1956-07-19

RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch (Pictou).


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will find on their desks this morning, I think, at least I know I found it upon my desk, a copy of the tabled report of the committee appointed to inquire into the principles and procedures followed in the remission service of the Department of Justice. As hon. members will see, this report covers most comprehensively the subjects referred to the committee. Some of its recommendations can only be implemented under federal jurisdiction, while others can only be implemented under provincial jurisdiction. We have already instructed the officials of my department to present their views to us as to the best method of implementing those recommendations which come under our authority. After we have had an opportunity of considering the views of the justice department officials in this regard, it will probably be necessary for us to confer with the provincial governments as to how those recommendations which we will implement federally can be best integrated with any recommendations which the provinces may see fit to recommend within their sphere of authority.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question in connection with the report of the committee on remission which he has just tabled. While I appreciate what the minister said regarding the studies that have been carried on by his department I would like to ask him whether the department has yet been able to form any views with respect to the recommendation for a national parole board contained in chapter 11 of the report, 67509-391
and I ask that particularly because of a case which we have discussed before and which I still regard as important, the Clifford Williams case.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I think that even a cursory examination of the Fauteux report would indicate it is so extensive and so comprehensive that any government which would attempt to reach an opinion concerning it within a short period of time from the date of its release would be unwise. Indeed I do not imagine we would be able to get a report from our departmental officials for some little time. When we do receive this departmental report, the recommendation for a national parole board to which the hon. member refers will doubtless be treated by our officials as a part of the whole and as integrated with the whole Fauteux report. We will have to consider it as such and that consideration will have to be extremely thorough, just as thorough as the report has been.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister two supplementary questions? I notice that the letter of transmittal from the commissioners is dated April 30, 1956. Perhaps the minister might let us know when in fact he first received a copy of the report. Second, is the minister able to give us any further information with regard to the disposition now being made of the Clifford Williams case?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to my hon. friend's first question I am afraid I cannot remember exactly the actual date on which I received the report but it would be within a few days after the date which appears on the letter of transmission.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have had it, then, for two and a half months?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right. When we
received it it was a very large mass of typewritten material and not in the form in which it appears now. The interval has been taken up by having it translated into the French language and printed; and having regard to the fact that the queen's printer has had other onerous obligations there has been some delay attributable to that fact which has contributed to the lateness of the

Inquiries of the Ministry Fauteux report in reaching us here. We tabled it as soon as we received it from the printers.
With regard to the Clifford Williams case, I cannot do other than go over the statements which have already been made in this house to the effect that the heavy sentences- that is in toto, because they did not run concurrently-that were imposed upon Mr. Williams do not deter us in any way from granting remission of his sentence. That is to say, I think they added up to 20-odd years-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Twenty-nine years.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, 29 years. Perhaps this is a case where we would be warranted in cutting down materially the 29-year sentence. Our judgment to remit would be on the basis of imposing what seemed to us to be a fair term of imprisonment, in relation not so much to this long period of sentences as to the prospects of rehabilitation of this man when he gets out of prison. That would depend in part upon his conduct in prison.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? My question has reference to the documentation sent to him by the Canadian airline pilots' association with respect to its earlier report on the distant early warning air lift. My question is this. Has the minister taken note of the statement made by this association that as recently as the month of May of this year a D.E.W. line carrier operated a pilot in excess of 300 hours and several other pilots in excess of 200 hours? Has the minister given consideration to the suggestion of the Canadian airline pilots' association that there should be legislation governing flight time for pilots?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: As hon. members know, some time ago the Canadian airline pilots' association made a report to their own members on the air lift in connection with the D.E.W. line, and after this had been published it was transmitted to my department where it received the closest study. After that study had been completed a reply was sent to the association, and I think it is a fair statement to say that the reply showed that many of the criticisms that had been expressed by the association were without foundation.

This week I have received a further brief from the association, which is quite voluminous, and as it was a rather technical matter I referred it to the officials of my department for consideration. I have not read the brief myself; consequently I do not know whether the incident to which the hon. member has just referred is one that has come to the notice of my department or not. At all events, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should come to any judgment as to the representations made by the association until my officials have read the brief and studied it carefully.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited sufficient 34-inch pipe on hand and on order, guaranteed for delivery during the summer and fall, to enable it to complete the line to Winnipeg by December 15?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, but naturally the guarantee is subject to force majeure, and a strike constitutes force majeure; therefore the guarantees under the contract for pipe will be subject to such delays as occur through the strike.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I may ask a supplementary question, did the minister not tell the house during the progress of the pipe-line debate that one of the reasons that Trans-Canada was the preferred instrument was that it had available and ready to be delivered the 34-inch pipe?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member will find the reference in Hansard and quote me on that subject. I did not say that. I said the Trans-Canada company had the pipe; in other words, they had part of the requirement for pipe manufactured and other pipe on order. If my hon. friend had any conception of how much territory it would take to pile up 650 miles of 34-inch pipe he would not jump to the conclusion that all the pipe was already manufactured and piled up. A fair amount of it was then manufactured.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said it was ready. Was that just a pipe-dream?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has made his statement. Will he please look up Hansard and find the quotation?
[Mr. Garson.l


John George Diefenbaker: Look it up yourself; you made the statement.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. I understood members of the opposition to say when the debate was on that there were several companies in Canada that could make this pipe. Now is the time for them to do it.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO BROADCASTING GOVERNMENT "FAIRY tales"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is to give television coverage to the incredible sea serpent Ogopogo of Kelowna, British Columbia, will the corporation consider broadcasting some of the other fairy tales which the government has attempted to publicize about its own activities?


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question just asked concerning the Ogopogo, I would like to point out that hundreds of citizens of reliable character have vouched that they have seen the Ogopogo-


William McLean Hamilton: That is why I called it incredible and not mythical.


Owen Lewis Jones: -and I resent the suggestion that it is mythical.


An hon. Member:: What time of day did they see it?



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr,
Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received any protests from the lumber industry of British Columbia with respect to certain unsound and illogical rate increases applied by the railway companies recently?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I will not accept the adjectives which the hon. gentleman has just used with regard to the rates.
I have received recently no representations from the British Columbia lumber industry although some were made some time ago when a hearing was held in connection with 67509-391J
Inquiries of the Ministry a proposed increase in rates on lumber. My understanding is that the board of transport commissioners recently rendered a judgment in that matter and since then I have received no representations. And, I might say at the same time, I have received no particular commendation of the increase.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question following the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Will the minister look into the report that the change in the freight rate structure on British Columbia lumber moving eastward has resulted in an increase from 3 cents to 6 cents per hundred pounds in the differential on lumber from Vancouver island mills and that this is a disproportionate increase to that on lumber from other points?


George Carlyle Marler: I shall take note of what the hon. gentleman has said and examine the record to see whether consideration should be given to the matter.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Robinson) asked a question about the new post office at Teeswater, Ontario. In reply I may say that the plans and specifications for this building will be completed next week and it is expected that tenders will be invited early in August.
(Translation):



REFERENCE TO ALLEGED MODIFICATION OF &quot;HANSARD&quot; OF JULY 16

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, on going over the official report of yesterday's proceedings, I note that the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) attempted to make a mountain out of a molehill. In fact, it seems to me to be a case of an elephant in labour bringing forth a mouse.
When speaking to the resolution on federal-provincial fiscal relations last Monday, I spoke extemporaneously. The hon. member, who was not present, as so often happens with him, but that is his business


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec Wesi):: can read, though.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Well, if he can read, I will have occasion to talk to him about that in a moment.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I spoke extemporaneously, then, and I was convinced I had spoken of distributive justice. Still I am told that the newspapers mentioned "charitable gifts". I am prepared to admit that the press was not mistaken and that it accepted the words I had spoken.
When the reporters' first copy reaches us, we are entitled to make changes, not of substance but of form, a practice which has been followed by practically all members of the house, especially those of the opposition. It may be that I had the opportunity of making this change, in the belief that it was a more appropriate expression under the circumstances. If my hon. friend had had a better knowledge of French, he would have realized that there is only a shade of meaning between the words "charitable gifts" and "distributive justice", as used. Besides, distributive justice, properly so called, is an act of justice whereby God rewards good and punishes evil. By extension it is an act of justice meted out with charity. The word charity means "love of God and neighbour", a concept which seems unknown to the hon. member for Quebec West. In a wider sense-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Hull is of course entitled to answer the charge I made yesterday that he had made an unqualified change in Hansard. However I deny him the right to make the statements he just made, especially when they reflect on my character. The hon. member has no right to bring accusations against me in a devious and so contemptible manner, and I ask him to withdraw at once.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Quebec West is right, up to a point, when the hon. member for Hull, while speaking on the definition of the word charity, adds that apparently the hon. member for Quebec West does not know what charity means. In explaining his attitude on the point raised by the hon. member for Quebec West he may plead his own case, but he should not go beyond what is necessary for the purpose of his argument.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He has strayed rather far afield.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I recognize that the member for Quebec West understands charity-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: And practises it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: -and that a reference to charity implies, in a wider sense, an act inspired by love of neighbour, an act of kindness, of assistance towards those in need. As you can see-


An hon. Member:: He is in need of it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there is only a slight shade of meaning and, if I were Cyrano de Bergerac, I would say that if the hon. gentleman had had more wit and a greater knowledge of the humanities he would not have set up this tempest in a teapot.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, first I would ask the hon. member for Hull to be good enough to withdraw his last words to the effect that I lack wit. I surely have as much as he has.
At the beginning of his remarks, the hon. member stated that he had been speaking extemporaneously. He did, and so much so that he was talking nonsense; that was precisely the burden of the reproach I addressed to him yesterday in the house. He made a statement which was taken down by the able reporters of the house and which was also reported by parliamentary correspondents.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, if this matter is up for debate, I claim the right to answer the hon. member for Quebec West.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the statement made by the hon. member for Hull was reported by parliamentary correspondents, and I maintain that I am sufficiently conversant with the French language-even if the hon. member for Hull does not think so-to appreciate the difference between "distributive justice" and "charitable gifts". I therefore maintain the charge I made yesterday and I feel bound to demand that the words actually used-
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would hon. members be kind enough to allow the hon. member for Quebec West to conclude his sentence?
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: So I am simply asking-as I believe it to be my duty under the circumstances-for leave to demand from the hon. member for Hull that the very words he used in this house be written into the record exactly as they were spoken.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to be merely a matter of interpretation.
The hon. member for Quebec West is asking that the hon. member for Hull refrain from rectifying an expression he thought he had used when speaking in this house. Today, at the request of the hon. member for Quebec West, the representative for Hull explained the position. Apparently, the representative for Quebec West does not accept it. Therefore, if this is an infringement of

the privileges of the house, the hon. member has only to propose the necessary motions to the effect that the matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.
(Text):



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to ask the Prime Minister what attitude the Canadian government would take in general to the proposal now being considered in Britain for the calling of a British commonwealth economic conference or royal commission similar to the Gordon royal commission so that the economic wealth and potential resources of the commonwealth might be considered in the same way as they have been nationally in the Gordon commission, to the end that the communist economic world offensive might be more effectively met. What would be the attitude of the government to the setting up of such a royal commission?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the government will be to consider any proposal that comes forth but not to declare in advance in a hypothetical case what its attitude might be should the hypothesis be realized.


John George Diefenbaker: That is indefinite enough.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government aware of the growing demand in the country for an increase in the amount of the pensions paid under federal legislation? Will something be done about this matter at this session?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the government is aware that there are a great many demands which the amounts that can be raised through taxation are insufficient to satisfy. The government has no intention of introducing at this session any general legislation to increase the amount of pensions that are paid from the federal treasury.
Supply-National Defence SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
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.
(Translation):
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of unduly delaying the debate on the estimates of the Department of National Defence. However, I believe it is important at this time that I make a few observations and suggestions first in the interest of the department, and also in the interest of all those who take part in its formation.
When we look at the various items which make up these estimates, we realize, Mr. Chairman, that what has happened this year is exactly the same thing which we have criticized last year. Last year we requested a substantial reduction in the amounts earmarked for national defence whose estimates make up nearly half the total budget of Canada. It seems that our requests and protests have not been heeded because this year we find in the estimates exactly the same amount as last year. There have been some changes here and there, and a few amounts have been changed, some decreased, others increased, but when you look at the total amount for the Department of National Defence, you come to the conclusion that it is exactly the same as the amounts submitted to the house last year.
In other words, the national defence budget which is submitted to us this year is exactly the same as that submitted last year. I therefore come to the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that it is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians and to the intelligence of the taxpayers. There have been no efforts to lower expenditures and to put an end to waste and extravagance, while various other countries of the free world were making some effort to



S162 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Defence lower their expenditures on national defence and thereby alleviate the burden of their taxpayers. Surely, here in Canada, no way has yet been found to cut down on administrative expenditure, especially not in this department. England is reducing her budget. So are the United States. Other countries, which I will not mention, have done likewise.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, why Canada should not strive to reduce expenses to an amount much lower than that submitted to us last year and again this year. I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that we still have to face a potential enemy, who has no respect for peace nor freedom. I understand that we must remain on guard because of the behaviour of those conquerors from the Soviet union. But I believe that on looking at the international situation, as it is now and as it has been for some time already, we come to the conclusion that we are now engaged in a cold war, one still wanted by Russia, but which is waged on an economical basis. That is their change of attitude. It seems that Russia is trying today by all possible means to control the economic field and to invade markets hitherto under the exclusive control of democratic countries.
I would therefore urge, Mr. Chairman, that for the balance of this year and before the next estimates are tabled, an effort be made to reduce to some extent the expenditures of this department and, at the same time, as I have said, to lighten the Canadian taxpayer's burden, which is already too heavy.
I would go even further and suggest that an inquiry should be made as a result of the statement of General Guy Simonds and those of other high-ranking Canadian soldiers who are glad, today, to have recovered their freedom because it allows them to express their opinions. Even though this request was turned down in the house, the other day, I believe that an inquiry is urgently needed, so that the various military men who have occupied key posts at the head of our armed forces may testify and thereby throw some light on the various accusations and statements made since they left the Canadian Army.
National defence, Mr. Chairman, must not come to mean national expense. National defence must not be for the Canadian taxpayers a highway to ruin.
More than ever, the time has come when those who have to pay for the upkeep of this enormous defence budget should know exactly what use is being made of their taxes
[Mr. Dufresne.l
[Stage Direction]
by this important department. At this point, Mr. Chairman, and in the light of the damning evidence of those who leave the services to reenter civilian life, it would seem that inefficiency, extravagance and waste are constantly on the increase throughout the department whose estimates are now under review.
I would like, in a few words, to give two examples. About two months ago, I had the privilege to take part on the C.B.C. French network, in a television program entitled 'Les idees en marche", where questions of national defence were being discussed. The topic we had to deal with on that particular program was whether our national defence was costing too much.
I do not wish to repeat what was said, one way or the other, on that program but I would point out that, at that time, I dealt with a particular point which, I believe, I should again bring up this morning.
Everyone of us knows that, in the province of Quebec, especially at Sorel, guns are being manufactured for the American as well as for the Canadian navy. It seems however- those are not my own conclusions but they are based on a report submitted to the cabinet by none other than Mr. Watson Sellar, Auditor General of Canada-that guns made in this country are costing Canada $112,000 more per unit than those exported to the United States.
Well, Mr. Chairman, it will be said, I know, that the planning, the assembly, the machinery, and some of the engineers who were responsible for the development of that unquestionably very useful gun, came from the other side of the 45th parallel.
I also realize that our neighbours to the south were doubtless put to some expense in getting this production under way. However, what is beyond my understanding is that the cost has been so heavy that Canada has had to pay $112,000 more per gun produced at home.
Let us imagine what this would amount to if, within a few years, hundreds, not to say thousands, of guns were so produced.
I believe-I am sure that this opinion is shared by all hon. members of this house- that it is a bit ridiculous to have to pay so high a price for something produced in this country when we are able to sell that same product to other countries, to our very neighbour, at a price which, in my estimation, is about a third, or 33J per cent cheaper.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that inquiry will also be made into the production of these guns and that the department will give it all the attention it deserves so as to bring some measure of relief to the burdened Canadian taxpayer who has to foot all the bills.
(Text):
Mr. Dickey:: If the hon. member will permit me, on a point of order, might I suggest that this subject with which he is now dealing is really principally a matter for defence production, and I think he would get a more satisfactory discussion of it on the estimates of the Department of Defence Production. So far as an examination of the matter is concerned, I presume he understands that this transaction has already been examined during this session in the committee on public accounts.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production raises the question of a point of order, saying that it would be more appropriate to deal with this question on the defence production estimates. I hope he does not forget that if the Department of Defence Production is looking after the fabrication of these guns, nobody else but the Department of National Defence buys them and we are now dealing with the estimates of the Department of National Defence. Therefore I think I am quite in order in speaking on the matter now. Nevertheless, that is all I have to say and I am concluding my remarks on this very subject.
(Translation) :
Mr. Chairman, there is another matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the house. There is a great deal of talk about reducing the budget. I have mentioned that fact today. Now, when I speak about reducing expenses, I am by no means suggesting that it should be done in such a way as to endanger our security. On the contrary, we are merely trying to impress upon the government the necessity of controlling expenditures very closely so as to prevent extravagance and useless spending.
My hon. friend the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), following an interjection of mine, referred to the Petawawa horses which I understand were carried on the payroll at that time, as was well demonstrated by the Currie report.
Supply-National Defence
However, if there were horses on the Petawawa paylists, we, in Quebec, have a billy-goat on the paylists. The Royal 22nd Regiment at the citadel has a mascot which is nothing more or less than a billy-goat. Some say it is in fact a nanny, but I have not carried my investigation that far. I cannot say whether it's a he or she-goat.


Mr. Villeneuve:: Can our hon. friend tell us whether this mascot draws any pay?


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: He does not seem to know.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member for Portneuf is not prepared to deny its existence, however.


Georges Villeneuve: The mascot draws no pay.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I say that there is at the Quebec citadel a mascot, which is a billy-goat-


Georges Villeneuve: Or a nanny-goat.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -and for which the Department of National Defence has caused to be built a private residence or headquarters at a cost of something like $1,500. To this billy-goat are attached some military personnel, a corporal and two privates who are obviously not paid by the billy-goat, but by the Department of National Defence.
(Text):


Mr. Lesage:: The hon. member is now making a goat of himself.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If the minister will look at himself in the mirror I think he will see two goats.


Jean Lesage: And he might regret it.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He might look like two goats.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am going to suggest to both hon. members that we are not discussing agriculture or animals; we are discussing defence estimates.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I think I will put you on the right track right now and tell you exactly what I was discussing when I was speaking. A couple of years ago we spoke about horses on the payroll in the Department of National Defence. I am now speaking about a goat on the payroll of the Quebec citadel. It has nothing to do with agriculture. I will not discuss agriculture here because I do not think I have the competence to do so.

Supply-National Defence (Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I come back to that expense which, it seems to me, is ridiculous, preposterous, unnecessary. Here are three servicemen whose sole duty is to look after a billy-goat. The corporal probably orders the two soldiers to curry it down in the morning, to wash it, to tidy up its headquarters and to summon the vet when required.
Mr. Chairman, to my mind, that amounts to downright waste.
Waste might seem funny to some hon. members but, after all, we must remember that the Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill for this waste, and that is why I protest at this time against this condition.
For those few reasons, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that a serious inquiry is absolutely necessary and that it should be carried out by people who, by no manner of means, would be interested in protecting those who are guilty of that waste of public moneys.
Coming back to my billy-goat, Mr. Chairman, there are sometimes complaints in the Quebec district that the advertisements appearing in the papers and inviting our fellow-citizens to enlist in the armed forces do not give the expected results. However, when a young man eager to make a career in the Canadian army, or wishing to spend some time in the army to learn a trade that will help him to earn a decent living later on, in business or industry, is told by the senior officer of the recruiting office that his work from now on will consist in looking after billy-goats, I do not think that that is one of the best ways to prepare his future.
That again, Mr. Chairman, is one of the serious reasons why that waste must be prevented. Instead of spending money on the upkeep of a mascot, of a billy-goat, it might have been better to keep in the reserve army some regiments that have brought glory to the whole of Canada in the past, and perhaps particularly to French Canada, such as the Quebec, Levis and Mont-magny regiments, reserve regiments which were the pride of our district.
Mr. Chairman, I have another matter to bring to the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney). Quite often people complain, and possibly not without cause, that French-speaking Canadians do not care for positions that might be offered to them in the Canadian army, in the military profession. However French-speaking Canadians should get more attention from
[Mr. Dufresne.3
the department. Like Canadians of other racial origins, they are known for their ability, their efficiency, their loyalty, and most of them have one great qualification which is not to be found among their neighbours: they are thoroughly bilingual. There should be a higher percentage of French Canadians in high and responsible positions, and occupying ranks in keeping with those important positions.
If a new war were to break out there is no doubt that the services of a large number of well trained French-speaking officers would be needed and necessary. Their contribution would be, as in the past, most welcome. To promote the enlistment of Frenchspeaking Canadians we should promise them a fair deal and positions in keeping with their ability and their efficiency. That, I think, might be a still more concrete way of cementing national unity in Canada, that unity which is essential to harmony and good understanding between Canadians of different racial origins.
Mr. Chairman, before I sit down, may I suggest to the minister that, when there is a transfer from one military camp to another, an effort should be made, especially when the training laid down for the different French-speaking soldiers or servicemen is over, to send these people back to the locality they came from or, at least, to some place not too far removed from their homes.
I realize that when French-speaking Canadians from the province of Quebec are sent into Ontario, for instance, or to a western province, it is done with the best of intentions; it is a tremendous help to bilingualism, which is becoming extremely and increasingly important in Canada. The government is also to be congratulated for taking English-speaking people and moving them, in due time, to the old province of Quebec, so as to enable them to learn our mother tongue.
Yet, Mr. Chairman, when these people have stayed for a time in any province not their own, it would seem right to take the necessary steps to maintain a family spirit which is mainly to be found in our home province, so that it may actively survive.
I therefore ask the government to provide for the return of those servicemen nearer to their homes when they have completed their training.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to submit, Mr. Chairman. I hope they will be taken in the right spirit, because my sole

purpose in making them was to fulfil the task assigned to me and make an effort to ease the ever-growing fiscal load which the Canadian taxpayer has to carry.


Mr. Boisvert:: Will the hon. member allow a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Certainly.


Maurice Boisvert: Could the hon. member tell me the name of the billy goat, what wages it is getting and where, in the public accounts, we could find evidence of his statement that a billy goat is on the army pay roll?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Nicolet-Yamaska wants to know if I can tell him the name of the billy goat. Well I must say I was not present at the baptism of the goat; I was not invited-


Georges Villeneuve: If it is on the payroll, it must have a name.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: My hon. friend from Rober-val might inquire from the authorities and the man who baptized it. I was not there, nobody invited me.


Georges Villeneuve: Neither was I.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Secondly, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska wishes to know what pay the goat is getting.


Maurice Boisvert: Yes, the wages it gets.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The wages it gets? Well my hon. friend knows very well that those things are not to be found in the public accounts, because the matter would now be too widely known of the public, and I do think that it would not be in the interest of the government that such scandals be given too much publicity. Therefore the amount of the allowance granted to the goat in question is surely nowhere to be found in the public accounts.
Now, if my hon. friend from Nicolet-Yamaska is free some week end, he might go to the citadel and find out for himself how much it costs to keep that billy goat.


Maurice Boisvert: Mr. Chairman, I put that question because my learned friend had stated that the said goat was getting wages, at the expense of the army, and was listed on its pay roll. Therefore, the proof of it must be somewhere. If my hon. friend has no evidence to produce, I am taking his word for it.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I simply maintain that
monthly or periodical amounts are spent for
Supply-National Defence the upkeep of the goat and the maintenance of the goat's headquarters.


Georges Villeneuve: May I address a question to the hon. member?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is always possible.


