-28, the new maritime anti-submarine aircraft developed from the Britannia aircraft, is also proceeding very well, and the prototype is expected to fly next spring. By the production of successively improved marks, both the Sabre and the CF-100 are still, and will continue for some time to be, of their sort and for their purpose, first class and effective fighter planes.
The job of the Royal Canadian Air Force is certainly now a widely diversified one, including the interception of enemy bombers, the transport of troops and supplies, the support of anti-submarine activities and defence of shipping operations. Worthy, I think, of

special note is the fine work of the Royal Canadian Air Force air-sea rescue organization which, with the assistance of the navy and the public spirited co-operation of civilian aircraft, ship operators and others, has added another very successful year to its proud record of life saving.
The Royal Canadian Air Force is also responsible for the building of the mid-Canada line, one of the greatest construction projects ever undertaken in Canada and one that, apart altogether from its defence implications, is dramatically contributing to the opening of the great Canadian north.
The mid-Canada line and the D.E.W. line, as the committee know, will form part of a warning system anchored on the "Pinetree" stations already in operation, all linked together by a vast complex of communications. The "Pinetree" system itself is being strengthened by additional stations. On both the D.E.W. line, being built largely by Canadian contractors working for the United States air force, and the mid-Canada line, being built by Canada, admirable progress is being made. These are projects of great difficulty and magnitude-costly, but we believe worth the cost. For they will buy us time-time to get the big United States deterrent force of bombers with their nuclear weapons winging away on their missions should the need arise, time to get our defences activated, time to prepare our people for impending attack.
Another purpose of this system is to alert our sister NATO nations if the Canadian north should be chosen as the first point of any attack. It is hoped that in the near future the early warning system of North America will be linked with an early warning system in Europe, to which NATO is giving high priority, thus forming an integrated comprehensive early warning system covering the whole of the NATO area. These warning lines cannot-I want to be very frank about this-buy us absolute protection. Their searching beams are not steel barriers. In a determined attack some enemy planes would run the gamut of the defending fighters and many lives would undoubtedly be lost. But these lines will nevertheless contribute very materially to NATO air defence plans generally and to Canada-United States effectiveness in particular. In defence terms any enemy invasion of our northland is of immediate concern to every Canadian, but-and this we should not forget-I think it is of equal concern to the citizens of the United States. Realistic policy for continental air defence requires the closest co-operation between our two countries.
Let me assure the committee, there is the closest co-operation. Our defence plans are
Supply-National Defence closely integrated. Our relationship is a friendly one, founded on mutual respect and full understanding of each other's particular rights and interests, and dedicated to the defence of our common continental home against present, indisputable and continuing grave dangers.
Both of the new northern lines are rapidly approaching completion. The United States is now recruiting civilian technicians, for the most part Canadians incidentally, to assist in manning the D.E.W. line for the initial period. Recruiting and training of civilian technicians will shortly begin to assist the Royal Canadian Air Force service men, already trained, in manning the mid-Canada line.
May I turn now to the Canadian army. 1 can advise the committee that the note of change that is evident in air force plans applies with equal force to the army. Indeed, for all the services, the changing shape of our defence problem requires constant reexamination of our defence plans and organizations.
For many months a number of the most senior officers in the Canadian army have been examining the organization of field formations that would best meet Canada's needs in the light of our commitments, both present and possible, and under conditions of either so-called conventional or nuclear warfare.
The army has also been closely following recent reviews of army organization in the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other countries which are intended to take account of new weapons and conditions of war, and the army has had observers at large-scale NATO divisional tests in Europe.
It is generally accepted that, in the use of ground forces, we must work toward a greater degree of flexibility and increased mobility. In particular, practical assessments are being made by the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian army of those types of aircraft that would be most suitable for rapid deployment, supply, and support of Canada's ground forces.
As the committee knows, Canada for some time has had a mobile striking force of three battalions of infantry with supporting arms and services, largely trained as parachutists and transportable in C-119 aircraft, known as flying box cars. The established role of this force has been to deal with possible small diversionary raids in the Canadian north.
Experience gained in exercises indicates that parachuting in the Canadian north is not an entirely satisfactory way of getting troops on the ground. Accordingly, we are giving more attention to the development of
5212	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence new types of aircraft with short take-off and landing capabilities, with a view to reducing the parachute element of the mobile striking force and at the same time increasing its air-portable capacity.
This subject is still under intensive study, but it is possible that Canada's field force may be organized and trained so that any part of it may be assigned to the role which is now exclusive to the mobile striking force. In other words, the long-term aim will be to train and equip the army more and more as an air-portable force with parachute elements continued in some units.
This significant new development, which is incidentally in line with views expressed by some hon. members last year in the discussion of our estimates, is a subject of such import and involves so many subsidiary problems that the present chief of the general staff is giving-as his predecessor had done- personal direction to a careful study of the problem and all its ramifications. However- and I want to be quite frank about this- I do not want to give rise to anticipations that are impossible of fulfilment. The problems attendant on large-scale air transport and air support of army units are very great indeed.
For example, if aircraft such as the C-119 were used, apart altogether from the cost of ground facilities and air crew, but allowing for reserve aircraft, it would require 148 planes, at a cost of about $150 million, to provide a one-up lift for an army brigade without its heavy equipment.
Some hon. members may recall what General Twining, chief of the United States air forces, told the senate armed forces committee a few months ago, that, with aircraft diverted from the military air transport services, the United States air force could manage to lift one airborne division, but without its heavy equipment.
It may also have been noted that in the United Kingdom the air ministry has agreed to provide air support for the army for one specially selected and trained infantry brigade, which would be immediately ready to move to any part of the world, again without heavy equipment. So it will be seen that even in respect of armies larger than ours haste is being made cautiously and slowly.
Here in Canada we have not so far attempted to provide air transport on any one lift for more than a portion of the mobile striking force, and then only within our own country. This force has provided a good background of experience on which we can now go forward, applying lessons learned to air transport for the army generally. Certainly, the task of designing and developing


equipment suitable for air-portability is a long-term program. It requires and is getting joint consideration by our army and our air force planning groups.
For some time some hon. members have urged that increased attention be given to armour in the Canadian army. As I pointed out last year, in matters of army organization there are many factors to consider- not the least of them the emerging patterns of allied armies so that we keep in phase with them-that long and careful study must precede any change.
However, I am glad to be able now to announce to the committee that it is intended to form or activate a third armoured regiment. This, with the two regular armoured regiments now in being, will enable us to field the first Canadian infantry division with three brigade groups, each consisting of three battalions of infantry, one regiment of artillery, and one regiment of armour, with signals, engineers, and other supporting services. This conforms with the new type British infantry division and will make for flexibility of movement and provide a division, the components of which will be capable, on occasion, of independent action.
Another important new development on which the army is working is an armoured amphibious 9-ton tracked carrier. This will be an all-purpose tracked chassis adaptable to mounting field guns as well as lighter weapons, and also capable of moving 10 or 12 men across rough terrain at 20 or 30 miles an hour. It will be resistant to small arms fire and splinter, and suitable in design and weight for air transport. Interest in the development of this most useful type of multiple-purpose vehicle is being shown by our NATO allies.
In addition to the carrier, development on over-snow vehicles and Arctic clothing, and the testing and modification of vehicles and equipment for use in severe cold weather conditions, has been carried on at Fort Churchill with very considerable success.
The FN rifle, which takes the standard NATO round of ammunition, has been modified for Canadian use as a result of Canadian troop trials. The new rifle will be known as the FN-C1. Initial deliveries of this rifle from Canadian Arsenals plants are expected this year and will gradually replace the Lee Enfield -303 now in use.
The program for replacement of second world war types of wheeled vehicles by modern and standardized military pattern types has been largely completed. It may be useful to remind hon. members that the wartime Sherman tank has been replaced by the Centurion; the 2-inch mortar has been

replaced by the 60-millimetre; the 3-inch mortar has been replaced by the 81-millimetre; the 25-pounder field gun has been replaced by the 105-millimetre howitzer; and the 5-5 medium gun by the 155-millimetre gun and gun howitzer.
Personnel of the army have been trained and are continuing to take courses on rockets and guided missiles and, although we are withholding expenditures on acquiring these types of weapons until development and trials have been carried further-and I say that advisedly-we are keeping in close touch with the method of handling, the tactical use, and the employment of weapons in this field.
Indicative of armed forces' interest in the new conditions of war, the army's radiation detection unit, with navy and air force participation, has been in operation for several years. Over the past year, this unit has taken part in exercises, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom, where practical experience has been gained in detecting, marking and decontaminating areas where atomic explosions have taken place. The work of this unit will greatly enhance the ability of the Canadian armed forces to operate under conditions of nuclear warfare.
The changing emphasis in defence planning necessitated by the advent of nuclear war lays a heavy responsibility on all the armed forces, and in particular the regular army and the militia, to back up the civil defence organization in the early days of a thermonuclear war with all military forces not urgently required for their priority military roles.
To this end, a greater understanding of civil defence and civilian disaster techniques is being developed throughout the regular and reserve forces, working in even closer co-operation with the civil defence authorities.
Turning next to the Royal Canadian Navy, there is less by way of change to report this year since the navy has so recently reviewed its place in modern war, with sweeping changes in ship design, equipment and tactics. But there is every evidence that this arm of our forces will continue to have an important place in our defence planning.
We are all well aware of the tremendous size, modern design, and readiness of the Russian submarine fleet, which could be used not only to destroy shipping but also perhaps to make long-range missile attacks, using nuclear weapons, on the coastal areas of this continent. Remembering, of course, that the submarine is primarily an offensive weapon, we are continuing to improve as rapidly as possible the anti-submarine capabilities of
Supply-National Defence our fleet. To this end, we can look forward this year to the addition of about nine new operational ships to the fleet, and several supporting craft as well.
The most noteworthy of the additions to the fleet will be the commissioning of H.M.C.S. Bonaventure, a light fleet aircraft carrier of the latest design, which will replace H.M.C.S. Magnificent. The Bonaventure will be armed with the Banshee jet-fighter aircraft, which have begun to come forward, and the Canadian-made CS-2F anti-submarine aircraft. These fine modern aircraft will replace the Sea Furies and Avengers formerly in the naval service.
Other additions to the fleet will be three and possibly four destroyer escorts of the St. Laurent class, specially designed to meet the conditions of nuclear war. You will recall that the first of these ships, H.M.C.S. St. Laurent, was commissioned last autumn. Earlier this year she went down to the United States and carried out successfully a very comprehensive series of performance trials and exercises. I am pleased to say I have seen fine reports on this.
Subsequently, the St. Laurent visited the United Kingdom for the same purpose, and during this visit participated in escorting Her Majesty the Queen on her visit to Sweden. This Canadian destroyer-escort is probably the finest and most modern antisubmarine vessel in the world today.
In summary, I would emphasize that we are vigorously pursuing our policy of enhancing the anti-submarine capabilities of the Canadian navy, which is its specialized NATO role.
As I have said, Canada's defence program throughout is a changing one as each service, realistically facing up to the changed conditions of war re-evaluates its organization, training and weapons systems. This process of re-evaluation centres, of course, on the research and development program of the defence research board and of the three services. This program is designed to bring to bear on Canada's defence arrangements the latest thinking of our allies, the best intelligence of what potential enemies are doing, and the results of our own research.
Of necessity, I cannot give much detail with respect to this matter, as hon. members will I am sure realize, except to say that without duplicating what is being done elsewhere Canadian defence scientists are keeping abreast of new developments in such vital fields as guided missiles, plane and jet engine design, nuclear explosions, fall-out and antisubmarine measures.
I have noted the valuable work being done by the board on the CF-105 for the air force.

Supply-National Defence Also notable is the development by the board in Canada of an air-to-air missile know-how and handling capability.
These guided missiles, as I am sure every one realizes, are very complex devices which require a variety of special skills and techniques in a number of engineering and production fields. These did not exist in Canada up to five years ago when the missile program began. There are now, however, some hundreds of trained experts available so that Canada is in a position to carry out a selected guided missile through any or all its stages from development to production.
The pioneer work was done on the "Velvet Glove", which so far has fully come up to its original specifications. However, because a somewhat similar United States missile is of more advanced design, it has been decided not to adopt "Velvet Glove" for operational use, but to modify the "Velvet Glove" program and go into production of one of the Sparrow series for use with the CF-100 and the CF-105.
In the anti-submarine field, the board is completing the final stages of development of new submarine detection equipment for naval destroyer escorts, which will greatly increase their effectiveness. Research into other promising anti-submarine devices is also under way.
From time to time we hear suggestions that we should not push ahead with some part of our defence program but should wait a few years for something better.
In our long-term defence planning there always has to be some reasonable balance between waiting for the ideal and getting a weapon with which to fight, if called upon, immediately. World war II would possibly have been lost by the allies if the United Kingdom had waited for the jet plane and not made shift, magnificently, with Hurricanes and Spitfires. Canada must not be left undefended while waiting for weapons that might not be available for ten years.
Within the limits set by considerations of cost and time, there will always be a healthy tug-of-war between the enthusiastic designer, who looks far ahead, the practical military man who needs his weapons now and not tomorrow and the financial official who must provide the money for both. And there is, of course, no finality in matters of this kind. We must therefore proceed with imagination, but with a sense of practicability dictated by the state of world affairs and our own financial capacity.
May I now say a word or two concerning what Canada has done to support her NATO allies.


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


George Alexander Drew: It is agreed there is no time limit.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. minister unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Thank you. I might here announce that after training more than 3,800 aircrew, at a cost of $328 million to date, Canada's NATO air training program is being reviewed and probably will be adjusted downward starting in 1958.
The original plan was to provide trained pilots and navigators to build up the frontline strength of aircrew in the NATO countries. This has now been achieved and the training of aircrew for replacement purposes can now be taken over by most of the NATO nations themselves.
Besides what has been done to train NATO aircrew under Canada's mutual aid program, this program since its inception in 1950 has done much to strengthen the defences of our allies in Europe. As their own capability increases, our program of aid is being scaled downward. More and more the equipment we are supplying is from current production rather than from existing stock.
The value of mutual aid to our NATO partners now totals more than $1,274 million. This includes, as an example, the provision of more than 600 modem fighter planes and more than 1,000 aircraft engines.
I should like now, returning to the Canadian scene, to say something about manpower in which, as in some other fields of military action, Canada's role, within limits imposed by our size and productivity, has been a pioneering one; pioneering, that is, in the emphasis placed on having highly trained professional services. Until recent years, we have never in our history had standing forces in peace time in anything like the numbers we have today.
While we must always have regard to the need, we must never lose sight of what this country can afford. A balanced program in the three services and the defence research board now costs us about one and three-quarter billions of dollars a year. Few countries spend a higher percentage of their national income on defence.
In any event it is not the size or the cost of our defence forces that is the main requirement. It is the quality. I should like here to pay tribute to the evident quality of our services, of their equipment, of their morale, and to the calibre of young Canadians who are coming to us to be moulded and trained.

We should not lose sight, either, of the important and often neglected part played by 55,000 civilian men and women in the defence effort-the civilians who perform essential tasks in support of their uniformed comembers of the defence department. In the dockyards, in the magazines, in the repair depots, in the supply depots-in many varied and yet important tasks-as well as in their more routine administrative and office duties, they are doing their best to strengthen Canada's defence. They are in a very real sense part of Canada's defence force.
They are, I must say in all honesty, sometimes ignored by critics in assessments of Canada's defence effort, although they are,
I am sure we all realize, essential to its success. And, incidentally, because they have no need for military training and do not qualify for military benefits, they can do many jobs just as well but at less cost than men or women in uniform.
If in our defence program we have achieved seme successes-and these are evident to military experts who have seen our men in action in Korea or who admire their competence in NATO's war exercises-it is because of our emphasis on quality, on education, on training. It is because Canadian industry has brought ingenuity and tremendous competence to the job of making the guns and ships and planes we have asked of it. But it is, I am confident, above all because of our professional approach to our service responsibilities.
It was, I believe, Clemenceau who said that war was too serious a matter to be left to the generals. The fact is, today, that it is far too complex and too technical a matter to be left to the amateurs-only professionally trained and experienced servicemen can cope quickly with the weapons and tactics of modern war.
To meet our commitments, both in creating the deterrent and in being able to react immediately if the deterrent fails, we must provide forces in being, completely trained, equipped and immediately ready.
That is why Canada today has nearly 15 times as many forces in being as in March, 1939, while the number of our reserves has not changed substantially. In other words, our forces in being, which numbered 8,000 before world war II, now total 116,350; our reserves, at 55,000, are 1,000 more than in 1939.
I might remind the committee that NATO places great emphasis on forces in being. This has been asserted again and again by NATO leaders.
In 1939 we were quite unready for war. Today we have in full fighting trim an army
Supply-National Defence brigade and an air division in Europe and at home a mobile striking force and three infantry brigade groups in the army; an effective air defence system and other supporting units with more than 3,000 planes in the air force; and a navy with 40 fighting ships at sea and a still greater number under construction or conversion or in reserve.
Our services are well trained, well equipped, well disciplined. In character, in training and in resolution we have I believe as high a quality of serviceman as any country in the world.
As more and more the requirements of modern war tend to become interrelated, the Department of National Defence, through the co-ordinating efforts of the chairman, chiefs of staff and the joint staff organization, has brought the three services into ever closer working relationship. More than 900 officer cadets are in training at our three tri-service colleges.
It is certain that this trend towards a more unified approach to the defence problem must continue if all the services are to make their maximum contribution to the defence effort and most efficiently manage the defence systems that they are best fitted for. As we move into the use of guided missiles it is more important than ever to have the navy, army and air force in close co-operation, agreeing on their particular fields of endeavour.
As I have said, Canada on occasion pioneers in defence planning, as, for example, in manpower policy. The United Kingdom "Statement of Defence 1956" has these words: For the highly technical armed forces of the future, we require a substantial proportion of men of long service and experience.
General Maxwell D. Taylor, chief of staff of the United States army, in an interview a few months ago, also emphasized the need for a professional army when he said:
I much prefer a good army, an army in which I'm sure of every officer and man, to a bigger one of less reliability.
The U.S.S.R., by shifting emphasis from quantity to quality, also seems to be working towards more streamlined and professional forces.
For some time now Canada's armed forces, I believe, have had a higher percentage of fully trained personnel than those of most other countries. In recent years, without undue difficulty, and without lowering our selectively high standards of recruiting, we have been able to maintain our forces at about planned size, and we have been able to persuade a relatively high percentage of our recruits to make the services their career- a most important factor in the build-up of first class regular forces.
5216	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence I would not want my references to forces in being to suggest there is not an important and valuable role for the reserve forces to play. Hon. members of this committee are well aware of the value attached to service in the reserve forces-in the naval reserve, the army militia and the air force auxiliary.
It is an inspiring evidence of good citizenship that 55,000 Canadians keep abreast of military affairs by membership in the reserve forces of the three services and a quarter of a million more serve in the ground observer corps, in civil defence or as cadets.
All of these perform a significant part in providing security for Canada. All can begin to make their contribution felt within a few hours or days should war break out- a contribution that, because of their training and experience, can increase rapidly in the time following the first impact of war.
I might refer first to the militia and to the fresh start it has made since the reorganization of two years ago. Last year I said it was too early to weigh the success of the "new look" in the militia. At the present time it is abundantly evident that the militia, under its new dispensation, is operating at new levels of efficiency and of interest.
Best evidence of this is seen in the figures of attendance at summer camp. In 1954 the camp attendance of officers and men was 16,593. Last year it was 20,568-a record high. This year it is anticipated that almost
23,000	will participate-another record high.
The militia today is better trained and better equipped than ever before in the history of Canada. The armoured units now have Sherman tanks but these in due course will be replaced by a sufficient number of tanks of later design to support their training requirements. In the artillery, the 25-pounders are being replaced with 105-mm howitzers, as used by the regular force. Similarly, it is intended to replace the weapons and equipment of the other corps of the militia with the latest types as they become available but, of course, the equipping of the regular army must take priority.
I should like to reiterate that the militia is an important part of our defence organization and deserves the wholehearted support of every citizen. Now, in addition to training in their customary roles, the militia has been given the responsibility for training in civil defence work and a close liaison is being built up between regular army, militia and local civil defence authorities.
With regard to the other services, this summer the naval reserve also has a full training program, in which the emphasis will be on training aboard ships of the regular force 

on the east and west coasts or smaller craft on lake Ontario operated from the headquarters of the Royal Canadian Navy (Reserve) at Hamilton, Ontario. I have already spoken about the Royal Canadian Air Force Auxiliary, which will go on with its usual training programs, except for those squadrons that will begin their change-over to new and challenging roles.
In the difficult time since world war II, it has not been easy for the free nations to keep their freedoms intact. It has not been by chance, certainly, that this has been achieved. It has, indeed, been only because of the resolute determination of the free peoples working together toward a common end. As a partner in two great organizations looking to the maintenance of peace, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Canada has given abundant proof of her sincere desire to avoid war and of her active concern for the correction of conditions which might lead to war.
Despite its failure to measure up to the first high ideals it set itself, the United Nations has still helped to prevent and, at the least, to limit war. There is the historic example of Korea, where, incidentally, a small group of Canadians still serve on, the rear guard of that valiant force that fought, successfully, in the Korean war. Canadian officers also, under United Nations auspices, are today serving the cause of peace in Indochina, in Kashmir and in Israel.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is founded on the truth that in union there is strength. In Canada we subscribe to that truth. In stationing Canadian servicemen in France and Germany, in training aircrew from nine NATO countries here in Canada, and in welcoming United States troops to stand beside our own in defence of our common continental home, we give evidence of our conviction that, in the NATO family, a "stay at home" policy and a "visiting forces not wanted" policy have no place and, indeed, if given effect to, could endanger us all.
The great defensive system that we have built in NATO with so much labour must not be allowed to fall into disrepair. Honest assessment of the world situation tells us that we cannot safely rest on what we have done. We must go on working together for the common good with undiminished zeal and equal determination.
Despite our considerable defence expenditures, and despite our best defence endeavours, there can be, for Canadians, no such thing as absolute safety. That must be sought, not by standing alone in our defence preparations, but in the collective strength and evident capacity of the free nations to