Georges Villeneuve: He referred to three members of the army personnel who were looking after the goat. Can the hon. member for Quebec West tell us if those three men look after the goat as a full-time job or only on occasion?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The goat needs constant attendance, so the three army men I mentioned are especially attached to the goat. I shall even tell my hon. friend that one morning last fall, one of the goat-keepers arrived somewhat out of temper, and bullied the beast a bit. He was disciplined. I don't know and I would not care to say to what extent he was disciplined for handling his nibs somewhat roughly.


Georges Villeneuve: Could you name the soldier concerned?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Well, as my friend from Roberval is on the government side, he might ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gar-son) to have a mounted police look into the matter, so as to supply my hon. friend with any names he requires.
(Text):


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Maybe the parliamentary assistant could answer.


Mr. Hellyer:: There are now so many questions I would not know which ones to answer.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Supply-National Defence
One army informant said Meyer is accorded the same privileges as any other beer salesman. However, he is not invited to join officers in a drink in the mess-
That is very thoughtful.
-and as a rule he talks only with the messing officer.
The army decided not to bar Meyer from the brigade area. As far as the Canadian army is concerned, the source said Meyer has served out his prescribed sentence as a war criminal, and is a German civilian who happens to sell beer.
Meyer was convicted December 28, 1945, of inciting his troops to deny quarter to allied soldiers in the battle of Normandy, and of responsibility in the execution of 18 Canadian soldiers who had been taken prisoner.
I think anyone who doubts his responsibility has only to read the book "The Trial of Kurt Meyer" by Lieutenant Colonel B. J. S. Macdonald, O.B.E., Q.C., who was the official prosecutor of war trials on behalf of the Canadian government.
We know this man has served his sentence, but that does not alter the situation and I think we have to consider the sensibilities and feelings of the mothers and widows of Canadian veterans before we consider the sensibilities of a former war criminal. I bring this to the minister's attention because I have spoken to a number of people who are quite concerned about it and I would ask him if he would issue instructions to the commander of our brigade in Germany to have some other beer salesman deal with the Canadian army rather than Kurt Meyer.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, in the minister's fine survey of the debate which had occurred previously and which he made yesterday he referred to the remarks which had been made by various members of this house, including those by the hon. memher for York West. One strange thing about the minister's reply to the speech of the hon. member for York West was that he disregarded completely quotations placed on the record by the hon. member for York West from an article by Lieutenant General Guy Simonds. I think what the Minister of National Defence might have done on that occasion was to deal with the various charges. Of course he might say that those charges were not made by a member of this house and consequently he was not called upon to answer them. I grant that such a reply would be a palliative but it would not constitute a really satisfactory reply.
May I refer again to the quotations which the hon. member for York West put on the record and which were taken from Maclean's magazine of June 23, 1956. As I say, the
[Mr. Herridge.l
article is by Lieutenant General Guy Simonds, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., C.D., which I think would be enough to qualify any man'. I quote from the article:
Our organization for higher direction is designed, and operates to provide military excuses for political expedients rather than offering objective military advice and sound execution of realistic planning.
That to my mind is a very serious condemnation of the Department of National Defence. I am not saying that the present minister should assume full responsibility for that- he could not possibly do so-but it is the Department of National Defence as it now stands. I quote further from this article so the people in the country may know what this man is saying:
Whatever the intention in the minds of its designers, it is the opinion of the author that this expensive overhead is not evolving sound and objective defence policies.
Because of this cumbersome system of direction, the responsible military chiefs of the three armed services are denied an opportunity to confront those responsible for political decisions with objective military advice and alternatives upon which decision must be made. Senior civil servants can, by deliberate and unwarranted stalling, defeat the recommendations of the armed forces, even though those recommendations have been approved by the cabinet.
That is dreadfully serious.
The organization of the defence department as a whole is cumbersome and lacks flexibility. To operate effectively in a major crisis it would have to undergo radical changes which would paralyse efficient operation at a time when it should develop its highest efficiency.
The whole passage fills me with the deepest concern. Let me revert to that one sentence concerning which I made an interpolation.
Senior civil servants can, by deliberate and unwarranted stalling, defeat the recommendations of the armed forces, even though those recommendations have been approved by the cabinet.
There comes to my mind a most serious instance which occurred in the United States in 1948. Chiang Kai-shek was faced with his last chance of effectively throwing back his foes. In April 1948 the United States congress passed the China aid act of 1948 which provided for $1,250,000 worth of small arms and ammunition to be delivered to Chiang Kai-shek. The government of the United States were unable to check on whether those goods had been delivered until late in the year when on November 9, after all possible chance of using that China aid in throwing back the communist foe and stabilizing Chiang Kai-shek's position in China had passed, it was found that that material had not yet been delivered.
That indicates a most serious situation in the United States government, and from this

evidence right here it looks as though a somewhat analogous situation obtains in the government of Canada, especially in the Department of National Defence. No one in this house with any responsibility can pass by such a situation, and it becomes my duty, in spite of every kind of disinclination I may have to interfere in matters pertaining to defence in connection with which I have never had any experience except through my sons and brothers in world war II, to raise this matter and urge upon the minister the most serious consideration.
I should like to read to hon. members a statement which covers the whole continent of North America and the western world. This is another statement which cannot be disregarded. It is made by Dr. Louis F. Budenz, who is probably the greatest authority on communism and the communist high command on the American continent. At one time he was editor of the Daily Worker but he repented of his ways as a communist and became of great assistance to the United States in its effort to deal with the terrible situation which has developed and which threatens to drag the United States to utter destruction, and all the rest of us along with it. The publication in which this appeared is dated June, 1956, and the article reads:
Speaking before the Loyola College alumni association in Montreal recently, Dr. Budenz referred to peaceful co-existence as instalment plan suicide, stating:
"Unless those who are in charge of the governments of the so-called western world are able, very shortly, to turn back the course of the past 20 tragic years in our international history, we are writing the downfall of the entire non-Soviet governments. We are writing the second chapter in the achievement of the world Soviet dictatorship with the hammer and sickle over Ottawa and Washington before the next generation has expired."
Before the babies now being born get out of high school.
Describing the west's catastrophic losses in the cold war, Dr. Budenz warned "that some of the greatest victories of the Kremlin were won in the western world . . . Poland was not lost in Poland, it was lost in Washington, D.C., and at Yalta."
That is all I shall quote from a most terrifying article called "Instalment Plan Suicide". I am sure that every person who listens to that or reads that will realize that we are in one of the critical periods in the whole world's history. It affects us here and now, and particularly it affects our Department of National Defence which is charged with the responsibility of protecting us against the very evils which Dr. Budenz says are just rolling in upon us.
I have another document, and I think everybody in this house has a right to hear some excerpts from this document. It is the
Supply-National Defence June 15, 1956, issue of what is called the Economic Council Letter, published in the United States. The heading is "Shall Other Nations Tell us What to Do?" Some may ask, "Why bring in things about the United States?" It is quite clear that we are bound up with the United States inextricably in our defence, and consequently what affects them affects us immediately. Here are some quotations from that letter:
But in the past 40 years we have forgotten George Washington-have engaged in three foreign wars, no one of which had anything to do with vital American interests. Communism had to do with all those wars-and was the only victor.
That is just as true of Canada except for the fact that our vital interests were more eminently concerned because we were part of the British Empire. Another quotation:
We are faced in the near future with utter disaster-unless we resume control of our own destiny.
In 1945 American military materiel, estimated at 35 billions, was surreptitiously destroyed-a fact almost never referred to in press or radio. A dying President at Yalta ceded Soviet Russia large areas in Asia; and presently, through machinations in our state department, all China was lost to communism.
When the minister introduced his defence estimates he said something which this rather contradicts:
After three years of war in Korea, during which 30,000 American youth laid down their lives, and while our state department connived with the enemy, we made an ignominious peace. That peace lost face for America throughout Asia. It may lead to the communizing of all Asia.
In Germany we joined Russia in dismantling manufacturing plants, many of which were shipped to Russia, . . .
I hope that Canada had very little to do with this disastrous occurrence. From my own personal study, I can vouch for the truth of all of these statements made here, as far as I have been able to find the truth. This is another quotation:
President Truman forced the United Nations to partition Palestine-which lost us the good will of 400 million Moslems. At the present moment, barring a miracle, this will lead to the loss of the Middle East with its vast oil deposits, and the entry of Soviet influence into Africa. In Spain in 1946, we joined Soviet Russia in withdrawing ambassadors, thus isolating Spain.
I am not sure what we did in Canada, but that is what the United States did. Again:
Let's take a look at certain things in the United States. The same element that for a dozen years has made our foreign policy, in 1945 set up the United Nations. The American people weren't told then that the U.N. was to become a supergovernment, and was to shape our foreign policy. But that is just what has happened-at least so far as those behind the U.N. have been able to make it so.

Supply-National Defence
I believe that is absolutely true.
No longer is the stress in most schools, colleges and universities laid on loyalty to America: it is loyalty to internationalism, represented by the U.N. and its specialized agencies, that is preached. Literally millions of persons, especially students, are brought to New York and shepherded through the U.N. buildings. Our great national holiday, the fourth of July, is played down and United Nations Day is played up. Some of the big foundations are in on this.
I think a good many members of this house will reflect with considerable concern on the fact that in Ottawa on July 1, our great national holiday, you would have hardly thought that it was any different from, say, March 1, judging from the decorations that we had.


An hon. Member:: Why March 1?


John Horne Blackmore: Well, March 1 is a date quite a long way away from it. Where were the bands that might have performed? Where were the decorations along the streets? Where was the celebration we saw in our childhood every time Dominion day came along? That celebration just was not there. Why? Because it is the day of the United Nations that we are celebrating. You can see that what is being said here applies to Canada in no small degree. Let me give another quotation:
. . . the internationalists set up GATT (general agreement on tariffs and trade), which has functioned without any authority from Congress. The present administration is now trying to pass the OTC (organization for trade co-operation) bill, which would constitute a back-door recognition and officializing of GATT. So far has alien propaganda gone, that efforts by the economic council to interest manufacturing associations in certain states to protest against OTC have disclosed that some of the larger manufacturers in those states are in favour of it. So gradually the United States is losing trade to cheap foreign competitors. A wage of $1.76 an hour (the average American factory wage) cannot compete with 15-cent labour in Japan.
Pro-communist activity is being supported through the churches. Dr. J. B. Matthews stated that in 1952 three per cent of the Protestant ministers in the United States were members of communist fronts. So the left-wing press and radio saw that he was retired as director of research of the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations.
The left wing press and radio-with whom behind them?-saw that he was retired as director of research of the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations.
Here is another quotation:
Implanted right in the center of New York city is the U.N. headquarters. Many of those employed there by other nations are communist sympathizers; yet they have diplomatic status. They come and go in the United States as they please. They can even park their cars in violation of traffic regulations and thumb their noses at the police-and they do. . . .
TMr. Blackmore.]
The softened attitude of the administration, beginning with the Geneva conference a year ago, has cost us friendship and respect throughout the world. The Russian leaders after Geneva saw to it that iron curtain peoples understood they no longer had any hope of rescue by the United States. Had not Khrushchev, Bulganin and Eisenhower drunk vodka together-and martinis?
What a terrible blunder Geneva was. You may ask what this has to do with defence. It has everything to do with defence, because if we are selling this country down the river by the back door what is the use of shovelling billions of dollars through the Department of National Defence to protect it through the front door? Indications are that we are making quite a lot of progress in that direction, selling Canada down the river by the back door. I can back that up if I have the opportunity but I do not know whether I will take the occasion to do so this year. Here is another one:
Moreover, it is now expected that the general assembly of the United Nations will vote for the admission of red China, that red China which General MacArthur and several of his successors wanted to destroy and could have destroyed had it not been for that strange influence that has controlled the last three administrations.
I do not know whether or not that is true, but I heard the other day that at the recent empire conference of prime ministers the general idea was that we would work towards the recognition of red China. I hope that was not so. If it is so, it is a very serious matter. Unless we have some ulterior motive like trade, it means that as an empire we have lost our sense of right and wrong. Here is another quotation:
Why is it not possible for the United States, as long as it remains in the United Nations, to have delegates who are first and foremost for America?
How interesting that is. When they appoint delegates to go to the United Nations these people, every single one of them, are against the interests of the United States and congress appears to be unable to exercise any influence over the matter. Here is its next quotation: "The answer would seem to be that those back of the White House mean to force through the admission of red China."
The next quotation is:
Why has the present Republican administration, elected on a conservative American platform, become as internationalist and un-American as that of either Truman or Roosevelt, both of which in general placed American interests last?
That is a serious question. What causes these things to happen? We are coming to it after a while. We have already had reference to influence of some sort. What is that influence?


An hon. Member:: What has this to do with
Canada's defence?


John Horne Blackmore: We are right on defence, 100 per cent. Just as sure as you live, as I said a minute ago, there is no use pouring billions of dollars into the defence department if we know beforehand that the representatives of this nation are going to sell us to communism.


Mr. Hansell:: Defence on our home ground.


John Horne Blackmore: Of course. For example, suppose the representatives of this nation go and use their influence to get red China admitted to the United Nations. You would have 450 million additional communists in the United Nations to exercise control over the United Nations, an organization which is now under the control of communism.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John Horne Blackmore: It is nonsense to those who do not know. My young friend just does not know. That is all. He just does not know. These matters are very important. Here is another quotation:
The Republican national committee, which dictates the policy of the Republican party, appears to be interested, not in available facts, which show that the American people are not internationalists, but in instructions handed to it from behind the scenes.
By whom, I interject? I continue:
It has acted on hunches. One major hunch has been that the only way to beat the Democratic party is to out new-deal the Democratic new dealers on foreign policy.


Mr. Philpoll:: What has that got to do with Canada?


John Horne Blackmore: I am fighting for the defence of Canada. I happen to have some children and grandchildren growing up in this country and I do not want them under communism, whether my hon. friend does or not.


Elmore Philpott: Let the Republicans fight their own campaign.


John Horne Blackmore: Never mind a lot of these cheap remarks.


An hon. Member:: Don't say the United Nations is controlled by communists.


John Horne Blackmore: Here is another important quotation:
Great numbers of Republicans stayed away from the polls in the congressional elections of 1954. In many mid-western districts, a third of the registered voters stayed home. Inquiry has disclosed that this was due to resentment at the administration's successfully blocking by a single vote the adoption of the Bricker amendment, and to the administration's going all out to destroy Senator McCarthy, an outstanding foe of communism and one of the ablest political campaigners the Republicans had.
Supply-National Defence This is all strange. Take this one:
Yet officials of the Republican national committee, including chairman Hall, have refused even to look at the work charts and studies of the Dunn survey in spite of the compliments his survey has received from congressmen, commentators and editorial writers.
There is one more indication that the thing that is guiding the Republican party is not what the people think but what someone behind the scenes thinks. Then there is this passage:
The conclusion seems inescapable that the actual thinking of voters is largely unheeded by the Republican national committee. Republican new dealism, of which we now see so much evidence, does not reflect the opinions and wishes of the people. It reflects the views and ideas of men working behind the scenes-
Who are they?	.
-and passing on their instructions to the committee.
Then there is one more quotation, and this is all I will give at this time:
The Republican national committee aims to have all funds that are to be contributed to Republican candidates for congress channelled through the national committee. In this way they can control the candidates. We are reliably advised that in the state of Illinois, for instance, in the congressional election of 1954 the Republican national committee sent word to Republican candidates for congress that not a dollar would come from the committee to their campaigns if they invited Senator McCarthy to speak for them. As a result, several Illinois Republican congressmen and the Republican nominee for the Senate lost the election.
I have quoted these words to indicate what kind of thing it is that is getting control of governments. We have been told by Lieutenant General Simonds, and let me repeat it again:
Senior civil servants can, by deliberate and unwarranted stalling, defeat the recommendations of the armed forces, even though those recommendations have been approved by the cabinet.
Who is it who can do that? For whom are they working? Why do they do it? Why does the government not know about it? Why does the Minister of National Defence not do something about it? All I am concerned about is that there are hidden forces in Canada and hidden forces in the United States.
I pointed out in my speeches of the day before yesterday and the day before that hidden forces have evidently been acting in support of the Bank of Canada and the Rowell-Sirois commission report to the detriment of the Canadian people and in the interests of alien people abroad. I do not think the conclusion can be successfully questioned.
I wish to quote a passage from the Ottawa Citizen of some days ago. I think everybody
6170	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence in Canada has been impressed with the fact that somehow or other and for some reason or other we shut Gouzenko up. Why shut Gouzenko up? Because there were evidently people in Canada who were more interested in the advancement of communism than they were in the advancement of Canadianism. All this man was doing was revealing the terribly dangerous situation which existed inside the Canadian government and the Canadian country. That is all, but we did not want to hear about it. Is it not strange? The government shut him up by the simple device of conveying to him that if he did not keep his mouth shut he would not have protection any more such as he now enjoys.


Elmore Philpott: He had an article in Liberty magazine last week.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, he was shut up, was he not? Perhaps his article was about a different thing entirely.


An hon. Member:: And he has written a couple of books.


John Horne Blackmore: I suppose it is alright to write books as long as they do not reveal where the spies are, who they are, and call for an investigation of the spy rings. Certainly there is no objection then. But if Gouzenko wanted to adopt measures which would find out for us who the top ranking communist leader in Canada is, what his race
is,	whether he is Anglo-Saxon, Celt or alien, he would be shut up in a hurry. That is the information that everybody in Canada ought to know.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you tell us?


John Horne Blackmore: I could tell you, but I prefer to let my hon. friend do his own investigating. It is his responsibility to do
it,	just as it is mine. I have discharged my responsibility and my hon. friend has not; that is all. I tell him that right to his face.
I quote excerpts from an article in the Ottawa Citizen, page 16, November 23, 1953, headed, "Gouzenko says Canadian government ignored his attempts to expose U.S. spy rings."
On no occasion did I (Gouzenko) ever say that I had new information which I did not already give to the Canadian government. "I believe a meeting (with U.S. officials) would be useful since I can give advice which, if properly put into effect, would have good chances of bringing exposure of present Soviet spy rings in the United States in comparatively short time."
"That, of course, would be a great help to Canada, too. That advice I gave already to the Canadian government, during my first days under protection of the Canadian government, but I am sorry to say that it was ignored."
Now, why was it ignored?
(Mr. Blackmore.]


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but it is my duty to advise him his time has expired.


John Horne Blackmore: May I read just one sentence as I sit down?
Serious and energetic adoption of this advice many years ago might have had important results by now. However, it is never too late . . .


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Churchill.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member wants to ask me a question, and I want to answer him.


Mr. Hollingworih:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Is he presenting his own view or the view of his party when he makes the very serious allegation that the United Nations organization, and I assume all its affiliated organizations, are controlled by communists.


John Horne Blackmore: I am speaking entirely for myself.


Mr. Weaver:: I always hesitate to take part in a debate on national defence. It is not because I do not feel qualified to do so or at least as qualified as other members, but the complexities of the subject are such that I never know just where to start or where to end. The purely military aspects of our defence have been, and must be, decided upon by those who are qualified through years of careful study in their particular field. They have received and studied detailed and intimate facts on which they have to base their decisions. These are .things which we, as members, cannot do unless we have the time, which we certainly have not got, to go into the subject as deeply as the officials responsible.
With regard to the actual amount of the estimates which we are asked to vote, the other day the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seemed to indicate that there was something odd in the round numbers of the total estimates of national defence. I do not see anything odd in these figures at all. For the last several years my understanding of what the government has been doing, and I am sure that is the understanding of other members, was that in the light of the knowledge they had of the economy they allotted as much as they felt could safely and wisely be allotted to national defence, and tailored the other items to that over-all figure. After all, defence is the most important single thing we have to face in the country, and other things certainly ought to be tailored to that amount.

The degree of priority of the various items within the departmental estimates must also be determined in the same way. However, those are things, as I said, that require a great deal of information upon which to base any decision. I wish to move to a field in which I feel I can make a contribution to this debate, and that, generally speaking, is the two great radar lines that have been built in our north.
Before dealing with them, I want to call the attention of hon. members to some of the physical facts relating to our country. Canada is a country that is larger in territory than the United States and Alaska combined. The constituency which I represent comprises about 175,000 square miles right in the heart of this country, yet it lies in the southern half of Canada. I represent nearly two-thirds of the province of Manitoba, which lies to the south of the Northwest Territories. Churchill, on Hudson bay, our northern port, is just about the geographical centre of Canada. Now, that is an amazing thing, but if you look at the map you will realize how much of Canada lies to the north of that. In my constituency, which is really a fringe constituency with regard to population, there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60,000 people. There are more people there than in all the Northwest Territories and the Yukon combined. When you think of the large territory that has to be covered, and that is the area we must defend, you will see some of the problems that enter into it.
I might refer to the solution of one of those problems. Our aircraft industry, in this small nation of 16 million people, has had to develop one of the outstanding aircraft in operation today, the CF-100. The problems related to its development were due to the size of the country and the distance it has to travel. I do not know of any other comparable problem anywhere, and for the same reason we have now to develop the CF-105. These are the problems that we, a small people, have to meet, and I am very proud of the way they have been met in the past.
Speaking of this tremendous area that I have mentioned, we have lying in that area possibly the richest resources that any country ever had under its charge. We have not fully coped with that area. There are many reasons why we have not, and one of the chief reasons is the small population and the services that have to be built and developed before we can properly cope with it. But when people get up and glibly say we are not properly looking after the sovereignty of that area or that the Department of National Defence is lax in looking after the sovereignty of that area. I wish they would
Supply-National Defence take a look at the map, take into consideration some of the things I have said and try to realize the tremendous problems involved. The amount of money necessary to do these very large jobs has to be squeezed out of the economy which is developing, fortunately, at a very rapid rate. If we do not develop at that rapid rate it will make that defence job all the more difficult; so that if it is a battle of priorities between development, which fortunately does not come out of the estimates but does come out of the economy, and other developments and the protection of that economy, which has a valuable part to play in our everyday life, and the choosing of which has the higher priority, I have no doubt as to what the choice will be.
When faced with this problem some people have said that it is a waste of money; that this area cannot be defended. Well, let us suppose for a moment that it is a waste of money. I do not for a moment agree with that. I think it is a defensible area, or the people charged with those decisions would not have made them. I am leaving the military aspect for the moment. The country that those two lines run through is important; it is rich country; it is country that must be occupied by us as fast as we can occupy it or other people on this globe will occupy it in spite of us. The Canadian construction crews who have gone out and worked in the construction of those lines are getting a knowledge of their country that they never dreamed existed. They are finding out something about the country in which they are living and of which they are a part, and that will be of tremendous value in itself in making the rest of Canada aware of the lands within their borders.
There is only one regret I have in connection with the development of these lines and the development of the north that goes along with it, and that regret is that it has been the action of another country that has forced us to take the close look at our country that we have been taking. These lines will have a tremendous impact on our country in the future. Even if we admit they are not militarily worth while, every dollar spent there will be economically worth while because it will place an umbrella over the whole nation and it will assist tremendously in the prospecting, in the pioneering and in the developing of that northland.
I am afraid I have not given the picture as I should like to give it because it is such a large one to give. It is ridiculous to say that because our neighbours to the south are paying for the construction of the D.E.W. line, and are looking after the military aspect of it, we have lost our