survive attack and to strike back with desperate, devastating force. For, paradoxically, it is in the awareness and abhorrence of nuclear war that we must probably look for our best defence against its breaking out. As Sir Winston Churchill said last year, if I might repeat his oft-quoted words in that connection:
It may well be that we shall, by a process of sublime irony, have reached a stage in this story where safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation.
The story of civilization is spelled out in the painful, plodding accumulation of knowledge and understanding. In time it will, we trust, be evident to everyone that, in this nuclear age, world war has become too hot to handle. For in such war there could be no victory-victor and vanquished would alike be levelled in the radioactive dust.
Surely no one could look forward, with equanimity, to year after year of uneasy expectation of that dread day when the first H-bombs might fall. However futile our best attempts may have proved so far, we must keep on trying for disarmament. And we must come to grips with some of those central problems that have led to war: ignorance and hate, disease, privation and poverty.
For it is clearly evident-and it is on this note, and not a defence statistic, that I want to end my opening remarks to this committee -it is clearly evident that, for us and for the generations that will follow us into the wonders and hazards of this thermonuclear age, there must be some surer guarantee of peace, some less uncertain protection against disaster, than military might can hope to provide.
Man's inventive genius, which has sought out and set free the power of the atom, can surely make it serve and not destroy us.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, first of all may I be privileged to thank the minister for his very kind reference to myself and the Minister of Labour, who are having the opportunity to attend the centenary celebrations to be held next week in London. On behalf of all the holders of the Victoria Cross, I am quite certain that they all appreciate the facilities which the government has made available to enable them to travel to the United Kingdom.
Regarding the remarks that have been made by the minister this afternoon and the white paper that was issued to members of this house last Monday, after studying the white paper during the last few days I certainly gained the impression that it had been prepared a good many months ago. Possibly it had been drawn up as the original draft of
Supply-National Defence the report of the Department of National Defence for the fiscal year ending in 1956. From the remarks made by the minister this afternoon it is quite obvious that large sections of that white paper were out of date before it was printed, because the minister has told us of several important developments which have not been included in the white paper and hardly even forecast.
I cannot help recalling the fact that year after year the members of this party have supported the government in its endeavours to create an adequate defence force for this country. If we have supported the general policy, we have of course pointed out the way in which that policy should be further developed. It is interesting to note that in this afternoon's remarks the minister has obviously taken heed of what members of the opposition have told him in the past and is making some halting steps in the direction that we have suggested.
It was several years ago when we urged that more attention should be devoted to the continental defence of this country, and repeatedly we have urged the modernization of the Canadian army and the provision of adequate transport for the forces that are in being. I remember urging very strongly about four years ago that the forces of our Canadian army must be forces in being and that they must be readily transportable by air, if not actually airborne.
The white paper hardly reflects the changes which have taken place in the world situation. I think it might be well to refresh members' minds with some of the statements that have been made recently indicating the changes which are now taking place. I should like to call attention to the words of General Gruenther published in the last NATO letter we received dated May 1. After referring to the state of the NATO defences when he first took over command a year ago, he went on to say:
. . . we now have a strong superiority in long-range offensive air power, in the form of the American B-47 plane, and also because of the V-bombers which are now being produced in the United Kingdom. At this stage in the technological development of defence against offensive aircraft, the offence has a tremendous advantage over the defence. In other words, the B-47 airplane and the V-bombers can fly so fast and so high that there is, as of now, no defensive answer to this type of attack. This means that if certain parts of Europe should be overrun our retaliatory attacks would ensure the defeat of the Soviet bloc.
Following along the same line, the British white paper on defence published this year refers to the increased power of the deterrent and says that the nuclear weapon and the means of delivering it have made global war more frightening and less likely. Again, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs

Supply-National Defence reported to the external affairs committee a few months ago on his experiences in Russia and the changed opinion of the Russian statesmen he had this to say:
. . . and this is a conclusion that can be drawn from the communist congress, to reinforce the conclusion we have already drawn from the Geneva meetings-the implications of thermonuclear warfare are now recognized by the Soviet leaders. And as a consequence the inevitability of war between the communist and the non-communist world is rejected because of the supposed deterrent effect of Soviet thermonuclear warfare capabilities and Soviet economic strength.
Then he goes on to say this with respect to Russia:
In a sense they have turned against us our own doctrine of atomic deterrents. However, while they reject the inevitability of war, and insist on the desirability of coexistence between states of different social systems, they are quite emphatic in stating that there can be no coexistence between ideologies.
That would really indicate that it would seem that both the west and the east are of the opinion that at the present time the chances of a third world war breaking out are more remote than they have been and that both sides are counting upon massive retaliation if either side starts a war. Thus I think we can say that it is hoped that if both sides have and are known to have the power of instant and overwhelming retaliation this may be the means of preventing a war until some more satisfactory solution can be found and, of course, naturally every country in the world hopes for the discovery of some more satisfactory solution.
It must be in the light of that that we must examine the statements made in the white paper and the statements made this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence. In the white paper the minister, and he repeated the statement again today, declares that Canada's armed forces are now more effective than ever before in our peacetime history. In that respect I feel I must call the minister's attention to the fact that never before in Canada's peacetime history has the government of Canada spent over a period of years $2 billion each year for those forces. Never before in the peacetime history of Canada has there been anything like 100,000 men in the regular services. Never before in Canada's history has a foreign country, whether or not an ally, stationed troops here in Canada and also spent millions of dollars on Canadian and American defences. So there is every reason to demand that our Canadian forces should be more efficient today than they have been in the past.
But we must not judge that efficiency by the standard of efficiency which was required 10, 20 or 40 years ago. The standard of efficiency has got to be tested by the role that
[Mr. Pearkes.j

these forces will have to carry out. Putting it very briefly, it would seem to me that there are four roles that the Canadian forces are required to carry out. The first one is to join with the other powers in providing this known deterrent so that it will act as a preventive against the possibility of war breaking out. That seems to me to be by far the most important role of the Canadian forces. We have got to join with the other powers. We have got to make it very clear to any would-be enemy that it is not worth that would-be enemy's time to consider the possibility of launching a war.
I come to the second role. Because it is not possible at the present time for east and west to live in a period of coexistence and because there is still a clash of ideals between their policies and ours, a cold war exists, and that cold war is the immediate problem facing the countries of the west at the present time. The minister indicated this afternoon that we have a few officers here and there scattered throughout the world, but our Canadian forces can and should carry out a definite part in that cold war.
I am rather surprised, in view of the immediate importance of our part in the cold war, that there will be a reduction in the mutual aid, as the minister mentioned this afternoon, of some $34 million, and also a reduction in the air crew training scheme. These are two means by which the armed forces at least can help in this cold war which must carry on for a good many months to come.
Third, the forces must be capable of playing their part in what is sometimes referred to as bush fire wars, wars of limited scope which may break out anywhere in the world and in which Canadian forces, as forces of a United Nations power, might be called upon to take a part. The minister in his remarks a year ago, at page 4862 of Hansard for June 16, 1955, made some reference to the role a Canadian force would have to play in such an operation. He said:
While no special arrangements exist for provision of forces to meet commitments which may be made from time to time in support of the activities of the United Nations, we have, I think, demonstrated in the support given in the Korean war that we can, when the opportunity and necessity arises, carry out our proper part promptly and effectively.
I would refer the minister to the ad hoc formations which were created when the Korean war broke out, and the very expansive steps which were taken to hurriedly raise the forces which were sent over in the early months of that war. I hope, with that example in his mind, something more will be done in the way of having forces in being, ready

to take part promptly should we be called upon as a member of the United Nations to make any contribution.
I do not think the minister's reference to the early days of Korea was a very happy one, although as operations proceeded and there was time-time having been gained by these hastily raised troops, time having been gained by the forces of our allies-Canadian troops acquitted themselves most admirably in that Korean war. The lesson which should be drawn is the fact we had nothing at that time and apparently, according to the minister's statement I have quoted, we had not very much ready a year ago and no reference has been made to that.
In connection with the cold war and in connection with the possibility of haying to send forces to aid the United Nations,
I would call attention to the words of President Eisenhower as reported in this NATO letter. The president said:
Arms alone, the President said, can give no permanent peace, no confident security. If: we are to preserve freedom in our own land; "it must likewise thrive in other important areas of the earth". For the welfare of ourselves and others, we must, therefore, help the rest of the free world achieve its aspirations. For our mutual benefit we must join in building for greater future prosperity, for more human liberty and for lasting peace.
This would indicate that if we are to play our part as a member of the United Nations, and as at least a middle power, we must be prepared to take part in that third class of war to which I referred, the bush fire war. Finally, we have to be prepared for the war of survival if all our efforts to deter the enemy should fail.
I should like for the rest of my time to examine our forces today. Are they in that state of efficiency which is indicated in order to be able to carry out these various tasks to which I have referred? In order to give some indication as to the problem in so far as the spread of Soviet imperialism, may I say that in this same NATO letter to which I was referring, on page 10 Mr. Dulles points out that the Soviet type of communism which in 1945 ruled some 200 million people of the world has now extended its rule to cover nearly 700 million people belonging to no less than 13 independent nations. It is, therefore, no surprise that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should have said a few weeks ago that NATO is at the crossroads.
Now, we cannot, and no opposition has the right to, accept a statement to the effect that our forces are more effective than they have ever been without examining whether the expenditure of $1,775 million this year on
Supply-National Defence national defence is being spent to the best advantage from the point of view of the Canadian taxpayer. On page 4 of the white paper we are told:
In the current phase of collective security, Canada's principal support of the west's retaliatory striking power is our contribution towards early warning and air defence on this continent.
The minister has referred to the early warning systems which are now being developed. He has referred to the fact that the United States is paying for the early warning chain, known usually as the D.E.W. line, which extends across the Arctic. Reference has been made to what Canada is doing in the way of building the mid-Canada line and what has been done in building the "Pine-tree" line, as well as how that "Pinetree" line, which is to a very large extent a fire control system, is being developed. The minister indicated that the main purpose of the D.E.W. line was to warn the United States strategic bomber force of an approaching striking force so they could get off the ground and start on their mission of massive retaliation. I do not think anybody could find any fault in that. I am quite certain-at least I would hope-that if there were a force of hostile bombers crossing the D.E.W. line within the next year or two, sufficient warning would be given for the United States bombing force to get off the ground and start on its mission.
It is possible, as has been indicated outside this house, that as the power of the offensive increases and we are entering into the era of the intercontinental missile, the equipment of the D.E.W. line may not be able to pick up that form of attack. That is something we have to accept, and I think we should hold the minister guilty if he did not take such measures as he considered right to provide the best early warning system that he can devise at the present time, and hope that not only will the means of offence increase but also that the means of detection through advances in electronics will keep pace with the event.
Therefore I have no criticism to offer on the principle of the development of the D.E.W. line. It is an expensive operation. We do not know exactly what it will cost, and as it is being paid for by the United States as a joint United States-Canadian effort we have little comment to make. One does question the wisdom of having United States contractors manning and operating this D.E.W. line for the next three years. Naturally, having some pride in our own Canadian sovereignty, we would have preferred to see Canadian personnel doing that work.
Then I come to the question of the mid-Canada line. I think there is some ground
5220	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence there for questioning as to whether it is desirable to have this second line of early-warning stations as well as the D.E.W. line. I believe that originally the mid-Canada line was started as a sort of stop-gap to give additional warning to the "Pinetree" stations, until such time as the D.E.W. line was fully developed.
We are told in the estimates that Canada is spending $100 million this year on the mid-Canada line, and spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50 million last year. That is a great deal of money, and one is forced to ask whether it is essential to have these two early warning lines. True, you may say you are giving warning in depth. One can understand the advantages of that, but the time element comes in and it is not a matter of hours now; it would be really a matter of minutes from the time a hostile force might be picked up by the mid-Canada line and reported to the control elements, wherever they may be, to the time you could expect to get intercepters off, or to get the remainder of the strategic bombing force away with a warning which can only be a matter of a few minutes, since the mid-Canada line is so much closer in than the D.E.W. line in the north. Therefore I hope the minister, when he replies, will be able to point out to the committee the necessity for that particular line.
Of course no warning line is of any value unless it can be backed up by intercepters, and while the white paper would indicate that there are some 21 squadrons available for the defence of Canada, the minister painted a more realistic picture of that force this afternoon when he pointed out that at the present time there are only nine regular squadrons which are equipped with a plane which is efficient for its role 'at the present time, namely the CF-100. I presume they are equipped now with the mark V, or are soon to be equipped with the mark V, but that the auxiliary squadrons have not been able to carry out the role.
If my interpretation of the minister's words this afternoon is correct it would seem that the majority of the auxiliary squadrons are not to be equipped with operational aircraft but are to be equipped with the T-33 jet training planes, and it appears to me, from what I could gather from the minister's words that their role is to be more that of providing reserve pilots rather than as operational units. If that is not a clear interpretation of the minister's remarks I hope he will clear up that point. Therefore it would seem to me that of the 21 squadrons referred to in the white paper we have to rely at the present moment solely on the 

nine squadrons of the regular air force equipped with operational planes, and we have another three squadrons being developed.
One must also query the wisdom of, perhaps I might almost use the word, "stockpiling" of the CF-100. The Montreal Gazette today carried the statement that 510 mark IV CF-lOO's had already been produced and that there were another 115 mark V's. Well, for nine squadrons quite obviously 510 CF-100 planes, which it is said cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500,000 each, seems to be, as I say, stockpiling a large number of these planes. Quite obviously when the original order was placed it was the government's intention to equip the auxiliary squadrons with these CF-lOO's, and for that reason a larger number of aircraft were ordered than would appear to be necessary now.
I am not in favour of discontinuing the airplane production industry here. I think it is something we have to develop and maintain. In those periods of changeover from one type of equipment to a more modern type there is always the danger of equipment being turned out which before it leaves the assembly line is obsolescent, and I am afraid that is the case at the present time with the CF-lOO's which will be turned out. No doubt the CF-100 mark V, with its greater power, would be of value to combat any enemy bombers coming to this country in the near future, but its period of usefulness must be rapidly passing. The CF-105 will no doubt bridge that period until the time the guided missile is ready and available.
I have frequently wondered whether we have not rather limited the airplane production industry in asking them to develop a limited number of a type of plane. As has been indicated, there is a great shortage and there is a great need for more transport planes. I believe that the A. V. Roe Company, which has been making the CF-lOO's, did start a jet transport plane industry which was cancelled at the time of the Korean war.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is my duty to tell him that he has exceeded his time, unless the committee is willing to give unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member may continue with unanimous consent.


George Randolph Pearkes: Thank you. I was wondering whether it might not have been possible to encourage a transport industry at the same time we were encouraging the construction of interceptors and CF-lOO's. Whether or not it is possible for Canada to dispose

*of any of these 100's which must be surplus now I do not know, but it would seem desirable to do so.
Regarding Sabre fighters, are we rapidly approaching the same situation? Is the F-86 sufficiently modern to be the fighter of the future? I would like to have heard the minister indicate that something is being done to develop a more modern short-range fighter, something which would serve until we entered the guided missile era and even then, when we first enter the guided missile era, I am quite certain short-range fighters will be required as well.
The minister made reference to the manpower situation. I concur most heartily with him when he says it is quality rather than quantity which is required. From what I have seen of the three services in the last year I too think we have a very fine type of young man in all our regular forces. I do think, however, there is some cause for anxiety regarding the rate of enlistment in all the services, because there appears to be a trend toward a downward curve as a result of which the forces are gradually declining in strength.
The white paper gives the number of men in the three services. I notice that in June, 1955, there were 117,014. In December of 1955 that number had dropped to 116,715. Today the minister gave the figure as 116,250. There is a slight downward curve in the enlistment in the regular forces which is not encouraging, and while I believe it is far more important to have the right type of men in the forces, and to have small and efficient forces rather than large and incompetent forces, I would like to have some indication concerning what steps the minister is taking to correct that situation.
I notice in the white paper the minister refers to the shortage in air crews and has this to say:
Nevertheless, additional proposals designed to improve the attractiveness of the service to suitable individuals-and hence to improve manning in those categories for which it is difficult to recruit-are presently under consideration.
I had hoped the minister would have given some indication in his remarks today as to what are the matters he has under consideration.
The minister made reference to the considerable number of civilians who are employed in the armed forces. One of course readily recognizes the fact that there are large numbers of civilians employed in the various ordnance depots and the dockyards on both coasts. The minister said 55,000 civilians are employed. That is nearly one civilian for every two men in the services.
Supply-National Defence I do not quarrel with the need for personnel in the dockyards and the ordnance depots and so forth, but one does query the number of civilians employed at national defence headquarters. In the white paper we observe that 4,330 civilians are employed at national defence headquarters. That seems to me a very large number of civilian personnel, especially when one observes there are 3,282 women also employed, many of whom no doubt do clerical work.
I come now to the question of national defence headquarters. From time to time over a great many years we have questioned the size of the staff at national defence headquarters. We have wondered if it is excessively large. Time and time again we have called attention to the number of officers and men and the number of civilians who are employed there. It is rather disquieting, to say the least, for one to read in Maclean's magazine comments such as those made by the former chief of staff, in which he referred to the fact that national defence headquarters is cumbersome. He had some rather severe criticism to make.
Being a retired general myself I can perhaps discount the comments of retired generals to a greater degree than most people, but when a man has held that position and comments on his own organization it certainly gives one cause for wonder, particularly when one sees the actual figures disclosed in the estimates.
I wonder still more because I feel that with the modern trend of military development the time factor becomes increasingly important. Any headquarters has to act extremely fast in a national emergency. It would seem essential that there should be some single authority with the power to render instant decisions.
In the article to which I have referred reference is also made to interservice rivalries, competition for money and men as between the services, and friction between the services and the civilians. This matter of control is one of importance, and in that article the former chief of the general staff refers to the chiefs of staff committee. He certainly gives the impression that chiefs of staff have not been able to present their views to the minister, and that their views have been watered down by the rulings of the majority. My understanding of the chiefs of staff committee is that you have a chairman of the chiefs of staff, you have a deputy minister, you have a director of research as well as the three chiefs of staff. I realize that on a great many matters they must be able to

Supply-National Defence speak with a united voice because we have to consider the three services as working more and more as one.
I should like to ask the minister whether he has received any memoranda from any of the chiefs of staff indicating that he has had difficulty in approaching the minister and presenting his point of view. If there is any substance in what was said by Lieutenant General Simonds it would seem that there is a very definite weakness in the headquarters organization. Surely the chief of staff of a service should have the right at any time convenient to the minister to make representations in the interests of his service. If that condition exists it seems to me it is the responsibility of the chief of staff concerned to put his representations in writing to the minister, and I would ask the minister whether he has received any such complaints in the past.
Another serious charge is made in that article in connection with the permanent joint board, in which it is claimed that it acts as a barrier to the free exchange of ideas between the chiefs of staff of Canada and the chiefs of staff of the United States. That board was established before the United States came into world war II, and it had a very definite purpose in those days. I am not certain that that purpose still remains. I feel that if there is any difficulty in way of the free exchange of views between Canadian and United States chiefs of staff any such obstruction should be removed immediately, because we have to play as a team and both sides must be able to make the fullest representations to the other parties.
These are the main points I wish to bring to the attention of the committee at this time. I am pleased to hear that the number of militia going to camp will be increased, but
20,000	out of some 50,000 is not an impressive figure. I should like the minister to explain whether those are going as individuals to receive training in schools of instructions, or whether they are going to be trained as units. Unless a militia unit is trained under its own commanders from the brigade and regiment down it cannot be considered as an efficient unit.
It seemed to be indicated in the white paper that there might be a change contemplated in the role of the militia. Emphasis is placed on the fact that they are to supplement the regular forces. Two years ago the regular army reserve was introduced, and we were told last year that it was to provide first-line reinforcements for the regular Canadian units. Unfortunately that scheme failed, and failed badly. I believe they


could not get any more than 100 to go to camp. Obviously there must be some means by which the regular units can be brought up to strength before they go on to an operation, and provision must be made to supply first-line reinforcements, either for regular units being employed in this country or on any other mission they may be required to carry out.
The militia are not well equipped. Reference was made to the fact that they are still hoping to have the 25-pounders replaced by the 105-mm and to replace the old Sherman tanks with more modern equipment. I wonder whether any attention is being given to the possibility of developing some form of armoured vehicle which could be used in our north country. The Centurion tank with which the regular armoured units are now equipped I would not think would be of much value in the north. It does seem to me that if we are to have an airborne force to operate in this country in the case of possible raids they should be supported by some armour. It might be a good line of research work to see whether a special light tank might not be developed for operation in our heavy and deep snow and under the cold weather conditions of the north.
The minister referred to the fact that another unit was going to be activated, but he did not mention which unit it was. I am sure it would be interesting to the committee to know what unit he has in mind if he is going to have a third regular armoured unit.
In closing I should like to call attention to the fact that apparently the minister has paid attention to what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has been saying for a number of years, and some steps have been taken to provide some form of armoured carrier.
I appreciate the extra time which has been granted to me to make these remarks. There will be many questions which will have to be asked on the various items as they come up, but I shall close my remarks now.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I was particularly interested this afternoon to hear the Minister of National Defence-I think I have his words correctly-refer to the profound effect of nuclear weapons and far-ranging bombers on our defence thinking. I was struck by that, because when I glanced through the white paper I could find little or no sign whatever of that profound effect upon the thinking of the defence department. It may be that the hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich was correct when he said that this white paper had been drafted many months ago, perhaps before this profound effect had taken place.
*