Supply-National Defence sovereignty over it. The mid-Canada line runs along the 55th parallel, roughly, and I can remember in my school days hearing the slogan "54-40 or fight". We all know now how ridiculous that was and how ridiculous it is to say that the Americans are going to control us or have any influence on us that we ourselves do not agree to or recognize as being part of our geography or part of the facts of life that we live on their borders. Therefore, I feel that these fears are quite illogical and are only part of the general lack of knowledge that we as Canadians have of our own nation.
Now, as I said, it is true that many of our preparations may in the future prove to have been unnecessary-again I am speaking of military preparations. They might prove to have been unnecessary and I am sure that everyone here hopes that they will prove to have been unnecessary; but I cannot think of any military decision taken in the past that was unnecessary within the scope of the facts on which it was based.
There has never been such a time of uncertainty in our history, uncertainty as to what we should or should not be doing in many fields; but in the midst of that uncertainty I do not think we have ever been better served by those whom we have charged with the responsibility of our defence.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, first, I should like to comment on the speech made yesterday by the senior hon. member for Halifax, in which he sought to establish that there was not any need for the committee requested by the Leader of the Opposition because great masses of information in regard to defence had been provided. Now, I can only describe the speech of the senior hon. member for Halifax as a collection of half truths, inaccuracies and words which added up to complete misrepresentation of the facts of the situation. It is quite true, as the hon. member said, we have had a lot of information in regard to defence matters, but a great deal of that information was in regard to details which were not of very great importance and did not assist us very greatly in discovering what the real facts are in regard to our defence situation.
On the other hand, the information which would place us in the position of knowing to what extent our defence forces are efficient and effective and whether we are getting value for the large amounts of money which we are putting into defence-those facts have very frequently been denied to us.
The hon. member for Halifax said that as far as the opposition is concerned everything is wrong with defence. We constantly say,


"Everything is wrong with defence". Nobody on this side of the house has ever said everything was wrong with defence, or anything like that. We have throughout always been willing to admit and, as a matter of fact, to state that the officers and men in our defence forces are of high calibre, the morale is good and they have produced some efficient and effective units. The fact that we have made a considerable number of complaints in regard to the way in which the defence department has been carried on, and a great many criticisms on the general policy followed, and so forth, does not add up to saying that everything is wrong with defence. Nobody has ever maintained that everything was wrong with it.
I was particularly surprised that the hon. member for Halifax should have taken the proceedings before the defence expenditures committee of 1951, 1952 and 1953 as an example of the enormous amount of information on defence which was given to members on this side of the house, as an example of the fact that a defence committee such as that asked for by the Leader of the Opposition is not required. I think the hon. member showed a great deal of effrontery in even referring to the proceedings of the special committee on defence expenditure as an example of how much information was given to us. I have only one volume of the proceedings with me whereas I think the hon. member yesterday had the complete proceedings. If you go through the proceedings you will find instance after instance where information was denied to the members of that committee. In other words, rather than being an example, as the hon. member tried to indicate, of how much information was given it is a great example of exactly how much information was denied us.
It is true that a great deal of information was given to that committee but a vast portion of it was extremely irrelevant information. As a matter of fact, I believe the tactic pursued in that committee was an attempt to overwhelm the members of the committee with a tremendous number of figures and statistical lists of the number of pairs of socks on hand and things of that kind so that the committee would be bogged down in details and unable to obtain the information it desired.
When it came to requests for vital information, on the other hand, we were denied information. I will refer to only two instances which I think illustrate the point quite well. On April 29, 1952 at page 83 of the proceedings of the special committee on defence expenditure the following appears:
The chairman read the second report of the subcommittee on agenda, as follows:

Your sub-committee on agenda met on April 24 and 28, to consider the following notice of motion of Mr. Harkness, namely:
(a) That the Department of National Defence be asked to bring before the committee at its next meeting officials who can give us the general administrative set-up at Petawawa.
Then paragraphs (b), Cc>
and (d) are set out containing details of the particular witnesses we sought to have appear. Then it goes on to say:
Your sub-committee recommends that the above notice of motion be not entertained at the present time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: that the committee proceed with his motion as contained in the above report.
After debate, Mr. Applewhaite moved in amendment thereto
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In other words, the entire motion for the production of witnesses and papers was struck out. That was voted on and of course my motion was voted down. The proposed amendment was carried and the committee was denied the right of calling witnesses and investigating what had occurred at Petawawa.
Mr. George S. Currie, of course, carried on an investigation subsequent to that which disclosed a number of facts which have never been very palatable to members on the government side of the house.
Another similar instance of denial of information occurs in the proceedings for June 12, 1952 as recorded at page 412 thereof. I was asking a series of questions and here is one which appears about one-third of the way down the page:


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with 87(a) which is the big item in this whole thing-
This was a list of the expenditures for equipment as far as the air force and army were concerned.
-being far more than all the rest of these items together, the note at the bottom says supplier includes A.V. Roe-CF-100, Canadair-F-86 Sabre I presume, and probably other aircraft. Now, could we be told that it is these two aircraft that the item takes in or whether there are other aircraft?
We then proceeded to discuss the matter of security which was brought up and the discussion continues for two or three pages. The net result was that we received no information whatever concerning that item which, as I say, was larger than all the other items put together. That is typical of the way in which that committee was conducted.
It is all very well to say that all kinds of information was given in this committee and in other ways, but the important point is that the information we obtained was a mass of minute details which were not important and the really important questions which
Supply-National Defence would have enabled us to obtain a picture of the situation were left unanswered and the information was denied us.
From this point I would go on to comment on the speech made by the minister yesterday and I think the same criticism applies to his speech. In other words, the minister answered some of the small specific questions which were brought up in considerable detail but he did not answer the general criticisms raised with regard to policy and organization and things of that nature. He simply did not answer the important questions which were posed in the speeches made by hon. members during the course of this debate.
The minister made an attempt to answer the statements or allegations or whatever you want to call them which are contained in the article written by General Simonds which appeared in Maclean's magazine and which has been referred to here so frequently. In connection with that I will just read an account of his remarks which appears in this morning's Gazette:
Mr. Campney said General Simonds' views are "merely expressions of opinion and not necessarily statements of fact."
Well, I think I could agree with that comment but I would say that the minister's remark also applies to the statements he made yesterday. In other words, he offered statements of opinion which were not necessarily statements of fact.
When it comes to statements of opinion concerning the subjects General Simonds dealt with in his article, I am more prepared to accept his opinion than the minister's. Having been the chief of staff and having spent his lifetime in the Canadian army, General Simonds I think is perhaps better qualified than is the minister to express an opinion as to the efficiency of Canadian defence headquarters. I think he is better qualified than is the minister to state an opinion as to whether defence headquarters could operate efficiently and effectively in the event of war.
In his statement yesterday the minister said he was convinced that national defence headquarters here was efficient and effective and would do a good job in the event of war. That was his opinion and that is all it is. The opinion of the minister is the complete opposite of the opinion expressed by General Simonds and I think the General's opinion on that subject is much more valid than is the minister's opinion.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-National Defence AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, before the luncheon recess I had been commenting upon the reply made yesterday by the Minister of National Defence and had pointed out that while he had dealt with some of the smaller specific criticisms, such as the publication of books on hockey by the department, he had failed to deal with many of the more far-reaching and important criticisms by hon. members and also in magazine articles and other places by two high-ranking officers recently retired, General Simonds and General Macklin. I should like to ask the minister to deal specifically with some of the statements which appeared in the article by General Simonds in Maclean's magazine which have not been dealt with so far. They are summarized at the beginning of the article on page 22, and the following are three points which I do not think he touched upon:
1.	There is no co-ordinated effort to evolve a sound and comprehensive defence policy.
2.	The Canadian chiefs of staff committee is "packed" to protect the government against the receipt of unpalatable advice.
3.	Senior civil servants can, by deliberate and unwarranted stalling, defeat the recommendations of the armed forces even though those recommendations have been approved by the cabinet.
When I spoke on these estimates before I had gone into this matter of general policy or lack of general policy as far as defence is concerned and had asked the minister to say something about that. I had also in some detail gone into the necessity for a reorgani-ization of Canadian defence forces in view of the completely different circumstances which now exist owing to the development of thermonuclear weapons. In doing so I had paid some attention to the necessity, as far as the army was concerned, of developing more mobile and better protected forces which could operate in smaller units or forces where small units and sub-units could if necessary operate by themselves which undoubtedly would be necessary in the event of thermonuclear war. I also had something to say about the necessity for the unification of the armed forces and for a unified policy as far as all the forces are concerned, and the probable necessity, in order to accomplish that, of having an over-all chief of the defence forces as was found to be necessary during the second world war.
In the past few years since the war we have heard a considerable amount of talk about the integration of our three services. I am sorry to say that most of that talk I think has been eyewash. What it really comes down to is that the same branches of all three services as far as headquarters are


concerned are in the same building. All that that really has accomplished is to waste people's time because when the people in A branch of the army, we will say, want to talk to the people in G branch of the army, they must take a long walk to a different building. It is true that the people in A branch of the army, navy and air force are located in the same building, but I understand that they really have very little to do with one another. In other words, it shows some outward signs of integration but actually it does not accomplish that purpose.
In addition to that we have three tri-service colleges which are quite good as far as they go, for cadets that is. We have the defence college at Kingston which I think is a good institution and where you have people from all three services as well as from external affairs and I believe other departments attending as students. I think it is an extremely good institution. We have the same rates of pay in the three services, but apart from those things nothing else in the way of integration has been accomplished that is really of any value as far as I can see.
I think everyone admits that the old concept of sea power, land power and air power being separate entities having little or no connection with one another is now completely invalid. No one of those forms of military power is of any use or avail by itself. In other words, they are totally interdependent. However, very little if anything in the organization of Canada's defence forces has taken place to show that these facts have been realized and taken into account.
The second world war showed the necessity for singleness of command and direction at the top for all forces in each theatre of war. It was not until that singleness of command in each theatre of war had been put into operation that we secured victory in the last war. But in spite of this, when the reorganization of the Canadian forces took place after the war this principle of unity of planning and direction was disregarded, and it still is.
As one example, the army and the air force each operate separate staff colleges where different concepts and doctrines of war are taught. The navy has no staff college at all. I think it would accomplish a great deal more and be much more important to have tri-service staff colleges for the training of staff officers than it is to have triservice colleges for cadets. What was done to give some outward semblance of unity was really a clumsy and expensive attempt. A very large civil service was superimposed on the already extremely top-heavy staffs of the three services, duplicating the administrative machinery of the armed forces and thus

duplicating the cost and slowing down action with of course a consequent loss in efficiency. I think one might properly ask this question. If the quartermaster services of the forces are doing a proper job, why does all this work have to be done over again by civil servants? The thing seems to be completely without reason.
In my opinion the first step which should be taken as far as reorganizing Canada's defence set-up is concerned is the complete reorganization of national defence headquarters in order to secure efficiency and economy at that level. I have spoken on this subject before; perhaps it may be said that I have harped on it during the past seven or eight years. I have made speeches on the subject when the defence estimates were up going back to a period of two or three years after the war. In speeches I have made from that time on I have referred to the top-heavy organization at defence headquarters, and the large proportion of service personnel in administrative and desk jobs as compared to those in fighting units.
The former minister of national defence attempted to minimize this situation. At one time he produced some figures which purported to show that we were no worse off in this regard than the United Kingdom and the United States. I should like to point out that the worth of such figures depends upon what you take as fighting units. If you took the actual fighting units at the time mentioned and compared the number in them with the number in the services generally you would find the proportion to be very poor. The fact that we were very deficient in fighting units was shown up strongly when the Korean war broke out. We were not able to send a single battalion to the Korean war at that time. There was a terrible rush to recruit enough men to send one battalion, and about six months later we were able to send two more battalions. When the war came we did not have any troops to send, in spite of the fact that the minister kept assuring the house that we had adequate military forces to meet any foreseeable or likely contingency.
In any event it has been my contention for several years past that defence headquarters is top-heavy and as a result wasteful and inefficient. I now have two very powerful witnesses to reinforce that claim. General Simonds has said in this article that the headquarters is top-heavy. The minister, of course, said that was only his opinion. I think that that opinion is a very weighty one and it is reinforced by General Macklin and every other retired officer with any experience with whom I have ever spoken in
Supply-National Defence regard to the matter. General Simonds said that in a real crisis national defence headquarters would come to a grinding, shuddering halt. I claim that is probably correct, in spite of the minister's opinion to the contrary.
General Burns in his book on Canadian manpower, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre yesterday, points out what a terrific waste of manpower there was in administrative jobs during the war, and he points out that, contrary to what the general opinion was, that wastage was greater in the Canadian army than in the United States army, which everyone was holding up as the greatest institution for providing ice cream for the troops and other services which were not too essential in getting soldiers on the field. Our wastage in administrative jobs was greater than in the United States army and considerably greater than in the United Kingdom army. That situation has continued in peace time. I am quite convinced that we are still wasting a terrific amount of manpower. This national defence headquarters is perhaps the prime example of this.
The situation there of the multiplication of staffs inevitably leads to waste of manpower and money and loss of time and efficiency. According to the Department of National Defence report for this year, there were 4,330 civilian staff here in Ottawa at the end of 1955. The number of service personnel at national defence headquarters was not given but it is very large, and as a matter of fact I should like the minister to give later the figures for the number of service personnel here at defence headquarters.
However, a few examples show the unnecessary duplication, triplication and qua-druplication of staffs. I would take as the first of these the medical services. There are three directorates of medical services, one for each service, and in addition a civilian advisory board. There is a brigadier or equivalent rank at the head of each of these services. As a matter of fact, at the moment I think the navy has a captain at the head of its service. I do not think there is any doubt that one directorate of medical services would be sufficient for the three services. There is no necessity to have one for the army, one for the navy and one for the air force.
When you look at the dental services you will find that there are not three directorates of dental services but only one, with a director at the head of it. The dental service looks after the army, the navy and the air force and does it very efficiently and effectively, as far as I can determine. There is

Supply-National Defence absolutely no reason why the same situation should not prevail as far as the medical services are concerned. The triplication of directors and their staffs there is completely unnecessary.
When we look at the chaplain services we see an even more ridiculous situation. Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could hardly credit it, but there are six directorates of chaplain services, each one headed by a colonel. There are six full colonels, and whom do they look after? According to this same report, at the end of 1955, there were only 246 chaplains, with these six directorates to run them. There is no doubt that two directorates, one for the Protestant and one for the Roman Catholic chaplains, for the three services would be ample, with two staffs instead of six staffs.
Another example is the directorate of military training in the army. When we look at the telephone book here we see that this directorate of military training has grown and flowered and has a multiplicity of full colonels as directors of various branches, each one with a considerable staff, each one with a G-2, majors, captains, lieutenants and goodness knows how many other personnel. We have a director of military training; we have a director of militia and cadets; we have a director of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps; we have a director of the Royal Canadian Artillery; a director of the Signals; a director of the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps. In addition to that there are many other directorates of staff duties, military organization, planning and so forth, but the first ones I mentioned, the director of military training and these five directors for different corps, do the work that was done before the war by the director of military training and two staff officers.
It is admitted that the number of people in the army has increased very considerably, but I do not think there is any doubt that the increase has not been such as to warrant such a terrific multiplication of staffs as has taken place in these circumstances. The work of people of that kind consists to quite an extent of supervising training, putting out training pamphlets, issuing training directives and so on. The fact that we now have upwards of 50,000 people in the permanent army as compared with, say, 4,000 or 5,000 before the war, with a smaller number of people in the militia than before the war, does not warrant such an enormous multiplication of staffs, as far as training duties are concerned, as this shows.
As another example, each service has a personnel or manpower branch, and in addition to that there is another on the civilian side dealing with civilian personnel. In


other words, there are four personnel agencies or directorates, or whatever you wish to call them, all dealing with the question of manpower. One would be sufficient. Of course, one of the results of having these various personnel directorates is that you have recruiting stations for all three services in each province and each city of any size. When you walk down the street in most of our cities, you will see an R.C.A.F. recruiting station; somewhere else you will see an army recruiting station; and somewhere else you will see a naval recruiting station. In other words, there are three recruiting stations, each with a staff and each paying a high rent in the downtown parts of our cities, to do the job that one recruiting station could do for all services and perhaps do more effectively.
Another example is with regard to pay services. There is a separate pay service for the army, navy and the air force. One pay service could handle the whole thing quite readily.
These are just some of the examples of the duplication, triplication and quadruplication of staffs and of the effort that goes on at national defence headquarters and is multiplied right across the country. I should like to refer now to one of the criticisms General Simonds made and it is to be found at page 66 of Maclean's magazine for June 23. It reads in this way:
Power without responsibility is the theme that permeates the whole Canadian organization tor the higher direction and control of defence.
That is national defence headquarters, of course.
The Canadian chiefs of staff committee is "packed" to protect the government against the receipt of unpalatable advice, rather than present the military case objectively and fearlessly on its merits. The deputy minister of national defence, the permanent chairman, chiefs of staff and the chairman of the defence research board are all members of the chiefs of staff committee, yet none of these has any definite responsibility either to parliament on the one hand or for the end result as represented in the operational capability of each service on the other.


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


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I had decided not to take part in this debate and I would have preferred to continue to listen to the very interesting speeches coming from the other side of the house but as I heard a very silly speech delivered this morning by the member for Quebec West I thought an answer should be made to that speech. If the member for Quebec West was trying to get somebody's goat, he certainly put his own neck on the block. I have information given to me about the goat of

the 22nd regiment, and during the recess a few of my friends to whom I have spoken have asked me the same question: Why in heaven has the member for Quebec West picked on the glorious 22nd regiment to make a farce of it?
I have received information on the question of the goat. It comes from the department and I also have further information coming from newspapers. I shall only refer to two of them. The goat referred to by the member for Quebec West was presented by His Excellency the Governor General on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen to the Royal 22nd Regiment last October. I should like to see every member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in his seat to listen to that and to take the matter more seriously than the member for Quebec West did when he was here. I am sorry he is not here at the present time.
This goat was specially selected from a herd in the United Kingdom maintained by the crown. The goat is looked after by one corporal who has volunteered for this duty in addition to his regular duties as N.C.O. of the top platoon. All the costs concerned- and this should be noted by every member of the house-in the upkeep of the goat are met from regimental funds. From their personal moneys the members of the 22nd regiment pay for the upkeep of the goat.
Just before the hon. member for Quebec West came in I was saying that the famous goat which he spoke about before the recess had been presented by the Governor General on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -will the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: You are the goat.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -allow me-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: No.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -just one word? I did not question the gift of the goat. I was only questioning the expenses incurred in the keeping of the goat at the Quebec citadel.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Gauthier: If the hon. member-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I might be a goat but you are a bunch of sheep.


An hon. Member:: That is what you think.


Pierre Gauthier: I would answer the hon. member on that but I am too charitable to do so.


An hon. Member:: Go and have a quick one.
Supply-National Defence


Pierre Gauthier: I was saying that all costs concerned in the upkeep of the goat are met from regimental funds.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: No.


Pierre Gauthier: Yes. All concerned in the officers' mess and the N.C.O.'s mess are providing the funds for the upkeep of the goat, the mascot of the regiment. Most of the regiments in Canada have mascots and most of the sports associations in the world have mascots. Even the Tory party has a mascot.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is the best mascot of all.


Pierre Gauthier: I am going to tell the hon. gentleman one thing and I hope he will never forget it. When I was practising medicine I used to tell my patients-


An hon. Member:: Did you have a certificate?


Pierre Gauthier: Yes, I have my certificate and I can treat you for mental disease if you like. Come again. I used to ask my patients to be patient and to take their pills and swallow them without saying a word because it would have a much better effect on their systems. Why don't you take your pill?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I do not need one from you.


Pierre Gauthier: You need a few.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Not one you would prescribe.


Pierre Gauthier: A small building was constructed to house the goat and the only charges in this regard-listen to this; it is far from the figure given by the member for Quebec West-were some $120 met from regimental funds.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: No.


Pierre Gauthier: Why don't you be silent?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am doing the same thing you do when I rise.


Pierre Gauthier: Why don't you be silent for once?


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that speech?


Pierre Gauthier: Nobody. I can make my own speeches, and I do not read them. I am simply giving information that comes from the Department of National Defence and I have other information from newspapers, from a Tory newspaper, the Ottawa Journal, if you like.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is not proof.

Supply-National Defence


Pierre Gauthier: There was also a somewhat smaller sum met by the crown- this is the sin-for electrical fittings which were installed by army engineers on the station. They do not give the amount but I presume it must be very small. The Royal 22nd Regiment is affiliated with the Royal Welsh Fusiliers which by ancient tradition has been privileged by the crown to have as its official mascot a goat from the royal herd. That is the story about the goat. Now, who is the goat?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is your story about the goat.


Pierre Gauthier: You have not
swallowed it yet? Then, there is an article in the Ottawa Journal of October 1955 which is headed, "Massey presents royal goat to famed royal 22nd". It reads:
Quebec, October 3:-The 1st battalion of the Royal 22nd regiment marched proudly along historic Grand Allee Saturday with a new mascot- a specially-trained goat presented to the Quebec army unit by Governor General Vincent Massey.
The parade was in the character of a farewell demonstration by the 800 men who embark here Tuesday-
These 800 members did not find it so funny. They were proud to parade with the goat given by the Queen.
-for Germany, where they will join the 2nd Canadian Infantry Brigade. The men's families will travel separately to Europe about one month from now.
Canada's 1st Infantry Brigade will soon return to Canada after serving two years in Germany.
More than 1,000 men of the famed "Van Doos''-
My hon. friend knows that the English speaking people call the 22nd the "Van Doos".
-gathered on the plains of Abraham for the goat presentation ceremony.
Mr. Massey-
After all, he is the Governor General of Canada. He is as high up in the hierarchy as the hon. member for Quebec West.
Mr. Massey presented the spotless, white-horned animal to Major General Georges Vanier, honorary colonel of the regiment who was its officer commanding when it was affiliated with the Royal Welsh Fusiliers in 1927. The mascot of the Fusiliers is also a goat.
The trained animal wore a silver insignia of the Royal 22nd on its horn and an inscription in French naming Mr. Massey as its donor.
Goat Corporal Albert Gagnon, 21, of Grand'mere, Quebec, wearing a scarlet gala uniform and bearskin cap, led the animal in the parade by a leather leash.
When the goat was brought close to Mr. Massey for the presentation ceremony, it rose on its hind legs and placed its front paws on the Governor General's chest. A crowd of onlookers applauded.
They were not ashamed of it. They did not make a fuss about that. They were quite pleased and honoured by the gift given by Her Majesty the Queen and the Governor General.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Until then, there was no cost of any kind.


Mr. Gauihier (Porineuf):: You do not know anything about the cost. You gave the figure as $1,800 this morning.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I knew what I was talking about.


Pierre Gauthier: It was $120.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is your own figure.


Pierre Gauthier: You have a lot of your own. I continue reading from the article:
In a brief address Mr. Massey said he had cherished the hope of making the gift to the Royal 22nd for some time because of its affiliation with the Royal Welsh Fusiliers.
"It seemed appropriate-
That is the Governor General speaking.
-that you would share with the Royal Welsh Fusiliers one of their old traditions, that of counting among their members a goat from the royal flock,'' he said.
They were not ashamed of it. They did not make any fuss out of it. It was the hon. member for Quebec West who made the fuss. I am sure of this, that the hon. member has members of the Royal 22nd in his county, as I have in mine, and they will remember his outburst.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I did not say anything about the 22nd.


Pierre Gauthier: There is an article in the Windsor Star which is about the same thing as reported in the Ottawa Journal, so why pick on the 22nd?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I rise on a point of privilege.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no point of privilege there.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Now, shut up a minute.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent, as the hon. member well knows.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: On a point of privilege- Mr. Chairman-


Pierre Gauthier: He is the mascot; he has certain privileges.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am proud to be the mascot of a great party like mine.


An hon. Member:: What have you got on your horns?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Quiet, children. My question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, is that the hon. member for Portneuf just said, why should the hon. member for Quebec West pick on the 22nd regiment? Never at any time have I mentioned anything regarding the 22nd regiment. I am proud of this regiment and many of its members are in my constituency. I do want to tell the hon. member for Portneuf that he has to withdraw those words.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If I did pick on someone, I picked on the goat with all the expenses incurred. I am still sure the figures I gave were the right ones.