Then I come to some of the remarks which were made by the minister, and I am again forced to wonder whether his speech of this afternoon was also drafted some time ago, shall we say before the Montreal Gazette of this morning was published. In discussing the role of the jet interceptor in connection with the D.E.W. line the minister made an interesting statement. He said the CF-lOO's, of their sort and of their type, are and will remain for a long time yet effective fighter planes. Now I turn to the Montreal Gazette of this morning and find there a quotation from some senior R.C.A.F. air crew officers who say they have doubts whether the CF-100 jet interceptor, Canada's chief defence weapon, could fly high enough to get at the latest Russian bombers if they attacked North America. Then the news story goes on to say:
The government itself has made it pretty plain that it's worried, too, about this main aspect of defence.
Then it refers to the white paper, in which the government remarks on the urgent requirement for the supersonic CF-105 jet interceptor, now being developed at Malton.
That also seems to leave us one or two steps behind the thinking of other military forces in the world, because on Monday of this week the Ottawa Journal published a news report from Washington in which two United States air force generals, Generals Earle Partridge and Curtis Lemay, have raised questions about the effectiveness of the costly radar warning lines in Canada and even of the United States air force fighters, ranging up to 1,600 miles per hour in speed, or as fast as or faster than the CF-105 Canada will put in the air in a year or two. I am given to understand that the CF-105 is expected to have a speed range of up to about 1,500 miles per hour. It is not coming out for a year or possibly two years. Yet Generals Partridge and Lemay have grave doubts as to whether it is not already obsolete.
I can readily understand the difficulties of any defence department introducing arms and equipment before they become obsolete or obsolescent, but I think it is time we were facing some realities. When I heard the minister speaking this afternoon of the profound effects on our defence thinking of these new developments I was reminded of the statements made by an even more eminent authority, if I may say so with all deference, than the Minister of National Defence of this government. I refer to an article published in June of this year, written by Earl Attlee, former prime minister of the United Kingdom and minister of defence of
Supply-National Defence the United Kingdom from 1945 to 1946. I presume when Earl Attlee made his statement he did so after having had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the leading military experts of the United Kingdom. He had this to say:
We must accept the logic of events, and in the light of them consider afresh our defences. The situation has wholly changed since Labour was in power and introduced national service. We can reasonably hope, despite the frustrations of the disarmament conference, that no state will embark on a major war because of its inevitable consequences to victor and vanquished alike. The conceptions of armies of millions of men fighting land battles is out of date, and therefore the basis of national service-which was the provision of large reserves of trained men for land warfare-has gone. I gather also that the best opinion is that the long-distance guided missile cannot be dealt with by piloted planes, and this entails a review of our air forces. A navy operating from ports within range of the guided missile seems to be equally impossible . . .
I am certain that at the present time much of the enormous cost of armaments could be cut down. I am sure that there are masses of weapons now obsolete which are still maintained or even being produced. There will inevitably be great opposition to the kind of drastic reorganization which is required. It will require a government with a strong will to undertake it for inevitably most of the experts will be thinking of the last war.
I think, sir, we are perhaps in somewhat the same position today in Canada. We have heard this afternoon from the Minister of National Defence, dealing with the radar lines and the joint use of those lines with jet interceptors. I have quoted the opinions of the two leading air force experts of the United States, who cast grave doubts on that concept and on its value in any way at all in light of the long-range high-speed bombers which it is known the Soviet union has now developed.
It is true enough that the D.E.W. line may still be of value in providing sufficient warning for the United States strategic air command to get those bombers into the air to proceed with massive retaliation. In that regard it is of inestimable value to the western world, but I would point out that it has nothing whatever to do with Canada's part in the protection of North America. Apparently we are relying on equipment that is now considered, by those who should know, to be quite out of date.
That, of course, does not even consider the problem of the intercontinental ballistic missile which is now known to be well on its way in development, both in the Soviet union and in the United States. In this morning's Globe and Mail there was a news story from Washington that Lieutenant General Donald L. Putt, United States air force development chief, said that the United States is keeping
5224	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence up to its timetable for creation of an intercontinental ballistic missile. It goes on to say: Putt said at one point that Russia possibly could surpass the United States in air strength and weapons within a decade. Later he said he preferred not to discuss the possibility in terms of specific time.
Putt, answering questions, said the United States has to date "met the milestones" in what he called a rather realistic schedule for producing an ICBM. He said the development is proceeding as a real firm program.
We hear of no moves made on the part of the Canadian government-and I should not expect to hear of any moves made on their part-to embark on the development of an intercontinental guided missile. But I would point out that in the United Kingdom defence white paper produced this year it is noted that the United Kingdom government has offered to its allies assistance in research and development of these intercontinental guided missiles. We have had no word from the minister as to whether Canada took any notice of that offer, or whether we are prepared perhaps to integrate our development and research facilities with those of the United Kingdom. We are told, on the other hand, we are going to rely in the first place on CF-100's, which are definitely obsolete today and which we are still producing, and later we hope to graduate to the CF-105's, which the United States air force considers now to be of very dubious value.
It has been said that our goals for defence in Canada are in the first place the defence of North America, in conjunction with our United States allies, from attack. What have we with which to do it? As I point out in regard to the D.E.W. line and the air force, we have equipment of very dubious value. Our army, which we are told is at the highest state of development that it has been at practically any time in our history, seems again to be somewhat out of step with the developments that have taken place in other parts of the world, and particularly in the United States.
We have from the United States reports of new tactical nuclear weapons with which all the forces of the United States are to be equipped as soon as possible:
Atomic weapons whose employment was simulated (and this means solely the fission weapons of so-called "limited" powers of destruction; the appalling thermonuclear-fusion weapons-the so-called "H-bombs"-were not simulated) have a shattering effect not only on and about the point of impact as expected, but on a great many long-respected techniques of warfare. Certain world war II standards are standard no longer and it is a grave question whether many of the countermeasures thus far developed could cope adequately with a series of atomic strikes.
We are not given any information of any importance in the white paper or in last 

year's departmental report of any steps that have been taken by the Canadian Department of National Defence to secure, either from our allies or through development by ourselves, those nuclear tactical weapons with which the United States military authorities consider their armed forces must be equipped.
We have been told this afternoon of the way the Canadian navy has been brought up to date. That again seems to fall rather short of some of the developments that are taking place in other parts of the world, particularly in the United States of America. When the minister was speaking this afternoon of sweeping changes in naval design, no mention was made of the sort of developments that are now taking place in the United States. Admiral Arleigh Burke, chief of United States naval operations, when asked whether antisubmarine warfare was keeping pace with the potentialities of the nuclear submarine, declared:
The struggle between the submarine and the antisubmarine capability is a continuing struggle. . . . Not too long ago we felt we were ahead of the game. Now nuclear propulsion seems to be putting submarines ahead again.
I see the Minister of National Defence is laughing. It may be, of course, that the Minister of National Defence for Canada is more an expert on naval warfare than the chief of United States naval operations. He may perhaps be a little more competent than the United States secretary for the navy who had this to say, as recorded in Time magazine of May 21 this year.
The navy is presently going through the most tremendous change it has ever undergone, from steam to nuclear power, from guns to guided missiles and in the air from propeller type planes to supersonic planes, all at the same time.
But we of course are making sweeping changes in design. I saw some of these sweeping changes. I worked in a shipyard when they were taking place and, believe me, it was a very slow sweep. There is no mention at all in the white paper or in the minister's report to parliament this afternoon that the Canadian navy is keeping abreast of the developments in the navies of other great powers. I suggest to you, sir, that the situation revealed to us is a very serious one, when this document is all the Minister of National Defence can present to us and the Canadian people as justification for the spending of $1J billion. I would suggest this could hardly be described as anything more than a piece of impudence when you compare it with the United Kingdom defence white paper or with the proceedings that take place before the Senate of the United States on matters of defence.
I would suggest, sir, that the very first thing we in this parliament should do is find.

out just where we are in defence spending and just what we are getting for our money. We are not going to get it merely by having the minister read a prepared speech to us today, a speech in extremely broad and general terms which tells us nothing. We are only going to get the information that the people of Canada deserve to have and have a perfect right to have if a committee of the house is established to go into the matter with full power to hear from responsible officers of the armed forces. The same procedure that is adopted in Washington could be adopted in Ottawa. You will note that in all these reports from Washington there is reference to the reports of this committee. Many of the meetings are held in camera, but the representatives of the American people are informed as to what the United States taxpayers are getting for their money in the way of defence. But here we get not a word.
If this is all, then I suggest the minister will have to do a very much better selling job to the Canadian people in the future than he has done in the past. There is nothing here to indicate that in Canada we have anything in the way of modern, up to date weapons of defence. There is nothing whatever to indicate that our Canadian defence authorities are even taking into consideration the developments which are taking place in other parts of the world. It may be that our government has decided that it is beyond our means to get into this particular type of struggle and competition. That may very well be true, but I would suggest again that when one of our allies-and more than an ally, I suggest; the United Kingdom-has suggested that it is willing to co-operate with the other members of NATO and the western world in research and development on modern weapons, then the Minister of National Defence would be on better ground if he came to parliament with a request for appropriations to enable the Canadian government to take advantage of that offer, rather than to come before us seeking appropriations for weapons which I am quite sure he would not dare deny are obsolete before they ever reach the armed forces. If the minister feels that is wrong, I hope he will try to justify these expenditures we are making. He has not done so yet.
We are told that we not only have the defence of North America to consider but also our commitments under NATO. I would suggest that the developments of the last few months have demonstrated pretty clearly that NATO as a military organization has almost passed out of the picture. In fact that is the obvious reason the three wise men or the three blind mice have been set to work to
Supply-National Defence discover a more effective role for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I think we can take it for granted that since the United States strategic bomber command succeeded in establishing bases on the perimeter of the North Atlantic area, the value of NATO from a military point of view has declined almost to the vanishing point.
I see the minister is shaking his head. He will shake his head until next year, when he will tell us that we all know NATO is no longer of any particular importance. Now we are told that it is one of our most important commitments.
We also have our commitment under the United Nations charter. It seems to me that this commitment must primarily be a commitment to take part in a United Nations police force to put down or deter outbreaks of war on a minor scale in different parts of the world. I think most people will agree that the United Nations is quite obviously not the organization that is going to stop a major global war, because members of the United Nations in that case will be the opposing forces. But it is of value yet in the prevention and discouragement of outbreaks of war on a small scale in different parts of the world, and for that Canada must maintain what the minister has described this afternoon as a mobile striking force.
But again I suggest that striking force must be equipped with modern weapons and must not be equipped with the weapons of world war II, even the more developed and streamlined versions of those weapons, because they would be quite incapable of meeting the situation we would face in playing our part in that particular commitment.
I think also that before we embark on any more military experiments we should make up our minds about one thing, and that is the western world's position vis-a-vis the U.S.S.R. This afternoon the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich voiced the view that in his opinion, and the opinion of many others he quoted, the danger of a global war is perhaps more remote now than it has been for many years past. I think most of us can perhaps agree with that position, that on an objective view of it there is very little to encourage the Soviet union to embark on a full-scale global war because of the disastrous and inevitable consequences to both sides in such a conflict.
Therefore I think we have to decide just what our position is with regard to the Soviet union. I have been somewhat uneasy of late in noting the lag in thinking in the western world with regard to the real dangers from the communist world; our preoccupation with the development of military means rather