Pierre Gauthier: I would rather not withdraw, Mr. Chairman, because I have another epithet to replace the first one and my hon. friend will not like it. Shall I withdraw?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Do whatever you wish to do.


Pierre Gauthier: Shall I withdraw?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is not up to me to decide; I am not the chairman.


Pierre Gauthier: I am positive- oh, I forgot one thing. He says he is proud to be the mascot of a great party. I wonder if it is reciprocal? I hope they get a leash and bring him back on the line.
I was really sorry to hear the hon. member this morning. Of course, he never thought-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You do not have to.


Pierre Gauthier: You do not have to think? Well, that is funny. He never thought that would be like a bouncing ball after the recess. I have read newspaper clippings from the Ottawa Journal, and surely he must believe in those if he believes in anything-I mean politically speaking.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: What about the expense?


Pierre Gauthier: I gave the expense, $120, and it came from the personal funds of the N.C.O.'s and officers mess. Is that enough? Is that clear?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is your own version.


Pierre Gauthier: It is my version and it is the version of all those who have been in the army. We must not forget, Mr. Chairman, that the-I will not say attack but I would say unhappy intervention of the hon. member for Quebec West about that goat is now a thing of the past, but I am sure the members of the "Van Doos" will not like it and will not forget it. When we are in the army and away from our families we must have something like this to keep up the esprit de corps, to enjoy ourselves
Supply-National Defence and to make the army more pleasant. That is normal; that is a tradition.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You should have a goat in your own ranks, too.


Pierre Gauthier: If we have to have one we shall choose it. Mr. Chairman, I think the matter of the goat is cleared up by the Ottawa Journal and by the information coming from the Department of National Defence. When the hon. member retires tonight and is on his knees with a good book in his hand dealing with the past, the present and the future of the Conservative party he will have time to meditate on what he did this morning.
Another thing he mentioned this morning was the Petawawa horses. On January 22, 1953, the hon. member for Hamilton West asked these questions in the house:
1.	Were any names of persons listed on Petawawa payrolls which did not represent living human beings?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	At what rate of pay were they listed?
4.	Was remuneration in cash or by cheque?
5.	If the latter, who cashed the cheques?
6.	Were deductions made for income tax purposes at source?
7.	If so, what claims, if any, were made for exemption because of (a) married status; (b) other dependents?
The Prime Minister answered that question as follows:
Mr. Speaker, as this question concerns matters in which the Department of National Defence, the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Justice are all three interested, I believe it would be appropriate that I answer it. The answer to the first question is "no" and therefore the remaining questions are not applicable.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You should read the Currie report.


Pierre Gauthier: I continue:
As this answer will appear to differ from a two-line statement in the Currie report tabled on December 15 last, I think I should state the facts in this connection so far as it has been possible to ascertain them.
It is very long, Mr. Chairman. I will not put it on Hansard. If the hon. member would like to consult my scrapbook he will find very interesting things in it-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I read the Currie report.


Pierre Gauthier: -pertaining to my hon. friend.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I read the revised one.


Pierre Gauthier: I continue:
The names on the payroll were the names of labourers who actually existed and who worked as teamsters. There were no false names on the payroll and no horses on the payroll.

Supply-National Defence
This question was settled long ago. After all, a majority of the Canadian electors settled it once and for all in 1953.


Owen Lewis Jones: As an officer who served in the Welsh Fusiliers in the first war, I feel I must get into this discussion. I served from August 14 with the Welsh Fusiliers until I was knocked out, and actually any time a goat is mentioned it is a fighting word to the Welsh Fusiliers. I am sure the hon. member for Quebec West would not say what he said anywhere near the present members of that regiment. It is probably the oldest mascot in military history. It was adopted soon after the Crimean war. Queen Victoria gave the Welsh Fusiliers the first goat and, ever since that, as one goat dies it has been replaced from Windsor Great Park.
There is only one thing we have against the goat as a mascot and that is the smell. We have always arranged so that the dirtiest battalions and the dirtiest companies that have not been looking after their camps march immediately behind the goat. That was the punishment; and naturally they tried to do better the next time. While in France the goat got dirty and possibly did smell. Whenever a member of royalty made a visit to the regiment we would, in order to entertain him, have the goat in the mess and so we had two men wash and scrub all day to try to remove the smell of the goat, but, when royalty came in, it did smell.
I would suggest that these mascots are a wonderful incentive to the men. I know on long marches in France the colonel would turn around and say, "Damn you fellows, the goat can march, can't you?" And certainly the men would say, if the goat can do it, we can. Actually, we took a pride in the goat.
There are one or two matters I should like to mention while I am on my feet. My criticism of the Department of National Defence is their complete failure to assist rifle associations to get equipment. I have tried and tried through the present minister to get targets for a group in Penticton, a purely voluntary group of men-


Some hon. Members:: Baa, baa!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We know where the goats are.


Owen Lewis Jones: -who have purchased land areas suitable for target practice. All the members of the rifle association are young men. Some belong to local military units, and there are others, and they are anxious to be prepared in case of an emergency. We have the experience of the last war of the Pacific coast rangers who drilled themselves and conducted themselves in such a way that they could be of use in the event of an invasion of
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1

the Pacific coast. The government appreciated the excellent work they did on a voluntary basis. This rifle association is willing to do the same thing. I am making a request of the minister. They were turned down completely. These targets are available. I believe some of them are at Armstrong and at the rifle range at Vernon. The department has condemned the range at Vernon; the targets are not being used. They are left to rust. They could be used by these people and they would use them if they had them. The department would be getting something for nothing. These young men are willing to train themselves to be of service to the department should the occasion arise. I hope the minister will change his attitude and go out of his way to help these men.
There is one other thing I should like to mention. I hold in my hand a copy of Roundel. I think the minister is probably aware of what it is. It shows a tight formation of jet aircraft. I am going to suggest that a tight formation of jet aircraft or of any aircraft is a real folly; it endangers life and makes useless a lot of our equipment in the form of jet planes. I do not have to refer to the accidents that took place in France where these jets were flying 500 or 600 miles an hour, or whatever rate they go, wing-tip to wing-tip. They are subject to human error; they are subject to mechanical error and all the errors that follow the mechanical age; and yet we take this unnecessary risk with our equipment, and more so with valuable trained pilots and others who may be on the planes. I think it is time the department called a halt to these tight formations. They are very pretty, we love watching them; they are really spectacular but they are highly dangerous. In a war, if you flew planes in tight formations like that it would be an ideal target for the enemy. The only way to fly in war is to scatter the planes as far as possible and your ground troops and your air troops to make the target as hard to hit as possible. In view of the impractical use of tight formations in war, I would suggest to the minister that it should be discontinued in peace to give those young pilots a break.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Chairman, I have to go to the banking committee in a minute. I know you are going to start questions pretty soon. I have one that I want to leave with the Minister of National Defence which I hope he will not find too tough. First I want to congratulate him in that he has handled the problem with which he deals better than they did in Britain where they had the famous battle of the bloomers which has just been concluded.
I notice in the latest annual report of the Department of National Defence they are now

giving a monthly clothing allowance for uniforms to the personnel of the armed services and I observe that the women receive $2 a month more than the men. My question to the minister is this. I hope he is not going to run into trouble with the Minister of Labour in view of his new bill concerning equal pay for equal work for women. I also hope he is not going to embarrass the hon. member for Hamilton West who for so many years has been asking for equal pay for women in that this is not going to degenerate into a policy of extra pay for women.


Mr. Brooks:: Very clever.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, in the last few minutes this debate has been a strange one in that we have gone from goats to bloomers. We have had an explanation as to the expenses incurred over the goat mascot of the "Van Doos" and we found out that the trouble with the Tory party is that they have too many mascots and not enough party.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the senior member for Halifax, as he does on occasion, set himself up as the hatchet man for the government and said that the committee on defence expenditures which sat for about two years or more found absolutely nothing wrong with the department and that the opposition was extremely disappointed because they were unable to verify any of the charges that had been made concerning the Department of Defence Production.
I would like to remind the hon. member for Halifax that his memory must be pretty short. Surely he has not forgotten all the evidence that was brought out in that committee with regard to Penhold, Cold Lake, Namao and the other defence construction enterprises. Surely he has not forgotten the price of $13,258 a well that was paid to drill the wells at Penhold. One of them was 105 feet deep and cost something over $100 a foot.
Surely he has not forgotten the $664,000 in change orders that came about as a result of changes in decisions and so on after the contracts had been let. Surely he has not forgotten the $28,200 speed-up payment that was given to the major construction company engaged there because they were lagging in the time element of their contract. At the same time, during that speed-up period when they had asked for an expansion because they were unable to live up to the time limit the company was given another $4,900,000 contract at Cold Lake.
Surely he has not forgotten the $5,000 that was given to the contractor in order to pick up the cement slabs that were apparently covered by snow when the tenderer went 67509-392
Supply-National Defence there to make the tenders in spite of the fact that the tender definitely states that the tenderer has investigated into the circumstances, has looked over the site and is basing his tender on that ground.
I am not going to say anything more about that because those are things that could probably happen in any department of any government; but for the hon. member to stand up and say we were unable to discover anything wrong in that committee is surely folly.
How well I recall that when speaking in the debate after the committee had finished sitting the hon. member said almost tearfully that he had not heard any of the charges in committee that were being made on the floor of the house. The fact remains that we could not make any charges in committee because every time we opened our mouths to say anything the hon. member for Halifax would get up and say, "Mr. Chairman, I object. The hon. member is making a statement, he is not asking a question".
The very fact that immediately following the debate that took place the committee was closed off and has not been able to reconvene again is the best indication I know of that we must have found out something. That committee did a wonderful job. We touched upon only one phase of defence contracts. We should have been allowed to go on because I think the government gained a good deal as a result of the probing that was done in that committee.
I am not going to speak about that any further except to mention that the hon. member told us yesterday how much information the members of this house were allowed to receive here in the house and he pointed out that we could go anywhere at any time and go aboard any ship or enter any defence establishment. He took great pains to point out that even the public was allowed to go on board these ships and enter these establishments at fixed times. All I can gather from that comment is that the hon. member was trying to tell the public of Canada that their members of parliament are entitled to have exactly the same kind of information as is the public. Unless we as members of parliament have the opportunity of digging in and thoroughly investigating all phases of national defence we cannot possibly do the job we were sent down here to do.
After all, that department of government is spending more money than any other department, about $2J billion of the taxpayers' money. Surely to goodness we should be given practically all the information we want

Supply-National Defence concerning these expenditures so we can determine whether or not the money is being spent in a proper way.
We want to find out whether or not there has been any waste or extravagance. I am not accusing anybody of any crooked dealings or anything of the sort but I do think the attitude the government has taken, that it is almost a sacrilege to question anything having to do with defence, is wrong. We have a duty to investigate these things and I think we should be allowed to do so.
I have two more points to draw to the attention of the minister, one of which I brought up last year, and that is the question of ground to air guided missiles. Apparently the department has practically given up any idea of proceeding with an investigation in this field. I would like to point out to the minister that ground to air guided missiles working in conjunction with the radar lines could be of the greatest assistance in protecting this country against air attacks because these missiles would be ready in advance bases in the north long before any alert could be answered by any of our aircraft. They would serve as the first line of defence against any air attack coming from behind the iron curtain across the polar wastes.
I urge the minister to give serious consideration to this point. I know of no cheaper and more effective way of protecting ourselves against possible air attacks.
My last point is one about which I feel very strongly and although I mentioned it to the minister last year he did not deal with it at all. I have no doubt the minister will remember that I asked him what the possibility was of asking the press to withhold news of air crashes and military fatal accidents until such time as the next of kin have been notified. Time and time again throughout the years you hear the same old story that so many men of the armed forces were killed and that the names are being withheld until the next of kin have been notified. I cannot think of anything that would be harder to bear than for the people back home to have to sit and wonder if their boy or father is the one who has been killed. I would not want to have to sit by and wait until it was published in the newspapers.
I am not asking for the forcible suppression of news or anything like that, but I suggest to the minister that he ask the press to co-operate in this. I think the newspapers and radio bureaux of this country are humane enough to want to ease the suffering that would come about as a result of publishing that type of news. I have never been placed


in this position, but no doubt many hon. members have. No doubt they have had to sit back and wait for 24 or 36 hours after someone had been killed at a station and not be able to learn if it was their son. A wife should not have to suffer when her husband is on such a station until the news is finally published in the newspaper or over the air.
I put this to the minister in all seriousness, as I think a severe strain is placed on these people by having to wait for definite news as to who has been involved in a fatal accident.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to preface my brief remarks by saying that I am going to ask a number of questions which I do not expect the minister to answer at the moment. I had expected to ask these questions on the particular items, but unfortunately I must leave the house and will not have that opportunity. I shall ask the questions now and possibly the minister will answer them later on.
When the debate on the estimates of this department opened some time ago I asked a number of questions. In his remarks yesterday the minister answered some but not all of those questions. It may just be my interpretation, but to me the minister's answers were somewhat evasive; therefore I intend to ask the questions again.
First of all with respect to the cruiser Quebec, yesterday the minister stated that the Quebec has now been placed in reserve. I am glad to hear that, because a cruiser is an expensive ship to operate. I understand that the cruiser Ontario is being converted for the training of junior officers at sea. I should like to know the normal complement of officers and men on H.M.C.S. Ontario and what is the annual cost of maintaining and operating this ship.
Yesterday the minister said that one reason the Quebec was being put in reserve was that a sufficient number of other ships are now available for training. It would seem to me that since we are going to have an antisubmarine destroyer navy it would be much better to train junior officers on destroyers or similar types of ships rather than on a cruiser, which in all likelihood will never be used and which is most expensive to maintain.
The next thing I should like to deal with briefly is the destroyer escorts. I do not think the information given by the minister is definite enough, and I should like to know how long it will be before the St. Laurent class of destroyer and the Crescent destroyer escort will be in service and what the cost of these ships is expected to be. My understanding is that the cost of the prototype of this class, namely H.M.C.S. St. Laurent, was

nearly $18 million. Naturally it costs more to produce a prototype, but I should like to know if the other units of this class will cost less, the same or more per unit.
I should like to ask one question in connection with the Crescent and Tribal class destroyers which are being converted. Yesterday the minister told us that the cost of conversion and refitting will run to $4 million in the case of the Crescent class and $5,500,000 in the case of the Tribal class. He stated also that the life expectancy of these ships is something over 20 years, and this is also the case with the frigates. I should like to know the life expectancy of both the Tribal and Cresent class destroyers after being converted and refitted. Will it be five years, ten years or what? I expect that the minister will be able to give us that information, and also information with respect to the original construction date of these ships.
I think it is quite important to know how long these ships are going to be in use after we have spent $4 million refitting one class and $5,500,000 refitting another class. I should like to know the original cost of the Tribal class destroyer and also the Crescent class.
I have some questions that have to do with frigates, of which we apparently have about 20 in the Canadian navy. I believe there are 10 in operation, 3 on loan to Norway, 6 in reserve and 5 undergoing conversion. Yesterday the minister told us that the cost of conversion was approximately $3,500,000. I should like to know if any of these frigates were built after the end of world war II, or were they all constructed during world war II? What will be the life expectancy of these frigates after this rather expensive conversion job? I may be wrong and I hope the minister will correct me if I am, but I believe the life expectancy is about three or four years after this conversion which will cost about $3,500,000. I should like to know the original cost of these frigates and when they were first built. Unless my memory serves me poorly, it is costing a great deal more to convert them than it did to build them in the first place. It may be that I am mistaken, and I have no doubt the minister will give us the figures.
I asked earlier what type of engines these ships have. I do not expect the minister to give the details because naturally that information is classified, but I would like to know whether they are fitted with turbine or reciprocating engines? I do not think it would be out of line to ask if these ships are capable of overtaking a modern Russian submarine. My understanding is that a Russian submarine can travel at the rate of 25 knots under water, and I understood that 67509-392J
Supply-National Defence these frigates were not capable of that speed. It may be that alterations are being made to bring up the speed of these ships to equal that of Russian submarines. I would certainly be delighted to hear that was so. That is another matter which I hope the minister will clear up.
I know these are questions which are in the minds of the Canadian people and of those who were formerly connected with the naval services. In my opinion they are of great importance.
There is only one other question I should like to ask in regard to the matter of frigates. If these frigates are being reconverted at a cost of $3J million each and they cannot carry out the task of overtaking potential enemy submarines, I should like to know just what is the purpose of having them in the naval service and particularly of spending all this money on them. I understand that the general view, not only in this country but elsewhere, is that the new St. Laurent class destroyers are probably the most up to date and efficient type of antisubmarine vessels at present afloat, and I am glad to hear we are going to have a number of these; I believe it is 14. That is excellent, and they should make our antisubmarine navy, at least in quality if not in quantity, the finest afloat. But the thought occurs to me, what is the purpose of spending all this money on reconverting these frigates if they are not going to be used for any great length of time and if they are not capable of overtaking potential enemy submarines? I shall be delighted to read the minister's answers when he gives them.
If their speed is presently sufficient to enable them to overtake an enemy submarine, that is fine; and if they are going to have a considerable life expectancy I think the cost would be justified. Otherwise I think it would not. It has been suggested to me that these frigates are just a temporary stopgap until all the new St. Laurent class destroyers are built. If that is the case possibly the expense might be justified, but unless they are capable of catching an enemy submarine I still do not think it would be.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Before the first item is carried there are two or three questions I should like to ask and a few remarks I should like to make. I do not intend to go into all the ramifications of the Department of National Defence.
I said the other night that because of all the far-reaching angles of national defence-for example, the D.E.W. line is so far away that Canadians are not able to see just what they are getting for their

Supply-National Defence defence dollar-of all the dollars that are spent we have actually less to show for those spent on national defence, and that is partly because aircraft particularly and defence items in general become obsolete about the time when they go into production. Consequently it is an expensive operation.
Ever since the earliest days the city of London has been a military headquarters. Western Ontario and the city of London particularly, to put it mildly, were very much disappointed when the minister announced the disbandment of 420 squadron. With the changed flying conditions I do not suppose we could expect these things to continue indefinitely, but I think the city and I myself felt that here was a group of men giving time to the 420 auxiliary squadron.
I read very carefully the minister's reply yesterday to my question of the day before on what the plans were to use these personnel of 420 auxiliary squadron. I think that what actually will happen is that many of these men will be disappointed. They were going there in their spare time and flying those planes, but they are going to say that they are not interested in ground work and will give it up, not all of them but a great many of them. I was, shall I say, shocked to read in today's Montreal Gazette these words:
Montreal's week-end pilots in the R.C.A.F. are on the job full time this week and next.
It says that the two auxiliary squadrons, 401 city of Westmount and 438 city of Montreal will be equipped with Sabre jets and T-33 trainers, and each squadron will retain two propeller-driven Harvards. At the very time they are washing out 420 squadron, there in Montreal apparently they are equipping the squadrons with better equipment. The minister more or less says-perhaps he does not say it in so many words but he indicates by his actions-that it was an obsolete operation in London. Yet I find that in Montreal two of these auxiliary squadrons are being retained and equipped with better aircraft.
I think I suggested earlier that the minister should consider using 420 squadron personnel at London for transport and duties of that type. I know the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that there is a shortage of heavy duty transport facilities, both civilian and military, in Canada, This is a use that could be made of the airport facilities and the personnel there, and they would be flying the type of aircraft with which they are familiar. It seems to me that better use could be made of the knowledge these auxiliary squadrons have. I could not quite follow the minister.
[Mr. White (Middlesex East) .1
I understand that the disbandment order on the Hamilton squadron was lifted but not the one on 420 squadron at London. They are not going to be treated alike.


Mr. Campney:: The ban has not been lifted on flying for 424 squadron.


Harry Oliver White: Then I understand that both squadrons will be treated in the same manner?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is my understanding also.


Harry Oliver White: A question
was asked this morning about the brief submitted to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian airline pilots' association. I hope the minister will not interrupt and say that this is a transport matter, because I have just one reference to make. In their presentation regarding transportation they have this to say:
. . . there is a grave deficiency in Canadian air transport capacity and that there is no plan to meet Canadian responsibilities in an emergency.
That is not the first reference I have seen regarding the need for transport aircraft. In this modern age we need practically an airborne army, in my estimation, to move troops quickly from place to place. This is the very type of work that I think this auxiliary squadron could assist in doing. It could train men for that very purpose.
I am not going to burden the minister and the house with the entire contents of these two resolutions. I hold in my hand a resolution from the city of London regarding 420 squadron and toward the conclusion it says:
Therefore be it resolved that the council of the corporation of the city of London petition the dominion government, through the Minister of National Defence, to give serious consideration to the retention of the London airport as a flying station and that if it is impossible to retain No. 420 city of London squadron, another flying training unit be located at the London airport.
Later they suggest that a transport training unit be established at London if the present 420 squadron is not to be retained. I do not know what else I can add except to say, as I did at the beginning, that the city of London all down through history has been connected with national defence as a headquarters for military operations, and the citizens of the area rather feel that they are being let down at this time.
I have a couple of other questions I should like to address to the minister. I notice on pages 312, 321 and 334 of the details certain expenditures for fire-fighters in the armed forces. On page 312 there is an item of $1,405,040 for Are-fighters in the navy. On page 321 there is an item of $926,660 for firefighters in the army and on page 334 there

is an item of $437,360 for fire-fighters in the air force. These items total $2,769,060. That seems to me to be a terrific fire insurance policy to pay. The number of men are listed. How many fires have there been in each of the last five years in military establishments in Canada and what was the amount of the loss in each of the fires?


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, I think the general debate is fast drawing to a close. I wonder whether the minister could clear up one or two of the questions which have already been asked before we proceed with the details.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I have followed the debate with a good deal of interest and have received a good deal of advice on things past, present and to come, and even some advice on other departments, but I do thank hon. members for their observations.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Do you think you will profit by them?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I also thank them for their attention to this subject, which we all agree is of very great moment to all of us. There are a few matters I could deal with now. I know that a considerable number of matters will come up on the detailed estimates for the different branches, but there are a few subjects that I could possibly deal with now before we proceed with the consideration of the details of the estimates.
Yesterday the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich made a remark about the difference between the chiefs of staffs committees in Great Britain and Canada. I must agree that he extended my remarks to complete their accuracy, and I appreciate that. He also asked a question about the stockpiling of CF-100 aircraft and made some further remarks leading from that. I should point out that we do not have and probably will not have a stockpile of CF-100 aircraft in any permament sense of that word, because the rate of production is being reduced, as the hon. gentleman knows, and out of the rate of production as it now stands plus accumulated CF-lOO's our requirements will be to replace CF-lOO's in the four squadrons of the first Canadian air division in Europe, which has already been announced, to provide CF-lOO's for the three additional interceptor squadrons for air defence in Canada, which I have already announced, and to have a continuing bank for normal aircraft attrition and for spares.
Indeed, the CF-100 program is now ready to be phased into the development and, we hope, production of the CF-105. Therefore in effect we will not have, looking into the
Supply-National Defence future, a stockpile of CF-lOO's surplus to our requirements. That does not mean, of course, that they could not be produced if other nations of NATO wish to acquire them.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked for an explanation of the decrease of $24 million in the army estimates for this year. He was as usual apprehensive for the welfare of the army, and wondered whether this indicated a trend or a decision to reduce the army's status or its equipment. This decrease, I may tell him, is almost wholly attributable to the fact that the stockpiling of certain ammunition and vehicles has been largely completed, and that stockpiling involved large sums.
He also asked for further information about the additional armoured regiments to which I referred on June 20. There are a number of matters still being reviewed in that regard, and I am not in a position to give details about particular regiments. However, I can say that the intention is that the armoured regiments will normally be brigaded in brigade groups of all arms within the division and it will be possible, should the need arise, to use all the armoured regiments in combination after the manner of an armoured brigade as well as separately with the brigade group. That is part of the flexibility that we are trying to achieve.
I should like to assure him and also the hon. member for Calgary North that I think it is fair to say, and I am glad to note that some other members did say it, including the Leader of the Opposition, that our army, navy and air force are in first class fighting condition. I would not ask hon. members to take my word alone for that, but we have had the repeated assurances of General Gruenther and Sir Richard Gale, who has commanded our armed forces in Europe, with regard to the Canadian brigade in Europe. Other NATO commanders have spoken very highly of the fitness and capability of our brigade and air division as well.
I might mention in that connection that I find it a little difficult sometimes to reconcile the fact that we do listen to eulogistic remarks from members opposite with respect to our armed services and at the same time considerable criticisms of the department as such. Eulogistic remarks with respect to the service should be, and I think are, the principal test of the effectiveness of the department itself and of its whole organization. But I would not want the impression to go abroad that the end product is good but that the method of achieving it is bad. I do not think that adds up too well.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris, in speaking about the auxiliary air force in

Supply-National Defence which he has such a continuing and deep interest, referred to the way in which the auxiliary force had been dealt with by the Royal Canadian Air Force as being arbitrary, high-handed and without previous consultation. I should like to say that before any decisions were taken with respect to the auxiliary air force the matter was given very careful study and consideration by the planning officers of the air force, and some months ago we brought in all the senior officers of all the auxiliary squadrons, had a long conference here in Ottawa and explained our problem and studied theirs. Since then we have endeavoured to the best of our ability to make sure there was not any arbitrary action taken or any decisions made without the ground for them being well known and appreciated.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, in his philosophic discussion yesterday which was very enjoyable, mentioned that probably the main usefulness of the early warning radar lines is to enable the strategic air command of the United States to get off the ground. I do not dispute that that is the principal reason, but I should like to keep along with that in the public mind the other subsidiary aims which are of very considerable importance. A secondary deterrent purpose of this line is to alert our defence forces so they may, in turn, counterattack the attacking forces. This may blunt any attack that may be made. We know-I think the percentage is correct-in the German bombing raids in the second world war that when the losses got up to something like 15 per cent of their planes the bombing raids practically ceased. The fact that we have this line and the fact that we would be enabled, we hope, to inflict great losses on any attacking forces, must have a deterrent effect on the plans of any potential enemy.
The other secondary object of the radar line is to alert the civilian population and the civil defence authorities.
I notice the hon. member for Kamloops is not here, so I shall not attempt to add to his confusion about the three ammunition depots at Kamloops and the two fire brigades, but I will be able to work the situation out with him. As a matter of fact it is under consideration, and I had hoped to have a detailed answer.


George Randolph Pearkes: He is attending another committee this afternoon.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, I understand that. The hon. member for New Westminster gave some figures yesterday. I had no advance notice of them, but I have asked to have them looked into. We try to keep the pay for our civilians in line with the going rates in
IMr. Campney.]
their locality. It may be that, although that is the target toward which we strive, in some cases we fall behind before picking up the slack. On the other hand I notice we have not had much trouble getting all the people we want. They seem to regard our service as not too bad.
A little while ago the hon. member for Calgary North referred to the number of civilians at defence headquarters, and asked for the number of service officers and other ranks there. The total figure for service officers and other ranks at national headquarters is 2,845, comprising 1,657 officers and 1,188 other ranks. I should like to observe in that connection, because I noted his critical remarks about headquarters, that, after all, headquarters does have to look after not only the 116,000 to 117,000 service personnel and the 54,000 civilians, but they also have the reserve forces of some 56,000 in the three services; a ground observer corps of over 80,000, and over 100,000 cadets. Altogether, therefore, in our many activities there are more than a quarter of a million persons being supervised by headquarters, and that requires a substantially larger staff than one might have if there were just the regular forces. We must also recognize that it would be a very poor attempt at economy, shall I say, if we were to try to make small savings at headquarters to the detriment of this vast number of people we have to oversee.
With reference to his remarks about triservice activities, I can assure him I recognize some of the points he has mentioned and we are trying and are succeeding rather slowly, perhaps, to get improvement in triservice activities. I think it is generally recognized now that the tri-service principle is a good principle. Events are probably pointing more and more to the principle, but we have to assimilate changes as we make them.
The hon. member for Calgary North, who has served in one of the services, knows that if you want to get full support of the services they have to be convinced that any change is in their own best interests as well as in the best interests of defence. I am not pessimistic in my feelings about tri-service development. I noted his suggestions with respect to certain specific cases which he thought should be expedited. We are working on one or two phases at the moment, and we shall continue to work on them. I hope we will achieve some results.


Mr. Churchill:: Since the minister is answering questions, will he answer my question regarding the armoured personnel carrier? Is it a figment of the imagination, or is it on the drawing board, or is it in production?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I made inquiries about this and I have not a detailed or final statement, but I think it is approaching the prototype stage. Work has been progressing on it for some time.
While I am on my feet there is another matter in which I know the hon. member is interested, because he mentioned it last year. He expressed the view that we ought to have a one-volume history of world war I. Now that the editing and writing of the second world war history is practically complete, I have given instructions to Colonel Stacey to prepare a one-volume history of world war 1.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I had a speech ready on that, so I shall file it away.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was called to the phone for a minute and unfortunately did not hear the minister's reply to the questions. Did the minister reply to the question I raised this morning?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, I have not as yet.


Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: There is one matter I should like to mention in this debate and draw to the minister's attention, and that is the equipping and dressing of cadets throughout Canada. I bring this up because I have received a letter from the principal of the high school in Kincardine. It is a very short letter, and I should like to read it:
Almost every high school in Ontario which has a cadet corps is experiencing the same problem as we are in the Kincardine district high school. Each cadet corps is assigned a quota of cadets and all equipment is issued on the basis of this quota. The assignment quota is very frequently slightly higher than half of the number of boys in the school. Thus it is difficult to outfit and equip all the boys who take the cadet training.
For instance, in the Kincardine district high school we have 108 boys, while our cadet quota is 67. Thus you see that our issue of 67 uniforms is insufficient to dress all the boys of the school. Other schools are affected similarly.
This situation exists for the following reason: Army headquarters in Ottawa decided that there would be a fixed number of cadets in Canada, (65,000 I believe) and finances are provided to equip and train only that number. This national quota of cadets has not been increased to keep pace with the increased inrolments of the secondary schools in Canada.
Knowing that you are vitally interested in the defence of Canada and knowing that you are aware of the value of cadet training in maintaining this defence, may I suggest that you request the Department of National Defence to have army headquarters increase the national quota of cadets to such a number that all high school boys in Canada can be properly equipped to take the cadet training.
Yours very truly,
(sgd.) G. V. Thornicroft.
I might say that our district is in rather a unique position in that in two world wars we sent many men to the army, navy and air force. We have had a unit in Bruce since
Supply-National Defence the old 32nd regiment was there at the time of the Fenian raids into Canada. But in the reorganization a few years ago our unit was taken away and at the present time our armoury, which was a good one compared with the average, has been sold. In view of the fact that the enrolment in the secondary schools has increased, this principal is not asking for anything out of the way. I know we all agree that cadet training is something that can be very valuable to future service in the army, navy and air force.
I would ask the minister to give consideration to raising the quota. I would not suggest that 100 per cent of all who want to serve should be admitted, but I do say that a quota of 65,000 for the Dominion of Canada at the present time is not large enough.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I might just observe that the ceiling on the number of cadets has recently been raised from 65,000 to 75,000.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: That is a little better, but it is still not enough.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned a matter on which I would like to say a few words, namely the selection of the armoured regiment. We have an armoured regiment in my own town of Sussex with which I am sure the minister is familiar. I refer to the Princess Louise Hussars. I doubt whether any regiment in Canada-in fact I know there is no regiment in Canada-has as splendid a record both in war and peace as the Princess Louise Hussars. It has become a yearly habit of theirs to win trophies at camp, both for the quality of their training and also for the number of men they have taken to camp.
This regiment has a very long history. It is one of the oldest regiments in Canada. It was previously a cavalry regiment, organized a good many years ago. It was changed into an armoured regiment just before the second world war. They sent large numbers overseas in the first war; they were overseas in the second war as an armoured unit and gave a splendid account of themselves. They have carried out their training since the reorganization after the second world war.
As I said a moment ago, at Petawawa and in other camps in which this unit has been training every year, they have won practically every trophy which has been given for excellence in training, and I hope when the selection is made the minister will keep in mind what is undoubtedly the best militia armoured unit in Canada today. At the present time this unit is well officered. I know most of the officers; they come from my constituency. The unit has a great tradition and a great record.

Supply-National Defence
I should like to have the minister's attention for a moment because this is a very important matter so far as I am concerned and so far as the unit is concerned. They have a great tradition and a great record. I know of the enthusiasm of the men. I should like the minister to intimate just when the selection will be made and tell us what units are under consideration, or how the selection will be made when it is made.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot think of anything from the point of view of my own peace of mind in the future that would be less desirable for me to say.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should think it would be a very easy choice.


Mr. Mitchell:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say one or two words following the remarks made by my colleague the hon. member for Middlesex East, and arising out of the statement the minister gave on June 20 having to do with the reorganization of the auxiliary squadrons of the air force.
At the outset I would like to say I recognize the practical problems which the minister and the department face and faced up to. Certainly we cannot expect to have auxiliary squadrons flying the latest types of aircraft in every small city, town and hamlet across the country and at the same time hope to reduce our defence expenditures. But I would like to reinforce the remarks made by my colleague to the effect, as is no doubt recognized by the minister, that London has been a garrison town for many years, ever since the days of Simcoe and before. Only this past spring the minister himself was invited to be present at an anniversary parade and gathering of a very famous regiment which is one of several with headquarters in London. Just previous to, during and since the last war, the air force came into its own and became a power in the London district. As a matter of fact this airport, which houses auxiliary squadron No. 420, is still the first port of call in Canada of many of the young men who are sent here for air force training by our NATO partners.
I should like to suggest to the minister only one thing. By taking this active flying unit and turning it into a squadron for aircraft control and warning he has done something which if he carries it out, will discourage all those who have participated in the flying training of that squadron, and he will discourage to a great extent the interest of the young people who have grown up in London with the knowledge that at a certain time in their career they could offer their services to that squadron in a flying capacity. Aircraft control and warning, as I think the

minister will agree, is perhaps not the most interesting or enticing type of work to which we can attract the youth of our country who are interested in flying.
I would suggest that one of our greatest needs is transport squadrons. That was recognized by the minister in his speech on June 20, when he announced at page 5210 of Hansard that the Calgary squadron will become a light transport auxiliary squadron. We have the facilities at Crumlin airport to operate a light transport auxiliary squadron. As a matter of fact, the minister will recall certain conversations which have been going on among his department, the Department of Transport and the minister responsible for T.C.A. with respect to that self-same airport. It was as a result of the intervention of the Department of National Defence, in fact, that the runway was extended at some considerable expense to enable 420 squadron to land its T-33 trainer.
I am not going to press for one minute for the continuation of 420 squadron as a jet training squadron, but I suggest it would be most suitable to become a light transport auxiliary squadron, so we can maintain the flying interest that exists in London. The minister is well aware that not many miles to the north there is a regular flying training base to which not only Canadians but persons from all the NATO countries come for their flying training. May I therefore just add my word to the many words that have already been addressed to the minister in the hope that we may retain 420 squadron on some basis as a flying training squadron.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall we proceed to the discussion?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed that in his reply the minister did not make any real attempt to meet the criticisms which have been made with regard to the necessity for the reorganization of our forces, and particularly the reorganization of national defence headquarters. I refer to the criticism that it has become a cumbersome, overblown organization which is inefficient and ineffective and would be completely useless to carry out its activities in the event of war.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not think that is the case at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Earlier today the minister merely said that in his opinion that was not the case. However, it is the opinion of people who should know and who have given evidence in regard to the matter.
As I said earlier, it has been the opinion of every retired senior officer who has served at national defence headquarters since the

war with whom I have talked concerning this matter. I have not spoken to a single retired officer who has served there who did not agree that there is a terrific waste of manpower and a terrific duplication, triplication, quadruplication and multiplication of staffs, with the result that a great deal of paper is simply passed from one department to another. They are kept busy taking in each other's washing. They have indicated it is the type of organization which because of the very form in which it is organized cannot function effectively.
The minister made no effort whatever to meet that criticism. He has not even given us an indication that he would undertake an investigation of defence headquarters with a view to making it a better type of organization. I mentioned five or six instances of triplication or quadruplication of staffs which exist there at the present time, and which I do not believe anybody can defend by saying there is any real need for them. One of these is the medical service, where we have three directorates with a brigadier or the equivalent at the head of each. When we come to the dental service there is only one directorate and one staff instead of three, and they carry on the whole dental service for the three forces quite effectively and efficiently. I see absolutely no reason why the same thing cannot be done as far as the medical and pay services are concerned, as well as the other services I mentioned, which I shall not take time to repeat.
The minister has made no effort whatever to give any answer to the criticism or to give any assurance that a study will be undertaken. When we discussed these estimates before I suggested the possibility of the appointment of a royal commission such as the Otter commission of an earlier day, or the Esher commission in Great Britain, to make a study of the defence set-up and offer recommendations to the government and parliament as to the changes which could be put into effect in order to make a more efficient and better functioning organization.
I strongly deplore the fact that the minister is apparently prepared to let this matter drop. He pays no attention to our requests and disregards the criticism as far as his replies are concerned.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall we proceed to the calling of the headings?


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask again if the minister really has nothing to say with regard to what I consider is perhaps the most serious consideration of the 67509-393
Supply-National Defence general national defence set-up and organization at the present time?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the strongly held opinion of my hon. friend, with which I do not agree, I may tell him, if it will help to satisfy him, that the civil side of national defence headquarters is always under study, and if he looks at the figures I think he will see the numbers are down a little this year; not much, but slightly. We have committees studying the matter; we have the civil service commission and the treasury board and our own committee; therefore the civil side is constantly under surveillance. I am just as anxious as the hon. member that we save money without producing inefficiency.
Now, with regard to the service side, the creation of a tri-service group, one group functioning for the three services, is desirable and has every merit but it is not as easy as it sounds, because there are many different factors which obtain in different services in respect of their respective classifications. One of them is in regard to the medical service. We are having studies made concerning this. I do not wish to have the hon. member give the impression to this house and the public that I have no interest in these things. I know they are being studied and that work is being done on them. I do not know how the hon. member can say he knows that what somebody else says is correct and what I say is wrong; I do not know how he arrives at these conclusions. I do say, however, that I feel if national defence headquarters were put to the test, having in mind the quarter of a million people who are more or less under its jurisdiction it would be found adequately and properly set up to meet the test. Perhaps it could take care of its obligations with some fewer people. That is a thing we are always anxious to establish; but I just cannot allow the hon. member to get away with the statement he has made that everything is out of line, because I do not think it is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, Mr. Chairman, all the minister does in this connection is to state his opinion.


Ralph Osborne Campney: All you have been doing is stating your opinion and other people's.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He continues to state his
opinion that everything is all right. Of course I am stating my own opinion and I have been stating it in regard to this matter for years, but I am also stating the opinion of General Simonds, who should know about these things better than anybody else; and his opinion is made quite clear in the articles he has

Supply-National Defence written on the matter. I am stating the opinion, too, of General Macklin, who has also written articles with regard to this matter. I am stating the opinions of a number of retired senior officers who have had considerable experience at national defence headquarters. As I have said, I have not spoken to any one of them who did not hold the opinion I have expressed. Therefore I am prepared to accept that as being the fact rather than accept the opinion of the minister.
In addition I have mentioned half a dozen specific instances to which the minister has been able to make no reply whatever concerning the duplication of staffs and the wastage of manpower and money with the resulting lack of efficiency. For example, there are six chaplains, as I mentioned, with about 240 chaplains to look after; but we have a full colonel and staff for each service in the Protestant and Roman Catholic denominations. Although there are six directorates, I think any reasonable man would say that two would be more than ample.
Concerning the medical services, the minister says there are difficulties in amalgamating them as has been done in the case of the dental services, but we have not heard what the difficulties are and I do not think they would be very great. As a matter of fact, until not very long ago the medical service for the army and the air force was carried on by the army. At one time they were united; then they were split up for no good reason, as far as I have been able to learn. The same thing applies to the pay service and other services. The minister just says that in his opinion there is not much that can be done. That is no answer to these criticisms, and particularly it is not an answer to these specific cases.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, might I suggest a specific case where I think amalgamation of the three services could be very easily worked out. That would be the provost corps, where we have provost marshals in the three services and we have shore patrols carrying out the same sort of duty that is carried out by the military police. I suggest to the minister that there is a service where I do not think any serious difficulty would be experienced in bringing about amalgamation.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Do I take it that the committee is agreeable to proceeding to the calling of headings? In order that we may understand the procedure, may I point out that item No. 235 is one item in the estimates and has to be carried or finally disposed of as one item. If it is generally agreed by the committee I shall call each

subheading in the details, and when the discussion on that has been exhausted we shall proceed to the next. After we have gone through all the details item 235 will then be submitted to the committee. Hon. members will find the details commencing on page 305 of the blue book, and I would propose to call each heading and subheading in the order in which they appear. Under defence services the first item is departmental administration.


George Randolph Pearkes: I notice there is a new
appointment of a superintendent of manpower and establishments with a salary $9,000 per year. Would the minister indicate the duties of this officer, who I presume will be a civilian? While on the question of manpower, because I imagine the superintendent of manpower and establishments will have something to do with the adjustment of the various establishments in the different services, I should like to quote the remarks made yesterday by the minister, as reported on page 6119, of Hansard as follows:
To begin with, a peacetime maximum strength figure is not a target to be reached as an end in itself. Rather, it is a means to an end, a planning limit within which the services agree to work out the details of their programs to enable us successfully to carry out our commitments.
I would assume that in the past agreement was reached among the chiefs of the general staffs in connection with the manpower ceilings, because I presume they would be the only ones who could advise whether the numbers which were authorized would enable them to carry out their commitments. I should like to ask whether it has been the practice in the past to consult the chiefs of staff regarding the ceilings set on the three services, whether this was discussed by the cabinet defence committee when the chiefs of staff were present, and if they gave their concurrence in the decisions reached.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall deal first with the position of superintendent of manpower and establishments to which the hon. member referred. This is not an entirely new position, it is a consolidation of two senior administrative positions which were established some years ago. As they were established, one of these positions co-ordinated all matters relating to pay and allowances while the other had to do with the financial aspects of the establishments. One man is now doing these duties which are related to the economic and financial aspect of the manpower employed by the department other than those on the military side. This gentleman is concerned with

ensuring that the ceilings for the use of manpower, particularly civilian manpower, are adequate. He is primarily concerned with the civilian units at headquarters.


George Randolph Pearkes: He does not deal with the actual military establishment?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No. Dealing with the second question having to do with ceilings and my statement which the hon. member quoted, the ceilings are arrived at, first, by taking cognizance of what we regard as our obligations to NATO, to ourselves, the mobile striking force and various other factors in our defence. The number of people required for the carrying out of these duties is considered and in that connection the chiefs of staff are consulted. There are discussions with them and with departmental officials concerned.
The hon. member will appreciate that each service is anxious to have considerable leeway, and that is the point at which I enter into the picture. We finally arrive at the ceilings. The background behind them is to try to determine-this does not mean that they cannot be changed-the number of people required in each service to fulfil what we consider would be their obligations to the Canadian people, their commitments to NATO and so on. It is the result of a combination of studies. Sometimes there has to be a reconsideration of the over-all picture, but we have not had very much trouble about it. It has been worked out pretty unanimously.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do I have the minister's
assurance that the final figure reached for the various services would be presented to the chiefs of staff, who would have an opportunity of expressing their opinions to the minister or to the defence committee of cabinet that the figures given were either adequate or inadequate?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


Harry Oliver White: On page 26 of the white paper, paragraph 89, is to be found the following:
In order to enable station commanders and senior officers to devote more of their time to the operational duties at R.C.A.F. stations, a special administrative course has been organized at London, Ontario, for junior officers.
The University of Western Ontario located at London has a business administration course which is considered one of the finest in Canada, and I am wondering why a special administrative course has been organized by the R.C.A.F. at London. Is that carried on as part of the university work? How many men are attending that course?
67509-393J
Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: I visited London a couple of years ago, and my recollection is that the course is not connected with the university. It is a course especially organized by the R.C.A.F. to meet its needs. I am sorry 1 cannot at the moment give my hon. friend the number of people attending, but when I was there the number was substantial.


Harry Oliver White: Would the
minister look into this and advise me definitely?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


Mr. While (Middlesex Easl):: As the university already has a business administration course I think that should be taken advantage of.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the committee will permit me to read one paragraph of what I said last year when we were discussing defence estimates. I quote from page 4895 of Hansard for June 16, 1955, as follows:
I would think as well that there could be considerable savings in the defence estimates. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich said that at no time did we advocate a cut in defence expenditures at the risk of our national safety, but we appear to be continuing the well-defined program that is ever present in the defence services. In looking over the estimates it would appear we are holding the line on top level appointments, but the empire builders are still at work. The estimates disclose a continual increase in the number of office boys, stenographers, cleaners, helpers, clerks of all grades, chauffeurs and messengers. In one place I even noticed an increase in the helper column from 422 to 1,220.
I think it can be said at this stage that although the minister has indicated that some studies are going on, the reductions are so small they can harilly be found. It would appear that any reductions that are being made in the employment of these categories of persons are taking place in the same places where we are reducing the number of military personnel, and there does not seem to be any indication, on looking through this book for this year, of any type of efficiency examination to see whether the proportion of civilians employed to the number of frontline personnel, if that is what you want to call them, is being reduced.
I am not going to mention at this particular point the places where I checked the numbers and added them up. It is true that there is a decrease in the number of civilians in relation to the army but it is true at the same time that there is a general decrease in the number of personnel in the army. What I would like to know is what type of investigation is taking place within the department to ascertain: (a) whether the greatest efficiency is being attained by the civilians who

Supply-National Defence are working with the military personnel; (b) whether there is duplication of effort in connection with the personnel who are employed; and (c), and I think this is quite important, whether the civilian personnel who are being employed are being given all the necessary equipment to ensure that they can do a good job.
The minister has said that some of these things are matters of opinion, and I am giving him mine. Naturally, until such time as we can have a committee and examine outsiders in connection with these problems, we are all going to be talking opinion and nothing else, but I know for a fact

and I am not going to disclose where you get this information-that there are people in that department who still have to write letters in longhand. Why are they doing so? Because the personnel employed cannot take shorthand. The officers there are writing letters still, in 1956, in longhand and then sending them to somebody to be typed. If that sort of thing is rampant throughout the service, then obviously we are going to continue to have more and more of this type of personnel.
Summing up in connection with this particular item, I say that those three points I have mentioned should form part of the terms of reference of whatever group examines the efficiency standard of the department. In connection with their duties, they should be asking themselves at each stage what does this particular person contribute to increase the efficiency of our national defence? That is, are they filling a role which is going to ensure that the Canadian people generally are better off? r, I am not going to refer to that incident about the dancing classes, but I say that if you are constructing a certain project, if you are going to build a dance hall somewhere-if that may be used as an example- then we are entitled to know what particular function that construction performs in connection with our over-all safety. If you can come back to. us and say it is a question of the morale of the troops, that it is needed for that purpose and that unless you have good morale you cannot have good defence, then you may have a very firm answer; but each expense should be examined on the basis of what contribution it makes to the over-all defence, not to the over-all creation of employment for a great many people with no particular contribution to make.
In closing I should like to ask the minister what does his committee that makes these surveys continually-I think he used the word "continually"-do to see whether improvements can be made? How often do they
fMr. Hamilton (York West! .1
meet, to whom do they report and what have been their recommendations?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The continuing committee consists of a representative of the department, a representative of treasury board and a representative of the civil service commission. They continually assess the material with which they are provided and for which they have asked, the duties and details of organization, and they make their recommendations once a year. I understand that the last complete assessment of national defence was finished in September of last year. They are now engaged on a further study for this year.
I should like to mention one other matter not entirely relevant, perhaps, but I sometimes find it difficult to compare the number of positions year by year. There is a continual change in the nomenclature which I find confusing. I look at one part of the estimates of a particular branch and I find, for example, that last year there were 10 helpers and this year there are 16, and then I find that certain other classes have disappeared. They have been reclassified and this changes the totals of those classes without changing the aggregate. But I feel reasonably assured that the duties that are carried on, on the civilian side-and that is what the hon. member was speaking of- are thoroughly gone over.
The treasury board is very zealous in its efforts to prevent the spending of money. I know that submission after submission that goes from my department-and I understand from other departments, too-to treasury board is referred back for further information, sometimes several times; and sometimes it is turned down completely. They are there for that purpose, and I am not quarrelling with their decisions. Treasury board has a representative dealing with the department, who knows the set-up and the duties people have to carry out in different branches.
Then there is also a member of the civil service commission who is supposed to have expert knowledge of the relative salaries, the duties performed for the salaries and so on. And there is our own representative, who is familiar with the personnel side of the department. That committee is not a rubber-stamp committee in any sense of the word. It works strenuously at its duties and recommends many changes. Sometimes it cuts down staff or recommends reclassifications. What I am trying to say is that the staff is under constant survey.