Supply-National Defence than paying attention to some of the other problems that are creeping in through the back door.
In that connection I want to quote from an article written by Dr. Thomas Balogh, of Oxford University, one of Britain's leading economists, in which he says:
No longer can we think of the Soviet threat as a vast horde of (slightly comical) mujiks, poised to be driven forward by a ruthless dictatorship. No longer can the Americans derive solace from the fact that only through subversion and treason can the U.S.S.R. obtain the know-how on which survival in war and victory in peace depends. The attraction to non-committed areas radiating from the Soviet technical achievement, based on their own effort alone, begins to be apprehended.
The fact is that in a period of unexampled prosperity and full employment, the west-except for Germany-has not proved capable of matching Soviet technical and economic progress. Each year the Soviet over-all growth-including the weak spot of agriculture-has been showing an increase of from 6 to 10 per cent over that of the previous year. Their industrial expansion seems to have been even faster, perhaps as high as 11 to 12 per cent or more. In other words, Russian national output can be expected to double every 12 years or so.
This pace compares with an increase of United States manufacturing capacity of roughly 5 to 6 per cent annually since the war (except for the dip in 1949) and with a similar increase in Britain (interrupted in 1952-53 and about to slow down again). Over-all production in the west has increased much less-between 2\ to 4 per cent.
I think that reveals the real nature of the problem we are facing. I believe it is the explanation of the unilateral decision of the Soviet union to disband some 1,200,000 men. I believe that decision was based on two assumptions. The first was that the day of the conventional army is over and that the next war is going to be fought with these fearful thermonuclear weapons; and second, the men now in the armed forces of the Soviet union-at least that number of them they propose to disband-are badly needed in the Soviet industrial machine to increase this astonishing rate of progress quoted by Dr. Balogh. I think in Canada perhaps we had better make up our minds as to whether or not we can go on playing in the military world to the very expensive tune to which we have been playing over the last few years with absolutely no discernible results in effective defence, or whether or not we should turn our attention to the Soviet industrial development.
In this connection we should remember that the peoples of Asia and Africa are watching us, and they are not particularly impressed with the development of military weapons. They are more impressed with evidence in terms of human life within the rival areas of the world. If we could develop our area as one with terms that would constitute a model to be emulated, then it seems
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo) .1
to me we should have gone a long way toward saving parts of Asia and Africa from falling within the scope of Soviet communist influence.
However, that is a problem and a question for the government of the day to decide, as to where we are going to devote our energies and our resources. But I will say this. If we propose to continue with the production of military equipment; if we propose to take a real and effective part in the defence of North America, which we are not doing today in any sense at all; if we propose to take an effective part in the policing service of the United Nations, then we shall have to do so on a realistic basis and not on the basis we have today.
We have to face the fact that at the present time we have not developed, and the minister this afternoon has been unable to give us any evidence that we have developed, the sort of military weapons that are of any consequence at this particular stage in the world's history. At the present time what we are being asked to endorse in this house is nothing more nor less than wanton waste of public funds and the resources of this country. I suggest to you, sir, that the people of Canada are going to want to have rather more conclusive evidence from the minister that he is spending their money wisely, and in the process of spending it is actually developing some military defence for this continent, than he has exhibited.
It may be, of course, that the government is not really proposing to spend this 1 j billion they are asking from parliament this year. It may be they are merely asking for it in order to be able to ask for far less next year, when it will be more convenient to ask for less. I do think, sir, the time has come when the people of Canada and the government of Canada have to take a long look at this whole military situation and make up their minds once and for all whether a nation of the stature of Canada, great as our industrial resources are and great as our wealth in skilled manpower is, can actually in this day and age play a significant role in the military world.
I myself am dubious that we can do so. I am convinced at least that we can only do so as auxiliary to the efforts of our allies, in particular the United States and Great Britain, and that we can give limited aid in the provision of research work or possibly some minor future developments. Certainly we cannot hope to take part in the sort of game that is now being played by the United States and the Soviet union, a game of astronomical costs.

I noted the other day that Sir Anthony Eden, in replying to criticisms about his government's policy of continuing with the hydrogen bomb experiments on the Monte Bello islands, placed as the first of his government's considerations in that regard the consideration of national prestige. One can readily understand why Sir Anthony Eden and his government feel that way, because after all it is only a matter of a few years since Britain was one of the great leading powers of the world. It must be a bitter pill for the British people to feel that today there are, in effect, only two great powers in the world. One can forgive, I think, and understand the desire to maintain national prestige, even though quite obviously very little military advantage is to be gained from that procedure.
But Canada is in a totally different position. We have never been a great power. We have no long tradition of military superiority to maintain. We have, I think, the opportunity to achieve distinction and honour in the world by being one of the first nations in the world to turn our backs on the follies of military competition and to develop here in Canada, a society which will be a model worth emulating, so worth emulating that those who are uncommitted in the world will by force of example become committed to our side in the ideological struggle that lies behind these military considerations.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak over long, but I should like the indulgence of the house if I take it just a bit slowly and attempt to deal with some of the things which I believe have been, and could be, called serious omissions in the government's program. We are setting out today, Mr. Chairman, on what could be and what I hope will be the most important debate of the present session of parliament. We are living in-and I think most of us realize it-the most dangerous time in the history of the world. There are two camps divided by a broad and almost uncrossable stream, and those two camps in the world are set against each other. It appears that every basis of trust between them has been destroyed and there is no possibility, as far as I can see, of any lengthy peaceful coexistence between them.
I think these are facts we pretty well have to face up to. The whole world lives in fear that some incident might come to catapult us into what could be called a third world war. If such a war should come, then there is a very large body of expert opinion that believes it will be a total war involving the use of nuclear weapons of tremendous destructive power. To me, to think of such 67509-331
Supply-National Defence wholesale destruction is sickening, and it points up the necessity of doing everything we possibly can to prevent a major war of any kind breaking out.
Consequently I think it is understandable- it is to me-that emphasis on the part of the Canadian government should be placed on what is called the world's major deterrent, namely the long-range bombers of the United States strategic air command, armed with nuclear weapons, supplemented by our own.
I say it is understandable that emphasis should be placed by our government upon that strategic air command. This, of course, involves very close co-operation between Canada and the United States and the provision by Canada of our most efficient weapons, our most efficient mobile ground forces. I say the "most efficient" because I believe it would have to be the most efficient ground mobile force which our country is capable of raising.
We must do all we can, as other speakers have said, to ensure the adequacy of our defences in all three theatres, the air, the sea, and on the land. We in Canada cannot sit back and leave the defence of our country to our neighbours, the United States. There seems to be a growing opinion that this can be done, but to me it is unthinkable; to any red-blooded Canadian it would be. But we have to face the fact that defence costs are growing by leaps and bounds, and as the development of nuclear weapons goes forward our defences have to depend more and more upon very complex and costly apparatus.
We appear to have reached the point where the most penetrating consideration must be given to the problem of what should be Canada's role in the defence of North America and of the free world, facing up, as I said, to these facts about the tremendous costs that have to be met. Our population in Canada is small compared with the vastness of the territory that we have to defend, and there is a limit to the amount of money we can raise to spend on this costly equipment. How far can we go? I suppose the better way of asking that is, how far must we go, because to me it is unthinkable that we would not go as far as we must and as far as our strength and our resources would make it possible for us to go in any exigency that faced us.
During the past year there have been many outspoken criticisms of the government's defence policy by men eminently qualified by training and experience to be critics. These criticisms have caused commendable concern on the part of Canadians generally about the effectiveness of our defences. Many of us are wondering, however, if these criticisms

Supply-National Defence are well-founded. It seems to me that is the question that is being asked by millions of Canadian people today. They feel, I am sure, as I do, that the only way we can get the answer is to have the whole matter of our national defence debated most thoroughly here in this house and at as great length as might be required to bring out the whole truth so that our future course will be crystal clear, if it is possible to make it so.
For these reasons we in this group sincerely hope that in the debate that is now launched there will be an honest determination to get quickly to the very core of the very grave defence problems that we do face. So as far as we in this corner are concerned we intend to forget manoeuvring for political advantage and to apply our minds to an attempt to find out what is the right thing to do. My colleagues and I will be critical, as we go from day to day in this debate, of some phases of our defence program; but, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there never was a time in the memory of man when it was so necessary to be right. Therefore our criticisms will be directed toward trying to find what is right; and we can get at truth and find out our right course of action only by a prayerful and completely honest approach to the problems we face.
It seems to me it would have been better for all concerned-it would have been wise, at any rate-to have had these estimates sent to the estimates committee. I think it would have given many people a chance to discuss the technical details of the various components of the defence program and the contents of the white paper. It would have given us a far better chance to find out whether the moneys that are being spent are being spent effectively, and if we are really using those moneys to make ourselves ready to meet what we may have to meet. I wonder, and I am sure many people wonder with me, whether the dollars we are spending are truly girding us about with the things we need in order to be strong and effective if we have to meet an enemy in combat. Well, it seems to me we could have had a far better opportunity in the committee to bring out many of these things. However, I am not going to waste time moaning about it. The fact is that the estimates are now before the committee of supply and, as I said, I do hope there will be a sincere desire to get down to the very core of our program as quickly as we can and find out for ourselves whether these moneys are being effectively spent.
There are many questions one could deal with, but I am not going to spend too much time now on those questions. My colleagues who will follow me will deal with many of them. Concerning ground forces, about which


there has been so much debate and contention in periodicals in this country of late, the minister says he intends to add a third brigade group. Well, we in this corner are with him in his desire to strengthen the fast, mobile ground forces. We think that is a very important part of our defence of this country. The addition of a third brigade is very important, particularly, as other speakers have emphasized, if it and its other two components are equipped with the latest equipment, the best that can be obtained; otherwise it is going to be useless if it is to face any attempt at invasion. And so we go along with the minister on that.
It is reported that Russia now has 400 submarines, many of them of the very latest type. Well, the natural question is, what are we doing in the way of counter-measures to meet the threat from those submarines? The minister said today that he and his department, and I think he mentioned the department of defence planning, are giving great consideration to the subject of effective submarine detector equipment as well as antisubmarine defence in general. We should know the fullest details concerning this and other things that are being done to render Russia's submarine fleet ineffective. One never knows just how effective that fleet may be in launching long-range missiles that could go into the very hearts of our cities. We would like to know more about the antisubmarine defence program, and we hope in the course of the debate it will be possible for the minister to give us more facts concerning it.
I would like to say just a few words concerning the reserve army. As one goes about the country one hears a great deal of criticism about the way the government is handling the reserve army. One hears that there are piles of good equipment in the armouries that could be used by these men in training, but use of it is denied to them. I do not know if that is a well-founded criticism, but I have heard it. It seems to me that sort of thing ought to be brought out in the open and freely discussed here so the people of Canada may know what the situation is and have their fears and anxieties set at rest.
I am not going to go into any further technical details with respect to the defence program, although I might say much time could be spent by any speaker re-emphasizing many of the things that have been brought up by other opposition speakers concerning the flaws in our defence program. I think there are some exceedingly important omissions on the part of the government which reveal to me a serious inconsistency and lack of balance. I refer to the fact that while the

government is prepared to spend $1,750 million on defence against possible outward attacks by the enemies of the western world, yet there is very little attempt on the part of the government to defend our people against the insidious subversive internal attacks that are being made by these same enemies in their unceasing attempts to overthrow us from within.
I want to talk about that for a few minutes, because to my way of thinking it is a serious omission in our defence program. I would not be fair to the people I represent if I did not bring this matter well to the fore and expose the fact that we as a people -and I suppose all of us have to take some blame; we cannot lay it all on the doorstep of the government-are failing to progress in thought in keeping with the dangers that beset Her Majesty's loyal people everywhere. The government is antiquated in its thought if it continues to think only in terms of its arms program as the front line of defence. The front line, Mr. Chairman, has now been transferred into the western lands which are still fortunate enough to have escaped the fate of those who are languishing behind the iron curtains of the world.
Let me mention some of these failures on the part of this government and perhaps also on the part of this parliament, failures that I call serious omissions. The first of these is that we have failed to adequately educate the people of Canada as to the true enemy we face. Our people do not know; they are not adequately informed about who the enemy is and what he is doing and how to identify him. Too often government policy has made it appear as if we are the friend of the enemy, the friend of communist Russia and of the communists themselves. In such circumstances how can we hope to combat the aversion one finds on the part of our young people toward fighting against friends? That is what they say when we attempt to induce them to take up their duties in the armed forces. They say, "Why should we fight our friends? We are told these people are our friends and that we must make them our friends."
We are in a very difficult position, it seems to me, if we ever hope to convince our young people that strong action has to be taken against the enemy. We cannot at the same time tell them that this enemy is our friend. We have to tell our young people the truth and let them know that unless they are adequately prepared against the enemy their throats could easily be cut by these people who pose as friends and who are sometimes called our friends.
We have allowed red spies to freely come and go through our land. I was very glad
67509-331J
Supply-National Defence to note the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration showed some concern about this matter in a general way by taking action in the case of Paul Robeson and the millionaire communist Lamonte. I support him and commend him for that action. I would suggest to the government this is a most important part of our front line defence. Keep it up and we will support you.
There is no reason in the world why communist spies should be allowed to come and go freely and spread their insidious propaganda and help to organize subversive activities throughout our country. The funny part of it is that frequently our press takes up the statements these people make, plays them up and uses terms that are evidently designed to sink into the minds of people, to be remembered by them. Too often members of the government have made unwise statements which have helped the enemy's cause. Though I do so in no caustically critical way, I refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister when he was in the Orient on his long journey. The Canadian Press reported him as saying:
The government of Formosa-
That is the nationalist government.
-does not represent the great mass of the Chinese people. I believe that one day it will be necessary to be realistic and admit that the present government of communist China is the government desired by the people.
I emphasize those last three words; how unwise they were. Statements containing words like those cannot help to keep the western world united and strong and prepared to do the job that must be done. It may be that the Prime Minister did not make such a statement and I must say I am not sure about it. The Canadian Press, however, did report it in that manner.
I have spoken briefly about our failure to adequately educate the people of Canada to the dangers of internal communist infiltration. Last year it fell to my lot to point out the communist infiltration of thought into Current Affairs, the magazine circulated to the Canadian forces. I brought to the ministers' attention a number of flagrant statements designed for no other purpose than to propagandize the virtues of the enemy and to soften the determination of our young people to take strong action in defence of the western world. The minister paid attention, and I must commend him for so doing. For some months after that I saw some improvement, though I must say to the minister through his parliamentary assistant, who is now present, that though he promised to send me copies of the Current Affairs magazine as it came oil the press in succeeding months

Supply-National Defence after I made my comments here, I am sorry to say I did not get them from that source. The ones I have seen I had to get in some other way, but I must say that those I have examined have shown considerable improvement.
I am thinking now how useful a defence measure could be made of that improved Current Affairs magazine if it were sent out' to the colleges and universities of this country filled with vital information which our young people should know. Send it out with inspirational and factual stories of the great achievements of the commonwealth and let them see that we have a cause worth fighting for. I say to you that would be of tremendous advantage to the western world in general, and certainly a useful defence measure could be made of it.
While we are talking about getting information out to our people and the failure of the government adequately to inform the people of Canada, why should it not be possible to put on a drive to popularize Hansard, to get the people in every community to take Hansard into their homes, to subscribe to it and read this debate. If that were done there would be an awareness of our needs. I think we are missing the boat in not doing that.
This government needs to give attention to ideological warfare as a front line defence at the present time. They are not doing it. The communists are paying the greatest attention to ideological warfare and have done so for quite a number of years. I have on my desk an outstanding example of the kind of things the communists are doing. This bundle of papers and magazines and periodicals came to me, just one person in this country, in the mail from the Russian embassy in this city. Much of it is beautifully got up, much of it is cleverly worded, and all of it is intended to mislead. This kind of thing is going out through the mails to thousands of Canadians. What effect is it having on them? What are we doing to combat this sort of thing?
Let me point out that this is the literature which last year was extolling the virtues of the great regime of the famous Stalin. This year it is equally emphatic in crucifying the now infamous Stalin and building up Khrushchev. What are we doing to tell the people of Canada what Khrushchev was doing during the time the infamous Stalin was carrying on his depredations? We are doing nothing. We are falling down on the ideological front. We are a complete failure. Where is our spirit? As I said, much of this is cleverly worded and attractively got up.


Mr. Blackmore:: And illustrated.

Mr Low: And illustrated. If anyone would like to see it I have it here.


An hon. Member:: We all get it.


Solon Earl Low: We all get it; it comes to thousands of homes. I wonder if we have investigated how it gets through the mails. Is it given any priority by virtue of the fact that it comes from an embassy? I am not charging that it does get priority, but it would be interesting to know, and I hope in the course of the debate we will find out something about it.
I should like to speak briefly about another thing, the failure of the government to present a true and attractive democracy to our young people. One can be excused for saying something about this, because today many of our young people are finding it difficult to build up that spirit which says, "Go and take your responsibilities of citizenship along wth the great privileges that are yours; stand ready for strong action if it becomes necessary." All too often you hear them say, "Well, we have a lot of faults." I wonder what we are doing about that.
Some will argue, of course, that this is not a defence matter, but it is indeed an important part of our front line defence in my judgment that a positive approach to democracy should be presented to the youth of our land, to make them aware of the great privileges and corresponding responsibilities of citizenship in Canada under a free democracy. One can be excused for wondering sometimes if this government has lost its pride in the freedoms which were won for us by our forefathers who understood and appreciated the value of the great things that we have.
To this end why should we not have far more inspiring programs sent out over the great government-owned television and radio networks, far more inspiring than we see now? Why should we not have more inspiring things on the theatre screens throughout our country, perhaps paid for out of the general treasury, in order to instil in our people a will and desire to come to the defence of our great country whenever the need arises. In my judgment this would not be a waste but would be a great forward movement in an effective front line defence.
I admit that the government at present would have to be prepared to present some unsavoury things in regard to our democracy if they would be honest and truthful in facing the youth of our land with a real challenge against communist ideologies. But it is not too late to have a change of heart and transform these unsavoury things into effective facets of an inspired democracy.

We can do that; we must do that, otherwise we cannot hope to arouse our young people to the need to give everything that is in them when the need arises.
If $1J billion are needed to develop our military defences, then surely we have a case which must be put before the nation, a case which must show the critical situation in which democracy finds itself. The youth of our nation would respond to the appeal of truth and changed heart. I submit to you that if no such call is given, if no such challenge is thrown out, then in my judgment there is no justification whatsoever for the huge expenditures on defence that we are contemplating today. The two things must go hand in hand. It seems to me that if we are going to spend the money then we have to tell the people why. This government it seems to me leaves far too many things unsaid. I do hope that they will come to see the great gains that are involved in the things I have mentioned.
The purpose of highlighting this serious inconsistency and lack of balance on the part of the government and the reasons for the failure of the government to do certain important things is not by any means to expose or to carp, but rather to induce the government to give that kind of serious attention which this matter deserves. The west has been losing the cold war. We need not be in that very serious position, because we have the greatest and the most effective way of life ever devised to sell to the people of the world if we would just clear away some of the abuses and make our democracy that vital thing it can be. Then we should sell it to the world.
I believe that if the government would enlarge its defence program by adding a great ideological offensive we might be able to forestall the awful possibility that the great arms race might lead to another terrible conflict. At the same time let me say that we in this corner urge the government to keep on trying to find a way to a safe and honourable peace and disarmament. Do not go about disarming in any foolish way. Do not consider disarming until we have an effective guarantee that the others who are our enemies are going to disarm, and effectively.
At the same time, too, we urge that the government carry on an unceasing effort to find and remove the causes of war. It is our hope that the "three wise men" who are meeting on this very day, as they discuss the problem that is common to us all, the problem of the defence of the western world, will
Supply-National Defence be successful and will not prove to be, as Canada's representative himself has said, three blind mice.


Mr. Nesbiti:: There are always certain difficulties in dealing with the estimates of this department because, of necessity, so much of the information that should be given to us has to be kept confidential, in the public interest. Further, I suppose that the only member of this house who really can be considered an able strategist is the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. The rest of us might well be described as armchair strategists, although from the facts presented in the white paper and in the minister's estimates certain logical conclusions can be drawn, and I think we are entitled to draw them.
I thoroughly agree with the statement made earlier this afternoon by the minister that we must be constantly on our guard and we must not be lulled into a stupor by Russian propaganda that is dished out with a smiling face. Most of us can remember only too well what happened at Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese diplomats were in Washington bearing the "cherry" branch, and I think it is certainly well for us to remember that.
As my time is somewhat limited, my remarks will be directed chiefly to the role of the navy. In the minister's white paper it is stated at page 4:
Canada's naval role is the defence of our coastal areas, as always, and co-operation with our NATO allies in the defence of vital sea lines of communication . . .
I note that the first priority is the defence of our coastal areas, and the second is co-operation in NATO with respect to the defence of the sea lanes. There has been another suggestion, though it is not made in the minister's white paper. It has not been announced by the government, though I would be delighted to hear any comment in this regard, but it has been suggested that at the forthcoming commonwealth conference the question might be raised that some of the commonwealth countries might take over the duties the United Kingdom navy is at present carrying out with respect to certain areas. It has been suggested on the editorial page of the Toronto Telegram that possibly Canada might look after certain areas of the southern Atlantic and the West Indies, but I do not wish to deal with these questions because they are problematical; they do not deal with policy, but are only suggestions in the press.
My remarks will have three aspects with respect to naval policy. First of all, what do we have to do? Second, what do we have


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is very hard to say whether or not we have sufficient to take care of these matters until the minister answers some of the questions I have asked. However, there are some observations I think any member can draw from the white paper and from the estimates themselves without having yet received the answers I have asked of the minister. First of all, let me take cruisers. Why do we have these cruisers at all? If our navy is to be an anti-submarine navy, what is the purpose of these cruisers? They have a large complement, presumably 800 or 900 men, are very expensive to maintain and I cannot see that they perform any useful purpose except perhaps for training. As far as training is concerned, I am quite sure that could be carried out better in some respects with destroyer escorts, because that is the type of ship which our navy is using as its backbone, and I think properly so.
By way of a second observation and recommendation, may I say that I hope the government does everything it can to hurry up the completion of construction of the remaining 13 destroyer escorts. As I said before, from what I have been able to gather these are a very fine class of ship and our navy can well use them, particularly in defence against submarines, especially in Arctic waters where weather is a factor. We need these ships to defend ourselves.