John Borden Hamilton: Is this committee continually sitting? Is it a permanent group? Does it have regular meetings?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed that last year it had between 25 and 30 meetings. Whenever they have material with which they wish to deal and on which they wish to make some decision, a meeting is called. Last year I think there were 27 meetings of this committee. In the meantime their work is going on, material is being provided, questions are being asked, answers are being obtained.


John Borden Hamilton: This sounds very much like what I would call a house committee, though not in relation to this chamber. It seems to me that though it may come from various branches of the government, that would be a very appropriate term. Industry today pays a great deal of attention to the calling in of people from outside who they believe can assist in improving their efficiency. As long as this is a house committee, I can see that there may be many things passed over, because of jealousy among various people who are on the committee, that might otherwise be attended to.
Has attention been given to the thought of calling in some outside civilian consultants to look over the efficiency of the department and make recommendations? The reason I ask the question is simply this. You say there is a representative of treasury board on the committee, and that those people are very interested in cutting down total expenditures. That is very fine. On the other hand, they may cut it down on the basis of paying $40 a week to an employee who does not take shorthand instead of paying $50 a week to one who does, and you may end up by having two people at $40 a week doing a job that one at $50 might do. This is not something new. It goes on continually year after year, and I think it might be wise to consult some neutral group and ask them to have a look at the situation in order to see what might be done.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, the civil service commission member of this committee has access to all the technical experts of the civil service commission and he is supposed to do what the hon. member has suggested, give expert advice with respect to whether this position should be graded in some other way, whether two jobs should be combined, whether this salary is right, and so on. Throughout the government, of course, the commission has a great mass of information, and that is why it is represented on the committee. The commission is supposed to be the employment counsel of the committee and to make suggestions where it thinks matters could be improved.
Supply-National Defence


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall we proceed to the next heading?


John Borden Hamilton: No. I should like to ask the minister to have some of his experts inform us how it is that at the bottom of page 306 we find that this year the following items are identically the same: Civilian allowances, $21,500; travelling and removal expenses, $200,000; freight, express and cartage, $150, and postage, $75,000. There is one item here which is different. The item for professional and special services has been raised from $35,000 to $50,000. What explanation is there for the fact that these items are identical with the previous year's allowances?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I believe there are 22 items at the bottom of page 306 and the top of page 307, and the hon. member has pointed out that most of them are exactly the same. It must be understood that these are estimates. They are based on the average amount spent over a period of time, and particularly on the amount spent during the past year. If the estimate for the past year has been close to the mark the amount is retained. In other cases there have been changes up or down for one reason or another to meet what we anticipate will be the need throughout the year. I will be glad to try to give the hon. member the explanation with respect to any of those items he may wish. There are what we call bread and butter items that occur year after year, and I have the details if the hon. member would like to have them.


John Borden Hamilton: So that I may tie this right down and be able to use this as an example, you have a total of 776 personnel this year as against 791 in the previous year. That is a reduction of 15. Yet the travelling expenses are identically the same. What method of calculation, having in mind the difference in the number of personnel, brings you to the same figure?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Frankly, we do not regard the difference between 776 and 791 as of sufficient magnitude to alter the general figure for travelling expenses, unless there is some other reason. These estimates are only general estimates. Every dollar of that item that is spent has to be properly vouchered within the department. If the amount is of any magnitude it has to go to treasury board and it is, of course, subject to internal audit and external audit. The figure that is shown here, being the same as last year, does not mean that with a reduction from 791 to 776 in the personnel we expect that with 15 fewer people the expenses will be exactly the same, certainly not.

Supply-National Defence


John Borden Hamilton: Possibly I might be allowed to pursue this, because then I will not have to ask the same question every place it comes up. I want to use this as an example. I referred specifically to this type of thing in my opening remarks, when the estimates were considered previously. Surely in connection with this or any similar figure the ordinary commercial practice in handling a budget for a coming year would be to work out on a per capita basis the average amount which must be set aside, that amount having been proven to have been spent for travel over a period of years. Unless your experts just put down $200,000 and did not use their pencils too freely, surely they would have calculated a per capita amount and come up with some figure like $185,500. If you are running a business on an efficient basis that is the way you would calculate the budget for the coming year.
These lump sums are dumped in here all the way through. They come up not just in this item but time and time again. That is why I ask the question now whether there is any particular reason why the ordinary method of calculating something for a coming year's budget cannot be used here also?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Take the item to which the hon. member referred, travelling and removal expenses. That is set up to cover the travelling and transportation expenses of the minister, the deputy minister and the other departmental administrative staff when they are required to travel. It is broken down into three subitems in the department. Minister, deputy minister and general administrative staff-except audit-is allotted a figure of $50,000. The main item in this amount of $200,000 is for the staff of the chief auditor, and that amount is $134,000. In recent years that amount has been demonstrated as coming pretty close to the mark for him and his staff in doing the travelling audit. Then there is an item of $16,000 for the people of the bureau of current affairs.
Those are the three heads under which this sum is broken down, and the amounts are based on experience. We have to take two things into consideration. The first is the program envisaged in these items, which are all broken down into many subitems. The second is the experience of the past few years. We then take, based on those considerations, a rough figure approximately what is likely to be spent. With the scale of our operations and the complicated nature of our activities, I think it would be pretty much time wasted if we were to try to change this to a figure built up from detailed figures.

In many cases we have a little of the item left over. We try to set up these items so they will approximate what the expenditures are likely to be in the best judgment which the people who make up the estimates can muster. For example, many of these items are more or less constant, but a great many others are not. When we get further along with the items you will see that in the army we rotate a brigade one year and the next year we do not. There are many such factors that enter into some of these items. There are expenditures that recur year after year, and the people who make up the estimates in the first instance have a pretty fair idea of what is likely to be required. They may not get as much as they want, but they tell me first what they think is necessary.


John Borden Hamilton: In concluding this subject may I say that I have checked the general expenditure for travel with regard to the army and I notice that it is down from $19 million to $14 million. I suppose we can assume that is because a brigade is not moving at a particular time. However, I think it is safe for us to say that some warning should be given that somewhere along the line these general figures are not going to be acceptable year after year. The minister said that it was a difference between 791 and 776, but if this policy is pursued I assume it will be the same figure next year when it may be 791 as against 750. In other words there must be a tie-in somewhere between the personnel, the jobs they are doing and the amount of money that is set aside for those various items.
I would think we could safely say this, and it has been commented upon by many members in connection with the discussion of the first item; here we have been asked to sign a blank cheque so far as the total amount being spent by this department is concerned. I think it would be reasonable to say that next year when we come back to take another look at these things some consideration should be given to ordinary accounting practices, figuring out your next year's budget and tying that in some way to the numbers you have employed, the types of jobs they are doing and the amount of money you require for this purpose.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with this matter which the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich raised about the director of personnel, which I think the minister said was an amalgamation of two positions which had existed previously-is that correct?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, sir.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In addition, there are directors of personnel for the navy, army and air force. It is one of those cases to which I referred in speaking generally, a quadrupli-cation of effort. In order to try to get at the specific point of view so far as a specific matter is concerned, and to find to what extent they duplicate each other's efforts, I should like to know how much has been charged against each of these four offices during the past year for recruiting purposes. This will, of course, involve a considerable amount which was spent for recruiting during the past fiscal year. How much of that was spent by each of these offices, the director of personnel, which we have just mentioned, and the directors of personnel for the navy, army, and air force.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not too clear as to whether the hon. member is dealing with civilian personnel or service personnel?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am dealing essentially with service personnel. This director of personnel which the minister mentioned deals, he said, with both civilian and service personnel.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, I said he dealt only with other than service personnel.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I understood you to say he dealt with service personnel.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, certain personnel on the civilian side; not service personnel.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He has nothing to do with recruiting at all?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Nothing at all. His job is to evaluate the jobs, see that they are being adequately carried out and see that there is no waste effort; that people are working in the field in which they are supposed to be, and so on. It is felt that by combining the two positions to look after the two sides of this matter, the one official can get a better picture of the civilian side. This is purely a civilian matter. I would be glad to deal with the hon. member's question about service personnel when we get to that subject.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I misunderstood the minister. He said "certain" and I thought he said "service". I shall be glad to deal with the question when we come to the military item.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is a new item, acquisition and construction of buildings, $200,000. Are you building a new headquarters?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Practically all of that sum is for preliminary planning for the new headquarters we hope to build some day.


George Randolph Pearkes: Have you decided yet on a location?
Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: No; we are labouring on that, and it is considerably mixed up with the green belt at the moment.


William Alfred Robinson: Is departmental administration completed?


Harry Oliver White: No. I wonder if the minister is in a position to answer my question regarding the $2 million expenditure for fire-fighters?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member asked two questions, and probably I could deal with both of them now. He asked about the junior officers' course at London. I answered part of it, but 1 could not give him the number. Apparently it averages about 40; it does not involve the university. We do, in addition, send one or two senior officers there for special courses each year.
The Department of National Defence fire losses was the other matter about which the hon. member asked. Would the hon. member want to have the figures by years or the average?


Harry Oliver White: By years.


Ralph Osborne Campney: They are as follows: 1950, $1,171,515; 1951, $1,471,709; 1952, $3,077,362; 1953,	$1,539,329;	1954,	$5,132,914;	1955,
$4,330,956, or an average yearly loss of $2,739,964.


Harry Oliver White: Is there any insurance carried on military establishments?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, we do not carry insurance.


William Alfred Robinson: Is departmental administration completed? Inspection services.


John Borden Hamilton: I wonder if the minister might outline for us the liaison which exists between this branch of his department and the Department of Defence Production which ordinarily lets the contracts which I assume come under the scrutiny of this inspection service.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The chief of the inspection services, Mr. Chairman, assures me that there is not only complete liaison but continuous liaison between the two at all levels and in all types of work, for the simple reason it has to be so. An inspection takes place of an aeroplane, for instance, that is being constructed, and it has to be acceptable at each step of the work. Our inspection staff, of course, is the group that finally inspects the product we have to pay for and follows the project with the inspectors of defence production.

Supply-National Defence


John Borden Hamilton: Who sets the specifications tor the contracts which are required by the department and which are let through the other department?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The Department of National Defence sets the specifications, and then the Department of Defence Production procures, at the cheapest possible cost, materials in accordance with those specifications.


John Borden Hamilton: I assume that practically all the work of defence production is tied in with obtaining, facilitating and moving along the contracts for the Department of National Defence. The minister mentioned working with the inspectors of the Department of Defence Production. Is that an indication of duplication, or what particular reason would there be for inspection by defence production and inspection of the same specifications by national defence?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am in error there. I understand now that our inspectors do all the inspecting, but they work in conjunction with the employees of defence production. So there is no overlapping. Our people do the inspecting.


William Alfred Robinson: Inspection services are completed. Royal Canadian Navy, regular force and general.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the minister able to answer some of the questions which were put to him regarding the Royal Canadian Navy by the hon. member for Oxford? The questions were of general interest. The hon. member had to go away to another committee this afternoon.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sorry but I have not the material to answer these questions offhand. I shall get the answers. A number of them involve considerable detail. If I do not have them ready before the committee deals with this item I shall be glad to see that the hon. member gets them, and anybody else who wishes them. I think there will have to be quite a little searching done to answer some of the questions asked.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister would not have the answer to the one regarding the speed of the frigates, which is of very general interest?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I can give some of this information now. It is not quite complete, but it appears to cover most of the points. The original cost of the frigates was approximately $2 million each; that is, for those built during wartime. We do not give out the speed of naval vessels, but frigates have a speed above that of ordinary enemy submarines now in service but probably not above that of the

ones which are just being prototyped. Their engines are reciprocating engines.
As for Tribal destroyers, their life after conversion is estimated to be from six years to 10 years. They were constructed during the period from 1942 to 1947. Each Tribal destroyer cost something over $8 million, about $8,180,000.
The hon. member for Oxford asked about the complement of the Ontario. The complement is 50 officers and 550 men. The average time spent by junior officers training on board the Ontario is three months per year for each cadet, in groups of up to 100 cadets on each trip. There are three cruises a year covering the cadets. The annual cost of operating the Ontario is $2,533,000, including personnel. We expect that of the remainder of the 14 destroyer escorts, the last will be commissioned in 1958. We estimate that their ultimate unit cost, outside of armament and electronic equipment, will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $17 million each.
To come back to the frigates again, they were all built during world war II and their life expectancy is from six years to eight years. I think that covers the hon. member's questions.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask a question regarding the reserve fleet? What number of vessels have we now in the reserve fleet but not activated and not likely to be activated in the near future, but still kept under a sort of care and maintenance basis?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Page 6 of the white paper sets out the strength of the fleet, both commissioned and in reserve. In reserve there will now be-and it is not shown in the book-one cruiser, the Quebec, six frigates, 21 coastal escorts, five patrol craft, one repair ship, and 63 auxiliaries and small craft.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is not the number of 21 escort vessels rather excessive? There is a good deal of expense in connection with the maintenance of these vessels in reserve. I understand these escort vessels are not likely to be recommissioned again. Could they be declared as surplus to establishment?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed that the question of the reserve fleet-and I have not included in these figures the three frigates on loan to Norway-is now under study with a view to determining, bearing in mind the cost involved in maintaining the reserve fleet, whether some of them should not be disposed of. We have not as yet come to any conclusion; it is still under study.


George Randolph Pearkes: I would suggest that these considerations be proceeded with, because

not only do they require a certain amount of maintenance but they also take up a good deal of space in our harbours, and there is no use in keeping them.
Can the minister give a brief description of the cruises which have been undertaken by vessels of the Royal Canadian Navy, because I am of the opinion that those cruises are of very definite value in helping to fight the so-called cold war. Naval vessels go to far-away ports, and from what I know of the ships' companies of these vessels, I am sure they give a good account of themselves.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sorry, I have not the particulars of cruises that were made last year. They were fairly numerous. We are not unmindful of the fact the hon. member has mentioned. We wish to keep our ships known on the oceans of the world and in the capitals of other countries. It is just a case of balance as to how many of these cruises should be made, because the cruises are useful for the training of cadets and men. Another thing; if we had too many cruises it might prove too expensive. But we are not unmindful of the fact that it is desirable sometimes to show the flag in other parts of the world.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think it would be interesting if the minister could at some later time give us that information. I want to ask a question regarding the magazine at Rocky Point. No doubt the minister is expecting me to ask some questions regarding the construction of the jetty at that magazine. I put some questions on the order paper earlier in the session. I was given advice as to the cost of that jetty, which was very considerable.
It was also pointed out in the answer I received that no Canadian naval vessel is capable of berthing at that jetty. All ammunitioning and de-ammunitioning has to be carried out by lighters which have to be brought from the port of Esquimalt, and during stormy weather it is impossible for those lighters to carry out the task they are required to do.
It does seem ridiculous to establish a magazine in which naval ammunition is stored-and the expense of that naval magazine was very heavy, running into millions of dollars, I believe-and not to have a pier or jetty at which naval vessels can tie up and carry out the simple process of ammunitioning or de-ammunitioning. It is almost prehistoric to think of putting ammunition from a vessel into a lighter and then bringing the lighter alongside the jetty and handling the ammunition again. I have seen the jetty myself; it is an expensively constructed jetty with cement piers and that
Supply-National Defence sort of thing. I would ask the minister what are his plans in that respect, and if we are to write it off as simply having been a bad choice of site or bad construction?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, the Rocky Point ammunition jetty is not inoperable; it can be tied up to by small vessels. It is not unusable all the time, but under certain weather conditions ammunition has to be handled by lighters.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I interrupt at this point. From the return I received I learned that no Canadian vessel has ever carried out the task of ammunitioning or de-ammunitioning from the jetty.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The information I have is that it can be done.


George Randolph Pearkes: But apparently it has not been done yet.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the trouble basically arose out of the fact that when the jetty was constructed, it was found for engineering reasons to be so expensive that it was not built to the full length anticipated. Since the ammunition depot has been established the senior officers at Esquimalt have been making a study of the matter. They have evolved several alternatives, and they are making that study with cost figures as well. When that has been completed I shall take a new look at it and so will the officers at headquarters. I think at the moment the situation is substantially as it has been described by the hon. member, but I do not think it can be left in that state.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does the minister recall the cost of that jetty?


Ralph Osborne Campney: 


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Chairman, can the minister give the committee details of the transactions within the special account which are expected for this year, the special account being that one which has to do with the transfers under mutual aid?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Perhaps the hon. member would leave that until we get to the army and mutual aid element, because the army accounts for most of the money.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Yes, I
know that; and the air force, too. If I can obtain the answer later on, that will be all right.


Ray Thomas: A few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, the minister was giving the facts concerning the destroyer escorts and the light cruisers which I presume are expected to
6198	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence be commissioned sometime in 1958. I would like to ask the minister how many of the 12 destroyer escorts that are being commissioned at the present time are actually operative at the moment?


Ralph Osborne Campney: They are all in commission.


Ray Thomas: Last year when discussing these estimates the minister indicated that the department was experimenting with helicopters as an anti-submarine scouting weapon. Would the minister care to report whether or not they have been found successful, and what have been the results of those experiments?


Ralph Osborne Campney: A considerable number of experiments have been carried on throughout the past year and they are still being carried on, particularly from smaller ships, which is rather a new departure, so I am able to report that the testing of helicopters for naval operations is going on.
I may say that we also have under way a study with respect to helicopters for the three services in order that we may try to avoid duplication in the services of the same type of helicopter. We are trying to determine in what particular field of each service they can be used. We hope to arrive ultimately at a decision as to how many we should have in each service. Of course in this connection the navy is being given every consideration.


Ray Thomas: So far, then, you have not come to any definite conclusion as to the value of helicopters as an anti-submarine weapon?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We have not come to any final conclusion, but I think I can say the experiments up to date have been very encouraging and we anticipate there will be a use for them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, a short time ago I think the minister said that the cost of destroyers of the St. Laurent type was $17 million, excluding armament and certain electronic equipment; is that correct?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, sir.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the minister could tell us what the armament and electronic equipment will amount to; in other words what will be the total cost? I think that was the question asked by the hon. member for Oxford.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed that the total cost of armament and electronic equipment for the destroyer escorts will be somewhere around $6 million for each.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The total cost will therefore run to $23 million each?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Approximately.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Referring to the matter of the frigates, the minister said they were equipped with reciprocating engines. Are these new engines or the same engines that were in the frigates before, to which certain modifications have been made?


Ralph Osborne Campney: They are the same engines that were originally installed in the vessels. I am informed the theory is that the life of the engines and machinery is usually just about the same as that of the hull.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is there any possibility of increasing the speed of the engines and thereby increasing the efficiency of the frigates so they would be equal to the task of chasing the most modern Russian submarines?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The question of boosting the engines-I think that is the term used-is one which is under study.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is some possibility that the speed could be further increased, is that correct?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is a possibility, but I would not want to hold out that hope because we do not know yet; we have not had our study carried sufficiently far to have determined this fact.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If there is such a possibility I think the situation would be better than it appears to be at the present time, when we have these frigates which will have a life, as I take it from what the minister said, expiring perhaps between 1962 and 1964 or somewhere in that neighbourhood. They have been reconditioned at a cost of between $3 million and $4 million each. It would seem to me if they are not capable of being further increased in speed that has probably been a waste of money to quite an extent.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am told that the greater part of the cost of modification of the frigates was for new armaments. We must remember that we had to start with what we had in the navy and modernize it, and then work from there into new craft. Most of the money spent on the frigates was spent for armaments and offensive weapons to make them as modern as we could under the circumstances.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the situation still exists. It would be somewhat comparable to the air force spending money to modify a Hurricane, which would be a complete waste of money. I do not say that the modification of these frigates is as bad an example as that, but if it is not possible to increase their speed to the point where they can

overtake or at least go as fast as a submarine, it seems to me that we have been sort of throwing good money after bad in modernizing and refitting these ships.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In addition to our obligations to NATO and other obligations, and in order to have our complement filled, it was felt some years ago that it would be desirable to make these changes. I think they are justified, as the ships still have several years of life. It is true they are not the most modern or fastest ships, but at least their equipment and armament is modern.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Are they capable of taking a helicopter on board, or using helicopter as a sort of arm to go out from them for submarine surveys?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Officials of the department are working on one frigate to test the use of helicopters to see whether it will prove effective. There is some doubt as to whether it can be used, but we are going to find out by rule of thumb.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad to hear that that experiment is going on, because that may well justify the expense.