Supply-National Defence
The next point I should like to refer to is the use of helicopters for anti-submarine work, and in that connection I should like to quote an extract from the debate on the naval estimates in the United Kingdom. I refer again to the remarks of Mr. Ward who had this to say, as found at page 2335 of the weekly Hansard of the British House of Commons:
The next point I want to deal with is the use of the helicopter for underwater warfare. It is proving very efficient at operating an asdic set from the air, free from ship noises and practically free from effective retaliation by the submarine.
Apparently the United Kingdom navy is already using helicopters for this purpose, and I would hope the minister would take into consideration the hurrying up of their use here. Helicopters are relatively cheap compared with expensive destroyers. They are not vulnerable to any attack and they are free from ship noises at sea so far as the detection of submarines is concerned. They can also be operated from the shore. Their only limitation is, of course, the weather.
The next matter I should like to deal with briefly is the fact that we must realize the danger from the Arctic. As I have already mentioned, if trouble arises there is great probability of the Soviet setting up bases in the Arctic. It has always been said that we cannot be attacked from there, that it is too difficult to use equipment. That is the same type of thinking some admirals and generals had with regard to Singapore. They said that any attack must come from the sea, that it could not come down the Malay peninsula. All hon. members know what happened. I re-emphasize that there are dangers of attack from the north. I should like to know whether our present ships can operate adequately in Arctic waters both in winter and summer months. I know that the atmospheric conditions, the fact that it is dark in the winter months and also that the water freezes would certainly limit the operations of the ships we have at present, and also the operations of aircraft.
If by some chance the Russians were able to set up bases on Arctic islands or on ice islands we would have to have some way of dealing with them. As the minister pointed out in his remarks this afternoon, it is very difficult and apparently not always too satisfactory to drop troops from aircraft in Arctic areas. There are limitations. I am also informed by people who should know that there would be certain difficulties in operating aircraft in severe winter and stormy conditions. It might be necessary to use naval ships of a special design in order to land troops in those areas to deal with any temporary Soviet bases that might be set

up there. I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the government take into consideration the forming of a small, compact marine force in conjunction with the Royal Canadian Navy to be used for this purpose.
In this same regard, Mr. Chairman, it would be very unrealistic to expect our ships to operate in the Arctic without bases. I think it very important that some type of naval base, not large but adequate to deal with destroyers, be set up in the Hudson bay area. I think it is important that we have a naval base in the Hudson bay area and possibly one or two farther north. These would have to be selected very carefully. From these bases helicopters could be operated, as well as destroyers and this small marine corps I have suggested. If bases were set up in time of emergency by an enemy such as the Soviet, then we could deal with them even if our air force were hampered by weather conditions.
I have only one or two more remarks to make in connection with this question of using helicopters. Helicopters do not need to operate from an aircraft carrier. They can operate from small, cheaply constructed ships. I think the minister should consider the advisability .of constructing quite a number of small ships that could carry three or four helicopters, whatever number is considered necessary, and these ships could be used in defence of our Atlantic coast, on Hudson bay and in other waters. They could be anchored in inlets and used as permanent bases, and when necessary could be used at sea to check up on submarines. The helicopter has a great advantage, and is far less costly when compared to a destroyer. These small ships could be cheaply constructed and would not be anything like the expense of an aircraft carrier.
I think that is something that should be considered. I know it is an unorthodox idea, but when you have certain specific conditions with which to deal, as we have in this country, some unorthodox ideas should be considered. It may be that they will not work, but they should be considered.
The other question concerns these 25 destroyer escorts that we will ultimately have. No doubt the government considers that they should be added but in my opinion the day of the convoy, as we knew it in the last war, is gone. Any large concentration of ships would be a prize target for any kind of thermonuclear bomb. Any convoy work would have to be done on the dispersal principle. I have no doubt that has been considered. In view of the great expense of these new destroyers, I understand nearly $18 million each, some other method may have to be used to help protect the sea lanes. As

I have already suggested here helicopters, based on small, cheaply constructed ships, might be considered.
In closing, Mr. Chairman-I want to say that I appreciate the indulgence of the committee for these extra few minutes-I come to this question of manpower. The navy, of all the services, has come closest to reaching its objective. In the white paper there is some reference to the fact that they have had to kick out some members of the naval service as they have not been suitable. I think it may be possible to get more suitable men in our navy by the use of a better method of selling the navy to the public. People should be proud to join the navy. In my opinion it is the finest of the three services. The other two come close, mind you, but of all the services I think the navy is the finest. It should be pointed out to our young people that the navy offers a fine opportunity. I think possibly there should be a better method of selling the navy to these young people.
I do not wish to make any remarks about morale or conditions of service. I do not think any hon. member has a right to do this unless he has had an opportunity of going through the naval establishments or spending some time at sea. I am not prepared to do so because I have not had that chance. However, in closing I would say to the minister that possibly next year some hon. members on this side of the house might be given an opportunity of visiting naval ships or perhaps taking a few days' cruise on one of them so they can see exactly how the navy is operated. I hope to be able to do so myself, and I am looking forward to it.
With these suggestions I close my remarks, and I shall be waiting with interest to hear the answers the minister may give to some of the questions I have put to him.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PRIVILEGE


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I would crave the indulgence of the house for just one or two minutes in order to raise a question of privilege. In the course of my remarks this afternoon I quoted
Privilege*-Mr. Low
a statement reported to have been made by the Prime Minister as he toured the east in 1954. My attention has been drawn since to a correction which the Prime Minister made in this house on March 25, 1954, and carried at page 3332 of Hansard for that date.
I think it is only right, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister did make a correction and I had either forgotten about it or it had not been drawn to my attention, to put it on the record. I would not wish to wilfully do an injustice to the Prime Minister or any man and for that reason, if you will allow me, I should like to read these two or three paragraphs. The Prime Minister said:
There is one thing, however, about which I do feel quite sure that there was an inaccuracy. There was one report that I had said that I was sure we would have to recognize the present government of China as the government the people of China wanted. I feel quite sure I never would use those words intentionally because I never had that feeling about the present government of China. But I must have used some words almost like them since so many of these reporters have come out with that as their version of what they heard and understood, that I felt we would have to be realistic and recognize the government of China "as the government the people wanted".
I should not have said "the government the people wanted". What I had in mind was that, in spite of our dislike of any form of communist or totalitarian government, we could not expect to have to deal with the Kind of government, representing the people on the other side, we would like them to have, the kind of government we would want them to have, but that we would have to deal with the government they had as a matter of fact, the government that was in control of the forces that were participating in the happenings that were causing such tension and such anxiety in the international field. That is what I meant. That is what I should have said in words that could not be mistaken or interpreted in any other way because I think that with such a statement there would have been little or no concern and little, if any, controversy about it in this country or anywhere else.
If I did any injustice to the Prime Minister this afternoon, I apologize for so doing and I hope this will correct it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: We shall continue with this tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
5236
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:
invalids' pensions
Mr. Van Horne: What action, if any, has been taken by the government to make invalids' pensions available to persons who, because of invalidity, are prevented from being employed in their normal or usual occupation?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
The Disabled Persons Act provides for the payment of allowances to persons who are totally and permanently disabled, as prescribed by the regulations under the act.
The purpose of the act has never been to provide pensions to persons who because of invalidity are prevented from being employed in their normal or usual occupations. The scope of the legislation was determined, prior to its introduction in parliament, in joint conference and consultation with the provinces who did not at the time and do not now generally favour the establishment of eligibility for pension on the grounds of unemployability. The scope of coverage provided under this legislation is generally comparable to that provided under the two provincial laws (Ontario and Alberta) which preceded it.
Any future changes and modifications in coverage will depend on conference and consultations with the provinces.



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE


Mr. Palleil: What is the average per mile expense paid to employees of the Department of Agriculture for automobile travel while travelling on departmental business?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner
(Minister of Agriculture):
9-59 cents per mile, based on expenditures for fiscal year 1955-56.



NAVAL MAGAZINE, ROCKY POINT, B.C.  CIVIL SERVICE STATISTICS

Mr. Pearkes: 1.	How many civil servants are at present employed at the Royal Canadian naval magazine at Rocky Point, British Columbia?
2.	What are the classifications held by these persons, and how many persons are employed in each classification?
3.	What salaries are paid in the various classifications?
Answer by: Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	74.
2 and 3:	No. of	SalaryClassifications	Employees	RangesTechnical officer 5 ..	1	$5670-6120Technical officer 3 ..	1	4710-5310Technician 3 	3	4410-4860Technician 2	4	4050-4500Technician 1 	9	3480-4080Firefighter captain .	1	3600-4200Firefighter lieutenant	3	3150-3720Firefighter 	18	2860-3360Clerk of works 4 ...	1	4500-4950Cleaner and helper . Stationary engineer	5	2400-2760(H or P) 2 	
Stationary engineer	1	3480-3780(H or P) 1 	4	2940-3360Storeman 1 	1	2700-3060Stores assistant 1 ..	1	1620-2070Clerk 4 	2	3300-3720Clerk 3 	3	2940-3360Clerk 2B 	4	2610-2970Clerk 2A 	8	1950-2550Typist 2 	3	1950-2760Graduate nurse ....	1	2430-3120



ILO CONFERENCES


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 525
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 1.	Did any United States citizens represent Canada at conferences of the international labour organization, or any agency thereof, since January 1, 1950 to date?
2.	If so, what are their names?
3. Were their expenses paid by the federal government? If so, what was the total amount in each case for this period?
Answer by: Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of
Labour):
1.	Employer and labour delegates and their advisers attending conferences of the international labour organization or other meetings held under its auspices are nominated by the representative national organizations of employers and labour. It has been the policy of the Department of Labour to approve nominations so made. The department is informed that two persons nominated by their respective organizations since 1950 were, at the time of their nomination, citizens of the United States.
2.	These were Mr. Clyde E. Shumaker, nominated by the Canadian Manufacturers Association to attend the thirty-sixth ILO conference in 1953 and the thirty-ninth ILO conference in 1956; and Mr. H. C. Banks nominated by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada to attend the meeting of the ILO industrial committee on inland transport, held in Geneva, February, 1954.
3.	Clyde E. Shumaker
1953-54-$1,496.13, paid by the Department of Labour.
Hal. C. Banks

paid by the international labour organization.

Thursday, June 21, 1956