John Borden Hamilton: I think the answers we are getting here justify the suspicion of the opposition as to the answers it has had previously. The minister stated there was little reluctance in giving us the answers we want. I understood that the minister's first answer was that these 'ships were fast enough to take care of any present submarine, but that they might not be able to take care of those now under development and being produced. Then later on we got an answer which would indicate that all this is being done to fulfil commitments to NATO. Then we are told that we cannot be given the information as to how fast these ships can go. I think it is fairly well known that if the reciprocating engines are still in them, and I understand they are, they will do about 22 knots. The information to be obtained from Time magazine, if you like- you can get it there when you cannot get it from our department of defence-is that Russian submarines now in operation will do about 25 knots.
I think we are entitled to know if that is the case. As was stated a moment ago, we are spending $3 million or $4 million to modernize these ships. What are we spending it for? Are we spending it to live up to a commitment to NATO to have X number of ships in the Atlantic, or are we spending it to produce something for the defence of this country? That brings me back to my basic remark that for each dollar spent we should
Supply-National Defence have some return. If the figures I have given are not correct we should like to know what they are.
I cannot think of any particular security measure that should prevent us from knowing this. It would not put any prospective opponent in a position to know exactly where we stand. I would be inclined to believe that if other nations knew that this type of engine was still used in these ships, and we were told today that it is, they would know exactly how fast they can go. What is the true situation? Did we spend this money to make it possible for these ships to deal with submarines that we know are in the water now? How long will they be useful? It has been stated here that the natural life of a ship such as this is from six to eight years.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The whole situation is not as simple as my hon. friend claims. We read that the Russians have submarines that will do so many knots, but we can only surmise that that is so. I think we have gone quite a way toward indicating the general condition of the rejuvenated frigates and our various craft. It is not a case of secrecy for secrecy's sake, but I do not think it would be good business to say that we have so many ships which will go so many knots, that we have so many ships of a certain type that will go so many knots, and thus confirm our whole naval picture. I would be really hesitant to do that.
No other nation does that. We have to surmise from the best intelligence we can get just what is the case, and so do they. If I were to state the speed of such and such a ship as it has been rejuvenated I would be providing excellent confirmation. I do not think that is a desirable thing to do. I have tried to give as much information as I could about our naval ships and I have been glad to do that, but I do not think it would be in the best interests of NATO or of our other obligations to give details of the speed and armament of our ships.
We have to be a little careful about things like that. To give that information would be simply confirming beyond peradventure what information other nations may have about these ships. I am not enough of a technical man to say that you can determine the speed of the ship by the fact that it is fitted with reciprocating or some other type of engine. I do not know whether there is a formula that would give that information. I think I have gone quite a way, and I have tried to meet hon. members in regard to the particulars of these ships. I would not care to get into the question of speed.
6200	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence Mr. Hamilton (York West): It seems to me that if we pursue this line continually we are eventually going to arrive at the point where defence will be a matter for the government only and not for parliament. It is just another spoke in the wheel. It simply backs up the argument of the Leader of the Opposition that it is time we had a committee where certain of this information could be obtained which might not be made available in the house. I think the opposition should be placed in possession of information which would indicate whether the money is being spent for useful purposes.
To a great extent these things are generally known. The minister said something about a formula. I am sure if the hon. member for Oxford were here there would be no necessity for a formula. Any officer who had served on one of those ships during the last war and who was told that the same type of engine was being used today would be able to give this information. I realize that the ship has been renovated, and it may be that it can handle second-line submarines, and there must be plenty of them in the ocean. In the case of aircraft, we cannot always have a plane to take care of the fastest bomber, but the fastest bomber is not going to be used in quantity. There will be many secondary bombers which will have to be handled.
I say to the minister what I said last year, that I am extremely disappointed in being able to get many answers out of news magazines published in the United States that apparently I cannot get here. I certainly hope that condition does not continue.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not want to get into a controversy about this matter but I would ask the hon. member whether he puts complete credence in the answers on these matters that he reads in United States newspapers, or any newspapers. I am sure those are inaccurate figures in many cases. All kinds of speculation and all kinds of material are published, but the information is not necessarily official and not necessarily correct.
The hon. member made some reference to the fact that apparently the government is the only group that could be fully cognizant of government policy on defence. I do not see how it could be otherwise. The government has to take the responsibility for its policy on defence and it has to be the judge, I should think, of how much information of the type for which the hon. member is asking it is proper to make available. That applies in every country. It may be a disability from the point of view of members, but if we had a committee examining the defence picture, matters of


policy would have to be withdrawn from the committee for reasons which I think are highly justifiable. Otherwise our defence picture in relation to these matters would be an open book, and we would certainly be a unique country if that became the case.


John Borden Hamilton: I certainly do not mean to imply that we had a place in the formulation of government policy, but I certainly think we have a place in the approval of the expenditure of these funds. Unless we know exactly what is being accomplished we cannot be expected to vote or not to vote for the appropriation asked for.
All I am saying is that in true cases of security I do not think there is any suggestion from this side that we should know what is going on, but the minister has said, "Don't believe everything you read in these United States publications." I do not think we do, but what is happening there is this. They have a committee in which representatives of the Senate and the House of Representatives have an opportunity of examining these people, and that is where most of the information comes from. It may be that their intelligence is no better than anyone else's and they do not know exactly at what speed Russian submarines can go, but at least they get some information that would enable them to draw a conclusion as to whether in a case like this the money was justified in being spent for this purpose.
The only other thing I should like to ask in connection with these previous questions is this, now that we have found that the cost for destroyers of the new class mentioned totals, I think, $23 million. Are comparable class destroyers being built elsewhere? Have they been designed from the keel up, as I understand these were-and we are properly proud they were designed and built here that way-and have we comparable figures to show whether in this case we are getting value for our dollars in a ship that will do a certain job? I should like to know from the minister whether he knows of any cases like that. If we cannot get the information, it is another argument for a committee to enable us to get it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am advised by the naval officials that there are no ships comparable to the new destroyer escort. I am advised that it is the product of a good deal of our own original designing and the best that we could learn from the Americans-as they make their designs available to us-and the British. Out of the three we have built this new destroyer escort which is, we think-

and not only we think, but officials of other countries think-well in advance of anything else now afloat.
I should like to make one other observation about the cost of these destroyers. The hon. member will know very well that the costs of shipbuilding in Canada are very high, relative to the United Kingdom at least and to most other countries, so that, to answer his question shortly, I do not know of any comparable ship against which it could be set in the way of cost.


Ray Thomas: I should like to say that the picture we have been given this afternoon, as far as the navy is concerned, is pretty bleak. One does not have to read newspaper reports or listen to conjectures or anything else to know that unless these frigates have increased their speed tremendously they cannot possibly cope with any of the more modern submarines or even most of the outdated ones. I can remember very well in the early spring of 1945 listening to one of the ships in our escort group sending back a running account of a chase with a submarine and saying at that time, "We can't shoot it, because we can't catch it." That is exactly the position in which these frigates are at the present time. They have put new armaments in them, new guns, I presume, new depth charges, and so on, but if they can't catch it they can't shoot it. Under those circumstances I cannot see how we could consider those ten frigates as first-line ships by any Stretch of the imagination. That would leave us with one light fleet carrier and 12 destroyer escorts as front-line ships at the present time. In the event of hostilities, if we were given the same job we were given during the last war, that would mean we would have just about enough escort vessels to escort two convoys across the ocean. That is a bleak picture.
I would suggest that, rather than spending $3 million or $4 million in putting new armaments, new depth charges and new guns on outdated, outspeeded frigates, it would be better to try to throw that money into something that could do some good. The frigates, unless the speed has been packed up tremendously, cannot hope even to catch up to a submarine of 1945 vintage, and if they could not do that you can see how far they would be left behind at the present time.
I must say that I was in hopes when I saw this that we at last had a few cruisers, ten frigates and so on to rely on if hostilities should break out, but we are told today that one of the cruisers has been put into mothballs, the other is used as a training ship and
Supply-National Defence ten of the frigates cannot possibly be operational, which leaves us with a grand operational navy of about 13 ships. That is a disheartening thing to have to look at.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot admit that because the frigates cannot overhaul the fastest submarine we know of they are not operational ships. We are working toward a navy where the balance will be in favour of the fastest destroyer which will take care of any submarine that exists. When we get our destroyer escort program finished we shall have 25 destroyers. I do not think any navy in the world has all its navy in first-line ships. It is a progressive growth from one stage to another. These frigates, which had quite a few years of life in them, were refitted so they would be more modernly armed. I think they could play a very useful part in any hostilities that might arise, even though admittedly they probably could not catch the fastest submarine, if we have the right figure as to its speed. However, I think the hon. member is deprecating the picture a little too much.


Ray Thomas: Perhaps I was minimizing things, but I should hate to be on one.


Mr. Bell:: I should like to refer to two specific matters with respect to the navy item. The first is our shipbuilding program. I appreciate that the Department of Defence Production and also the maritime commission have certain responsibilities in connection with this matter, but I should like to know why it is that our naval construction program cannot be lined up on a year to year basis instead of month to month. We have a shipbuilding industry in Canada, and in the case of the area around Saint John we are dependent on that industry to a large extent. It employs about 1,500 men. This business of handing out contracts every month or two, then causing a serious reduction in employment in the area through cutbacks, and then providing further employment is a drain on the entire community. It may be that some of the larger shipyards do not feel it to the same degree.
I appreciate there are tough decisions that have to be made as far as future plans are concerned, and they have been pointed out this afternoon. But I notice that the minister had this to say, as found at page 6119 of Hansard of yesterday:
There have been no naval developments which were not foreseen reasonably accurately when that figure was agreed on.
He was referring, of course, to the total amount for the navy. I could make a long speech about what I think is wrong with our naval plans. As has been said here and

Supply-National Defence as I mentioned this afternoon, I cannot figure out for the life of me why we are building such a large escort fleet when we have not got a bloody ship to escort. But that is another story. That is a matter of NATO commitments and of what is going to be done with our deplorable merchant marine. I do want to say that we have to line up the plans we are going to make for our navy on a year to year basis, so that contracts will not be handed out piecemeal from month to month.
A destroyer escort or some other small vessel is allocated to a certain shipyard. We have good shipyards and shipbuilders in Canada for a small industry. They complete the project and the job is done satisfactorily. Then the men are laid off, 500, 600 or 700 men on occasion. They wait around and if they are lucky and the lobbying is successful at Ottawa there is another handout next month. The men are rehired, and so the thing goes on. If what the minister says is true, that they can make plans on a year to year basis and there are no substantial changes, then there is something wrong with some department, maybe defence production or the maritime commission. We have to re-examine this matter if we are going to bring about a proper perspective with regard to our plans for naval shipbuilding, something so necessary in the cold war.
I also want to refer briefly to the seaward defences, particularly on the Atlantic coast. I have brought up this subject for the past two or three years and I do not want to go into the details. We do not have too many details. I understand that the plans are pretty well completed at Sydney, and I have read in the white paper this year and in previous years that Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland, have been considered. I make a plea for the port of Saint John because I think it is one of our major problems today. We have the new Camp Gage-town in that area, a vital new factor from a defensive point of view.
We all know the importance that our ports are beginning to assume in modern warfare.
I have an article here, and there are many others, pointing out the fact that with the modern submarines referred to again this afternoon and the nuclear weapons that will be aboard those submarines, the problem of defending our ports by modern methods has become increasingly serious and important.
I do not have any more to say, but I would appreciate it if the minister would take a moment to comment on the shipbuilding problem and to suggest if there is any way the work can be laid out on a more 

definite basis over the full year, so those who are looking to that industry for their future will be able to make their plans. I should also like him to take a minute to say something about what our plans are going to be for the winter ports on the Atlantic coast.


George Randolph Pearkes: Before the minister answers that question, may I revert to the problem of the speed of the frigates. We do not have to refer to the United States magazine Life in order to ascertain the speed of the various frigates. I have before me what is recognized by all navies as an official publication, "Jane's Fighting Ships", which gives the speeds of all the vessels of all the different navies, including the frigates about which we have been talking. It also gives the speeds of the submarines and the speeds of various British vessels.
It points out in the foreword that in the case of British navy frigates, ranging from ships of 1,000 tons to 2,000 tons, they have a speed ranging from 16 to 36 knots and widely differing armament. When you turn over the various pages you find a description of the tonnage, armament and speed of the various ships. I think "Jane's Fighting Ships" is considered more reliable than Life. I do not see why the minister needs to be so frightened of that.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would agree with the
latter statement of my hon. friend, that "Jane's Fighting Ships" is more reliable than Life, but my advisers tell me that nobody would rely on Jane's either; that the figures are very approximate and that they are not technically relied upon by any naval people.
With regard to what the hon. member for Saint John-Albert said, when we decide^ to engage in a shipbuilding program-I am speaking entirely from the point of view of the navy-with the Department of Defence Production we did, as everyone knows, plan our construction in certain yards and certain areas some years ago, and it was proceeded with on that basis and is being completed on that basis.
As far as the navy is concerned, when it comes to repair work that is something that is very uncertain. Except for major overhaul you cannot program it, because you do not know when a destroyer is going to collide with a dock or one ship is going to run into another ship, and so on. There is a great element of uncertainty. In addition, there is the fact that on each coast we have our own dockyards which ordinarily take care of most of the work of maintenance and repair, though not all. When we have a congestion of repair work we utilize the services of private yards.

I am not talking about merchant ships, but of the navy. In the first place there is not a great deal of repair work to do, thinking in terms of the number of yards available; second, it is very hard to program what there is, as there is such a big difference between ship construction and ship repair and maintenance.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Alfred Robinson: Have we completed the discussion on the Royal Canadian Navy, regular forces and general?


John Borden Hamilton: There are just one or two further questions on the navy. Would the minister repeat, if he has said once before, the expected cost of the aircraft carrier Bonaventurel


Ralph Osborne Campney: The estimated cost of the Bonaventure, without her planes, is $26-5 million at the moment. The planes may run close to $15 million, maximum.


John Borden Hamilton: Do I gather from the minister's answer that it is intended to use the newer type jet planes for this job?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Two planes, one a jet and the other propeller driven.


John Borden Hamilton: I wonder if the minister might comment on reports which are circulating in the United Kingdom that the ship has had trial runs and there is some tie-up with the necessary speed of the ship for the utilization of jet aircraft? There seems some doubt now as to whether the ship will have sufficient speed for the utilization of this type of aircraft. It may be that some report has been received by the minister, but there seemed to be rumours to this effect in the United Kingdom.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the hon. member has had information in advance of mine, because I am informed she has not had any trial runs yet.


John Borden Hamilton: Would the minister check up on that to see if there have been reports of that kind, because I have been informed that there have been reports to that effect.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, I will be glad to do that.


William Alfred Robinson: The next section is royal Canadian naval reserves, on page 317.
Supply-National Defence


Mr. MacLean:: Can the minister give the committee some indication of the progress that has been made in the construction of divisional headquarters for the various naval reserve divisions across the country, with perhaps a special reference to the new headquarters being built at Charlottetown?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There are two naval division headquarters approaching the point where they will be constructed. One is at London, Ontario. I think that one is out to tender, and with respect to the other at Charlottetown the plans are being prepared. If the money is available I would expect that tenders will be called either late this year or early next year at Charlottetown.


William Alfred Robinson: Royal Canadian naval reserves completed? Royal Canadian sea cadets, on page 318?


Thomas Miller Bell: I wonder if it would be all right if I asked a question here about the navy benevolent fund?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, we are not directly concerned with the operation of the naval benevolent fund, although we are very much interested in its usefulness. I have no objection to the hon. member asking a question, but probably I would not be in a position to answer it.


Thomas Miller Bell: I wonder if the minister could tell me if the amount of prize money which it was decided to put into the naval benevolent fund was completely accounted for; that is, was the entire amount of prize money earned by the Canadian navy generally during the war placed in this navy benevolent fund? I understand there was a statute a few years ago covering this, and I just want to know if the entire amount was placed in the fund?


Ralph Osborne Campney: My information is that all that money has been placed in the fund.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Can the minister tell us, offhand, how many royal Canadian naval cadets are allowed throughout the dominion? I understand the army were allowed 65,000.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not too sure of the number, but I will get the answer in a few minutes.


William Alfred Robinson: Sea cadets completed, subject to that answer?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The number of naval cadets is 10,000.


William Alfred Robinson: Canadian army, regular and general, on page 319.


George Randolph Pearkes: I would crave the indulgence of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to make a few remarks regarding the Canadian army.

Supply-National Defence with particular reference to that portion of the Canadian army which is now serving in Europe. I crave the indulgence of the committee in making these remarks and taking up time, because it is exactly a week ago that I spent the whole day with the Canadian brigade in West Germany.
The first message I should like to bring to the committee is one of which I feel all Canada will be proud. It is a message from the civil authorities of Soest. I met during the evening representatives of the town and the province, and I should like to inform the minister that these civil authorities were loud in their praise of the conduct of our Canadian troops and of the very happy relations which existed between the Canadian armed forces and the civilian population in Westphalia where they are stationed. It is obvious that when troops are stationed in a foreign country many difficult problems are presented, but by the co-operation of the German authorities and the good judgment used by the commanders of our brigade, these little difficulties have been reduced to the very minimum.
Second, I should like to pass on the messages of thanks which were given to me by a senior officer of the newly created German army, who expressed his appreciation of the manner in which the Canadian forces were making available to this army, which is still in the making, their instructors and the advice they might give. We are now working with West Germany as a partner in NATO; therefore it is encouraging to know that old soldiers have been placed on the same side. Officers of the new German army frequent our Canadian messes and discuss their problems as soldiers of armies the world over talk about their kindred problems, which are so similar no matter what nationality the army may represent. Also in that same neighbourhood there are stationed units, in fact a whole division, of the Royal Belgian army, and the same happy relations exist between the Belgians and the Canadians as I have described as existing between the Canadian forces and the German civilian population.
I was asked by representatives of those groups to convey those sentiments to the parliament of Canada and I should like, inadequate though my words may be, to assure the minister that the expressions which were made to me were full of sincerity, and that Canada can be proud of the work her forces are doing in the very difficult circumstances under which they are now soldiering in West Germany.

Then I should like to pay my own tribute to the apparent efficiency of the brigade. I make no apology for saying that our Canadian troops are good. I have been associated with Canadian fighting men all my life, and I know that Canadian troops can be extremely efficient. I am glad to say that our Canadian brigade is well led, that the men are in good heart and well trained, and that the contribution we are making by this brigade group in Western Germany far exceeds the size of the formation for many reasons which I hope to explain later. Not only do Canadians themselves and their commanders consider that they are the very key of the western defences, but that same high regard is held by senior officers of the British and other armies with whom I conversed. I cannot speak in too high terms of the high regard in which our troops in Western Germany are held. There are reasons for that, and I hope I shall be able to explain why it is that our Canadian forces are in such a favourable position.
I do not wish to enumerate particularly the units I saw. Of course I visited my old regiment, the Patricia's, and they were in good heart, but in that brigade there are other units. Unfortunately the Royal Canadian regiment was away on manoeuvres and I was able to see only a very small detachment of them. I did have the privilege of meeting the officers and men of the Royal 22nd regiment, which has a particularly soft spot in my heart. I was closely associated with them during the fighting on the Somme when they gained immortal glory by their attack on the sugar factory at Courcelette, and I had them in my division during the second world war. I was proud to refer to them as my Royal 22nd regiment. They did not have their goat with them, but they had very cherished memories and a very proud and high morale.
After all is said and done, it is the battle honours which are carried on the colours rather than the mascots of a regiment, and it is the names of battalion commanders of bygone days who inspire the esprit de corps of the unit. Names such as Tremblay, Vanier, Percy Flynn, old man Poirier, Bernatchez, Triquet, are household names not only among the Royal 22nd regiment but also throughout the whole of Canada. If by any chance the remarks made from this side of the house earlier today were interpreted as in any way casting any reflection upon the Royal 22nd regiment, I must say that those remarks are not shared by the majority of members on this side of the house or anywhere in the house.

The efficiency of the brigade, which I refer to as being of a very high order, I attribute to certain facts. Remember, they are the only volunteer formation in western Europe, and a volunteer soldier assimilates training more readily than an unwilling soldier who may have been pressed into the service by any form of national conscription. They are also the highest paid troops on the western front. Their units have been maintained at full war strength, with a small reserve immediately to replace casualties. Those are conditions which do not exist amongst the other NATO units which are stationed in the west. The British units are on a lower establishment than our Canadian units. Their units are not even up to the strength of those reduced peacetime establishments, and a high percentage of the men serving in British units are men who perhaps are rather unwilling soldiers, counting the weeks that remain before they will be released to civilian employment.
That is not so with our Canadian soldiers. A high percentage of our Canadian soldiers are men who have served more than one term of enlistment. They apparently are keen on their work and are only too anxious to take part in the numerous exercises which are carried out, and are bursting with pride at being Canadian soldiers.
Regarding the actual quarters and camps in which these men are located, these camps have been constructed, I think I can say, without regard for cost. I do not mean that there may have been unnecessary expenditures, or that care has not been exercised in seeing there was not waste and extravagance. But they are extremely good camps, in which the Canadian soldiers must feel comfortable and at home, and they offer quarters which are in keeping with the type of troops we are sending to Europe.
Of course I may be accused of eulogizing our forces, as has been suggested by some hon. members on the other side of the house. They have expressed surprise that hon. members on this side of the house should compliment or call attention to the efficiency of our troops. I make no apologies for doing this. The only thing I question and call attention to is the fact that if you pay the price you can have practically the best of anything in this world, and Canada has been paying a heavy price for providing the excellent type of troops we have with the splendid facilities they now enjoy.
How long we should continue to keep up this great national effort is something I think the government must take into very serious consideration. There are great expenses connected with the maintenance of that brigade.
Supply-National Defence Not only have we provided excellent unit camps but perhaps I might say extravagant unit camps, extravagant in the extent of ground that the various hutments occupy. A unit camp in West Germany today would be almost comparable in size to a brigade camp during world war II. There are large lawns between the various hutments, and they are kept closely trimmed. Grass grows very quickly in that wet German climate, but the lawns are well cared for by German civilian gardeners whose services are paid for, I presume, by the Canadian forces. There is ample accommodation and no crowding whatever in the hutments.
The married quarters are spacious and the average man in the ranks probably never before lived in such spacious accommodation as he enjoys there. I talked to the wives of some of the private soldiers and they were most enthusiastic regarding the accommodation. They only have to kiep their homes clean. There are no chores to be done around the house, and that presents a little difficulty in connection with some of the growing children, who in Canada would be required to perform certain chores around the house. Those chores are not available to them in Germany because they are all performed by civilian help.
Quarters are provided for the majority of the families and there is an increasing number-one might almost say an incredible number-of children attached to all the various units. Remember, those families and those children are transported from Canada over to Germany and are brought back again. While they are in Germany special arrangements are made to provide them with the kind of food they have here in Canada. Special arrangements are made to import pasteurized milk rather than being required to use the milk which is available locally. Schools are provided, and school teachers are sent to Germany from Canada.
I mention these things because, as I said earlier, we can have the best of everything if we pay the price; and we are paying the price for the accommodation and for transporting and maintaining the families who are now in Europe. I do not know what the actual figure is, but I am going to ask the minister if he will supply this committee with accurate figures regarding the cost of transportation not only of the men, the units and their equipment from Canada to Europe, but also the cost of transporting the families from Canada to West Germany and bringing them back.
I am also going to ask the minister if he can give the committee the figures regarding the cost of either the construction or rental

Supply-National Defence of these various camps in order that we may have some indication of what it is costing the taxpayers of this country to make the contribution to NATO which Canada has been making in the past.
I am not particularly happy about the location of the camps. I do not know whether or not we had any say in the matter. The camps of the brigade are widely distributed. The distance from brigade headquarters to the camp of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry is something in the nature of 15 miles, and it takes more than an hour to motor from brigade headquarters to that particular unit. That is an indication of the wide distribution which exists amongst the units of the brigade. That scattered distribution may have some advantages, but it certainly increases the difficulties of administration for brigade headquarters, and it also increases the cost.
The area is in a highly developed agricultural district. It consists of a number of small towns and practically every acre is under cultivation, thus restricting the availability of training areas which have to be used not only by our Canadian brigade but also by the Belgian and some British troops, and now the German regiments which are being organized. In fact if the squadron of the armoured regiment wishes to do some tank training the regiment is required to drive its tanks down the road, put them on trains and take them for a considerable distance before they can reach a driving area. The same applies to artillery units and all firing ranges as far as the brigade is concerned.
Those are conditions over which I imagine we had little control. Possibly a few years ago there had not been the development in West Germany that there is today, as many of the present refugees from East Germany had not moved into that area and there was not quite the same demand for housing accommodation that exists today. The demand for housing accommodation by the civilian population has been accentuated by the closing down of several of the rest camps and hostels which were established by the British and United States forces in the area. There is still a steady stream of refugees from East Germany coming into West Germany, and in spite of the tremendous building program which has been carried on there is an acute crowding which is continuously cutting into the training areas and the limited accommodation available for Canadian families who cannot find accommodation in the quarters provided by the government.
These are some of the problems which face the brigade commander, who not only has to train and administer his brigade but must

Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: I should like to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, and I am sure that in doing so I shall be thanking him on behalf of all the members of this house, for the very comprehensive and complete report he has made immediately following his return from visiting Europe on the Canadian brigade located there. I should like to do more than that. I should like to thank him not only on behalf of us in this house but I am sure on behalf of the people of Canada for the very fine tribute he has paid to our troops overseas. As the voice of a very experienced and understanding general who knows something about troops, I think it carries all the more weight. Without labouring the point, I am very grateful to him for all he has said in regard to our troops. I should also like to thank him for conveying to us the views of the German and Belgian civil and military authorities.
After all, NATO is a joint effort. It is the effort of a collection of nations who believe in freedom and are willing to pay a price in an effort to sustain it. I am sure that all the people of this country as well as the members of this house will be grateful for the fact that we know now how well our troops have been received and are being received in Europe.	,
I should also like at this moment to give him such information as I can, as requested in his speech. I have several items here. I have first the cost of rotation of troops, that is the transport of one brigade group over and another brigade group back. For the troops themselves the cost is $2,510,000; for the dependants, $2,652,000, or a total of $5,162,000 for transportation on one rotation over and back.
With regard to married quarters, we have 1,400 married quarters in Germany. These married quarters were built by arrangement with the Germans, who provided the capital. On a long-term arrangement we pay for the use of these quarters $1,185,000 annually in rent, or approximately $65 a month each.
I think that includes lighting and heating too. The rent is paid by the occupant of the premises personally, against allowances which we make. The cost of the construction of these 1,400 married quarters is to be paid through the rent, and the amount I have indicated per year is on the basis of 10 per cent of the capital cost each year.
The other elements in the military camps besides the married quarters are provided by the Germans. They were constructed by them and I suppose that ultimately they will be returned to them in any event if we should withdraw. The over-all cost of operating the brigade group in Germany,


including pay and allowances, food, all the elements that we pay as a government, totals $33 i million per year. I think that covers the figures requested.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did the minister give the cost of the educational facilities?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have not the actual figure at hand, but I will try to get it. I suppose the hon. member wants to know the cost of the schools, the teachers, and everything involved?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I will try to get that.


Mrs. Fairclough:: 
Ralph Osborne Campney: Something between 6,000 and 6,500 men, and probably 4,500 dependents.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Did the minister say
6,500?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Between 10,000 and 11,000 with the dependents.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How many of those would be in reserve? That seems a very large number for a brigade. How many would be in reserve?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There are supporting units amounting to 600 or 700 but I understand that the remainder of the 6,000 or 6,500 are all on war establishment and are part of the brigade group.


George Randolph Pearkes: When I referred to reserves I was referring to the first line reserves which are carried with the unit. Of course there are certain headquarters units which are elsewhere, in Amsterdam and other places. That would appear to be about the figure that one would expect to have, somewhere between
6,000	and 7,000 in a brigade group.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: With regard to those persons who are serving in overseas posts, do those who are listed in ancillary positions enjoy the same facilities as those who are in the active force?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not sure I clearly understand the question, because once they are sent overseas they are all part of the brigade group. While some might be called ancillary personnel they are part of the brigade group as such, though they may not be what you might call front line fighting troops.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But they still have the same access to accommodation, the same access to all the services which are available to our forces overseas? Is that right?


Ralph Osborne Campney: So far as they are available. I would point out, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich mentioned, that there are not enough married quarters by quite a good deal even with the 1,400.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But how are they divided? Do some people have preference?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The preference is established on the basis of what is called a point score based on the service of the individual, number of children, etc. There is a system of computation on a point basis, and the allocation of married quarters is on that point basis. In other words the greater the claim you have on account of points awarded for length of service and various things the more opportunity you are likely to have to get one of these quarters.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not think this is very clear, because the minister has told us that there are between 6,000 and 7,000 persons-


Ralph Osborne Campney: Between 6,000 and 7,000 troops.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: All right. What constitutes a brigade; 3,500 to 4,000?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The brigade group, including the first reserves and the ancillary troops, completely absorbs the 6,000 to 6,500 men I have mentioned. They have been permitted to take over their wives and children who constitute approximately 4,000 more persons. Therefore the total brigade group with their dependents runs somewhere between 10,000 and 11,000.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: With respect to the 6,500, is there any division made so far as eligibility for accommodation is concerned, or for any other services which are given to our troops overseas, or are they all considered to be members of this group?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Certainly; yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: To elaborate on that point, perhaps it might be of interest to say that with the exception of the very senior ranks there is no difference in the allocation of quarters for married personnel as between the more or less junior officers, captains and below, and the other ranks.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is correct.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As a matter of fact, last year when we were overseas I was quite impressed with the accommodation available where married quarters had been supplied. Of course in some places it had not yet been developed, and I would hope that it would develop in very short order. I hope the situation with regard to these people is
Supply-National Defence even better than it was a year ago, but I did wonder whether, within the group mentioned by the minister, there was any differentiation between those who are actually members of the brigade and those who perform ancillary services.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, I think that distinction does not exist. As outlined by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, with the exception of the very few senior officers the junior officers, non-commissioned officers and men are on an equal basis with regard to claims for accommodation.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That was the impression we received when we were overseas. We saw the facilities which were available for officers of a given rank and below that rank. I may say that one of the things that impressed me overseas was the fact that from a private up to a certain rank of commissioned officer the facilities were the same. Even the furniture which was included in their living quarters was exactly the same. I was quite impressed with that. But that does not alter the question I put to the minister. Is there any differentiation between those who are actually members of the active forces and those who perform ancillary services?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Perhaps the hon. member is thinking of the communications personnel. There are no quarters built for them, and they have to try to get their own. That is not due to their rank or position but due to their location. There are not married quarters for everybody, and they are in groups near places where there is a congestion of troops. There are people who are on lines of communication, you may say, who have to shift for themselves because we do not provide houses in those small areas. That is what the hon. member had in mind?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, thank you very much.


Mr. Siewart (Winnipeg Norih):: One of the
things I noticed last year when I was visiting Europe with other members of parliament was the obvious lack of news from Canada. It was something which was felt by everybody there. To the people at home perhaps it is not so important, but when you are thousands of miles away you want home news. You want to find out what is going on, whether you live in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto or Montreal. I was told in more than one place that newspapers received from Canada were three to five weeks old.
I do not think that is good enough. I think the provision of adequate, up to date news for the troops is part of the considerations of morale. I realize there is a radio station now in operation, but the radio station does not supply home town news which so many of

Supply-National Defence these men and women crave. What steps have been taken to see that Canadian newspapers are sent to the various areas as rapidly as possible?


Ralph Osborne Campney: On the question of expediting the delivery of newspapers I am afraid I have no up to the minute information. This has been a source of some difficulty everywhere we have had troops. We have tried to take care of some of the difficulty by establishing, as he knows, a new radio station of 250 watts which covers the whole of the brigade area. It gives a continuous series of rebroadcasts from the C.B.C.
That may not meet the local situation of individual troops but I think it is a vast improvement, and has been very well received. I am sorry I cannot tell the hon. member the position with respect to newspapers. I know it has been a perennial headache every time we have sent troops away because it takes so long to get newspapers from here to wherever they are to be delivered. I am very much interested in keeping people away from home still at home in their thinking and their approaches to life. I shall look into that.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May I say
something at this juncture. This business may not loom too large in the minds of many of us here. The minister knows as well as I do that it is a very important thing to the men over there. The provision of this radio station and the excellent programs the C.B.C. are giving do help, but it does not overcome the fact that these men want home town news. The minister may remember that when I returned from Germany I telephoned him and said this was one of the things which were lacking, one of the things the men wanted, and I think they have a right to it. It may be a headache, but I submit the minister might perhaps get some aspirin to restore himself and return refreshed to the task of seeing that these people who are upholding our prestige as Canadians, and who are interested in their home towns, get the news which they so badly need.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to support the hon. member who has just spoken, because it is true that the one complaint we heard was the lack of up to date news from the home towns. Even in cases where members of the forces overseas were receiving their local newspapers as a result of subscriptions, they came in bundles containing the copies for two months at a time. Obviously these men could not begin to digest them. I know that if I am away for a week I cannot begin to read all my home town newspapers for a week, because I just have not the time.


Obviously that is the problem with which these men are faced. Yet they want to know what is going on at home; their ties are at home. They would like to know what has happened, even if it is the accidents on the local streets. They like to read this news. They do not get it until it is quite old, sometimes not for two or three months.
Those of us who were overseas last year found that the main question that was asked of us by the men who were serving from our own home towns was, what has happened at home? What changes have there been? It seems to me there should be some way of getting these newspapers to them within a reasonable length of time, and particularly so when they have subscriptions and are supposed to receive copies by ordinary mail.


Ralph Osborne Campney: There are two points I should like to make in that respect. One is that in a brigade, of course, there are people from every locality in Canada. I do not think there is any particular complaint, at least it has not been brought to my attention if there is, about the general news, especially since we started the radio station. I think the complaints are about their own local news from the little towns and villages. I do not know how the department or the army can expedite that or deal with that, because it is a particularly personal matter.
There are only two ways in which newspapers can be sent to Germany. One is by air and the other is by ship. A ship may be delayed, not I think quite as much as the-hon. member has said, but still there are delays. The cost of sending newspapers by air is rather high for the ordinary family so this is a disability that is very difficult to overcome.
I have said on a number of occasions that the best hope of removing the difficulty is through letters from the people at home to the people overseas, and secondly by sending the local paper to them. I remember that in world war I I got the local paper every week, except when I got lost upon occasion. It was a local paper and was not of any interest to anybody else so far as I know. But it was of interest to me. I think it should be pointed out that the families who have someone overseas might very well develop some sense of responsibility for keeping that individual informed. I believe, taking that with the general information we are able to give them, plus the radio service we are able to provide, should meet the situation.
I agree there is quite a bit of complaint about it, but I do not see how the army itself could meet this particular situation without.

the co-operation of the relatives and friends of the people who are in the services.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is the very thing 1 am talking about, Mr. Chairman. In several cases which were drawn to my attention those people who were subscribers to local newspapers did not receive those newspapers because they went, I suppose, as newspaper mail; I do not know how they got them, but they were getting bundles of newspapers at one time which were anything up to a month or two months old. They had no news in the meantime, yet they had subscribed to that newspaper. It seems to me there must be some things the department could do to see that this second or third class mail reaches them in a reasonable length of time.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am told by the postal
people that the average transportation time for air mail to the brigade-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is air mail, though.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I will give you both-from Montreal to the brigade is three to four days. The average time for surface mail is from 12 to 18 days. There may be some delays, but generally speaking that is about the time that can be counted upon.
There is another thing-I do not suppose this meets the local situation-but I know when I was last over there a great many of the units whose men came from certain areas subscribed to a number of papers from that area and they were used by all members of the units. In other words there are the costs, and so on. I am very cognizant of the situation, but I do not think there is really very much more we can do than we have done to expedite things.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps I might say a word on this subject. When I was over and saw the brigade and the air division last year the only complaint I heard, I think, in connection with this matter was the lack of news. The radio station will no doubt have corrected that to some extent as far as the brigade is concerned; it will not have corrected it as far as the air division is concerned.
The minister has said he does not think there is anything further the army could do, and I take that to mean anything the department could do. I think there is. As a matter of fact I asked two or three commanding officers whether it would help, or be of any particular assistance, if newspapers from the home station of the unit were flown over as part of the regular cargo of the skid run, I think it is called, of the air force which goes over, I think, twice a week or something
Supply-National Defence along that line. They were of the opinion that it would be of very considerable assistance.
An artillery regiment which was there at that time, for example, came from Winnipeg, or that was its home station, and they considered that if they got four copies of the two Winnipeg papers in their regular delivery by the air force scheduled run, two for the men's mess, one for the N.C.O.'s mess and one for the officers' mess, it would be of very considerable importance and would help the situation materially. The same thing would apply as far as the P.P.C.L.I. is concerned whose home station at the time was Calgary, and the same would apply to other units. It does seem to me that the department could ameliorate this situation without any undue cost by that particular means.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, that the newspapers from the home stations of the units would be enough, because I think what the members of those units are concerned about are their home towns. This has been looked into, but I shall be glad to have it looked into again. The difficulty, I think, really arose, when I looked at it last time, and when we canvassed the areas of the different units very thoroughly, especially in regard to daily papers. We found that the weight was a formidable barrier expense wise. On the scheduled run we have to be very careful with our space. However, I shall be very glad to have it looked at again.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As the minister said, if you had to send a newspaper to every man over there obviously you just could not do it; but if you tried to send, as the hon. member for Calgary North said, a couple of newspapers or four newspapers from each major centre from which the men come it would help. The units that are overseas have headquarters; they have a domicile in Canada, and if you tried to provide them with the newspapers from the Canadian domicile of their units it would at least ameliorate the situation to some extent.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I want to revert to the question of married quarters. On page 28 of the white paper is given a summary of the situation with regard to married quarters. As of December 31, 1955, we are given a total of 30,000 married quarters, of which 3,217 are for personnel in Europe. I think the figure the minister gave was 1,400. I suppose the remainder is made up of married quarters for the air force, and the number under construction or in the planning stage. What I should like to know is, during the current year roughly how many additional married quarters will be available in Europe?

Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: The difference is, of course, as the hon. member says in Grostenquin and Marville, in France, and Zweibrucken and Soest in Germany. I understand that all the married quarters contemplated in Europe will be completed this year.


John Angus MacLean: There are two other questions which I propose to ask. I notice recently there has been a competition advertised for what seems to me a large number of vacancies on the staff at the Royal Military College at Kingston. What is the explanation? Is there an addition to the staff, or has there been considerable rotation of the staff? Perhaps the minister can give some indication of the total number of positions. These are civilian positions. One came in today from the civil service commission. I am wondering whether these are additions to the staff or replacements for professors who have resigned their positions.
I have another question that I should ask while the minister is finding the answer to the last one. I notice at page 20 of the white paper is given a summary of the number of civilians employed by the armed services in the different categories. I wonder what the explanation is as to why the army seems to employ a much higher percentage of civilians than either of the other services? In the classified bracket the army employs over 12,000 civilians against the air forces under 8,000, although the strength of the air force is actually greater.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Dealing with the first question raised by the hon. member, the number of professors at the Royal Military College has been increased by two, so to that extent they are new appointments. Altogether I think there are over 40 professors and the number has been increased this year by two. Therefore the applications mentioned by the hon. member, except so far as they refer to these two, would be replacements. I think it is quite common in academic circles for civilian professors and lecturers to move about fairly often to different positions, and I think that is exactly what has happened at R.M.C.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice that at page 319 of the explanation of the estimates reference is made to professors, assistant professors and lecturers at the Royal Military College. What about the professors and assistant professors at Saint Jean, Quebec? Where are they included?


Ralph Osborne Campney: They will be shown in the air force section when we come to it. They are tri-service colleges. Royal Roads is operated by the navy. R.M.C. is operated by the army and C.M.R. is operated by the air force.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the majority of students at Saint Jean army students?


Ralph Osborne Campney: They are all tri-service colleges. The administration of each college is given to one service: Royal Roads to the navy, R.M.C. to the army, and C.M.R. to the air force.


John Borden Hamilton: I wonder
whether we might go back to the question of the dependents who are overseas with the brigade. I think the minister said that probably about 4,500 people are there, and some concern has been expressed about their being over there from the standpoint of their own safety. I think we are all very glad that they are there and I am quite sure it contributes greatly to the morale of the brigade, but I am wondering what type of program the department has for the evacuation of those people in a time of crisis? Have we the necessary shipping laid on? Is there a crash program to insure that these people are evacuated immediately? Otherwise it would appear they would only contribute to a great deal of confusion at a very vital part of the campaign.


Ralph Osborne Campney: This, of course, is primarily a NATO problem and one that has not been completely solved. During the past year, and ever since I became minister of this department some quite extensive studies have been going on, and in that connection we are working with other departments in an effort to set up a procedure and a policy to be followed in the event that evacuation becomes necessary.
I may say we have not come to any final conclusions. This is quite a difficult problem, as the hon. member will realize, but it is a problem I think we have to continue to consider until we reach what we believe is a satisfactory solution. I am sure that in the end we will reach a conclusion, but we have not as yet because the studies are not completed.


John Borden Hamilton: I think this is probably the most important point in connection with the whole procedure of having dependents overseas, that is outside of the morale question in relation to the troops. I understand that we take them over there and assume the responsibility for their transportation there and back during ordinary times. Surely we are not going to fall back on some type of NATO program for these people in a time of emergency.
It would seem to me, sir, the very least the department should know at this time is the port of embarkation and the availability of shipping. It seems to me that the brigade and their dependents have been over there

for a sufficient length of time for a program covering their evacuation to have been mapped out. I would think the minister's statement will leave a lot of uneasy minds in Canada when it is read.


Ralph Osborne Campney: If we have a reasonable period of warning that is, notice of ten days or so, our program is worked out. But if it is a sudden thing that might come out of the night there are problems which have not been completely settled. For example, the hon. member says we ought to know what port will be used. We do not know what ports will exist following a sudden attack. Shipping will depend on the ports that are available to us. This raises very grave and difficult problems, because there cannot be any certainty in the process of evacuation. We are trying to work out alternatives and a scheme of things that will take care of any situation. I hope we shall have reached final conclusions before too long but, as I said, we have reached the point where if we have some reasonable notice I think we can handle the situation, but we are not yet at the point where we can say it is complete.


John Borden Hamilton: May I suggest that the minister certainly seems to be grasping the point in connection with this question. I think he might put some of his experts to work in connection with this important problem, because it appears to me to be extremely urgent. If we are going to go along without having a program lined up then I think the dependents of these people and their relatives here should be made well aware before they leave that there is no concrete program for them in connection with their return.
If I may remain on my feet, Mr. Chairman, because it is extremely difficult to get here in the first place, I should like to raise another point. I am wondering if the experts in the department have made any decision, as has been done in the United States, concerning which branch of the service will handle the intercontinental guided missile if and when it is available to our forces, and the intermediate range ballistic missile.
Perhaps it is because of differences of opinion in the services and because of an attempt in the United States to settle this, but I understand in that country the intermediate range ballistic missile has been handed over to the army for development and use and the intercontinental guided missile has been handed over to the air force for development and use. If we are properly planning for the future it seems to me there 67509-394
Supply-National Defence should be a decision at an early date in connection with the use of those weapons if a decision has not already been reached. I think we are entitled to know from a policy standpoint what is going to be done in this country concerning those weapons.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, Mr. Chairman, the question of ground to air guided missiles other than in an experimental sense has not yet arisen in Canada. We are studying ground to air missiles, but we have not yet committed ourselves to any, so we have no definite program as to which service will deal with them when we do have them. Concerning the question of air to air guided missiles, there is the "Sparrow" to which we are committed, and that is in the jurisdiction of the R.C.A.F.
As far as the intercontinental guided ballistic missile is concerned, I am one of those who think it is very far in the future, and it is not within our purview to deal with any particular one at the moment. So I would not hazard a guess with respect to who would look after it. There will not be anyone who will care to look after it, I fear.


John Borden Hamilton: In connection with the intermediate range guided ballistic missile, have we had any technicians attached to the United States forces to study their developments in that country, and have we made any progress in determining whether our artillery or air force will be using these weapons? It seems to me these are questions that should be answered at this time. If we are attempting to keep abreast of developments, I think in co-operation with the United States forces we should have men there on the ground today learning the use of these weapons and the technical features of their development in order that we will be abreast of everything that is new.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As the hon. member will know, in the way of ground to air missiles there is the Nike and the air force has air to air missiles but, as I say, the intercontinental guided ballistic missile, whether intermediate or final, is quite a long way in the future. I think we have ample time before it becomes fully developed in spite of what is said by certain newspaper columnists.
I wonder if I might now fulfil an undertaking I gave to the hon. member for Winnipeg North with regard to the question he raised concerning the special account. He referred to the special account item listed on page 318 of the blue book as item 34 under the navy estimates, where there is a nil entry for this year. The same account also appears on page 331 under the army estimates and the reason item 34 of the air force estimates

Supply-National Defence on page 338 does not include a reference to special accounts will become evident from what I have to say in a moment.
In the past year the value of equipment acquired to March 31, 1950, that has been given as mutual aid to our NATO partners has been credited to this special account for procuring more modem equipment for the Canadian forces. Since April 1, 1956, no further credits will be made to this account and at that time the credit balance stood at $281,933,743. I think I may take some credit or blame as the case may be for that decision, because I do not like carrying these things along from year to year and complicating the ordinary accounting system. The only charge to this special account proposed for the fiscal year 1956-57 is $72,141,000 by the army.
There are relatively small quantities of equipment remaining in Canadian stocks that were acquired prior to March 31, 1950, and where such equipment is transferred in future it will be valued for mutual aid purposes at approximately the cost of repairing and shipping. Consequently these transactions will be on a current disbursement basis, and the charge to mutual aid will be deducted from the expenditures of the service that incurs them rather than credited to the special account.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: What is going to happen to the surplus in that special account?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We are running it down by $72 million this year. In other words it will not grow; it will be run down on the usual basis until it disappears.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: In other words it is being used to supply new equipment to the services?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How much money has been expended already on the Gagetown camp? How soon is it expected to have the camp completed? How many accounts in connection with land taken over by the department are still unsettled?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I had better have my figures checked before I answer. I shall get the information and give it to my hon. friend.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister told us earlier that we should not place too much reliance on press reports, so perhaps the minister will give us a statement with regard to the manufacture of the Belgian rifle and bring us up to date on the program.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The contract for the production of the FN-C1 rifle, as we call it with our modification, was awarded by the Department
[Mr. Campney.)
of Defence Production to Canadian Arsenals Limited in September, 1955. Tooling has now been virtually completed and the purchasing of all production materials is now well advanced. Deliveries are expected to commence in the autumn of this year. Based on the above forecast of production it is anticipated that sufficient rifles and ammunition will be available to permit introduction into the Canadian army as follows: To the Canadian army, regular, between May, 1957 and July, 1958; to the Canadian army, militia, between July, 1959 and January, 1960.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I assume ammunition for that rifle is in production now?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, it is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: According to a press report I have here it is estimated that 72,000 of these rifles are to be produced for Canada, and I should like to know what will be done with the Lee Enfield rifles which will be replaced.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No specific decision has been taken with regard to them, but of course they might become valuable for mutual aid if any country should want them, or they could be disposed of in some other way.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope the department will not forget what happened in 1940 after Dunkirk, when rifles were in such short supply in all the western nations, and will keep a sufficient quantity of Lee Enfield rifles in store for emergency use. I hope they will not end up in the crown assets corporation and finally go on the international market as sports rifles.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I note on page 326 of the details under "Major procurement of equipment" an item covering tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, where the amount this year is $590,000 as compared with $5,769,000 last year. This is a great reduction in the amount for tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, and is hardly in accord with the minister's announcement that a new armoured regiment was to be constituted and that the army was to be supplied with a considerable number of amphibious armoured vehicles which could be used for a variety of purposes. I wonder if the minister would explain this apparent discrepancy between that announcement and the amount of money being voted for armoured fighting vehicles.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed that we have available enough tanks to equip the new armoured regiment except for some minor parts, and therefore further purchases are not necessary. I did not get the second part of the hon. member's question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister announced that amphibious armoured vehicles would be used for a variety of purposes, and I presume they would come under this item.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the hon. member is referring to the same vehicles to which I referred this afternoon. I said that we were approaching the prototype stage of development, but the vehicle is not in operational production.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, it is not anticipated that any of these vehicles will be completed during this fiscal year?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We hope to have a number of the prototypes during this fiscal year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am rather disappointed, because when the minister made his initial statement with regard to these particular vehicles I understood him to say that they would be in the course of being supplied to the Canadian army during the present year.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I did not say that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister says that he did not say that, but he certainly left that impression with me and I would think with the majority of his listeners. The minister has said that there are enough tanks on hand to supply the new armoured regiment which is going to be constituted. I wonder if he can tell us how many extras that will leave to replace the casualties which constantly occur in the use of tanks, in the same way as automobiles are constantly being piled up on the highways. Furthermore, what about the reserve army as far as the supply of Centurion tanks is concerned, which I understood was to go forward?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand from my officials, as I have said, that we have an adequate number of Centurions to equip the regular army with a sufficient reserve for an appreciable time if they were called into service, but there are not on hand at the moment a sufficient number of these tanks for the militia.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister give any indication how soon the militia armoured regiments may expect to receive a sufficient number of Centurion tanks with which to carry on training?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, I am sorry that I cannot at this moment give any date.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is there any hope of having these vehicles within the next year or two? In some cases these regiments are getting a little fed up over the lack of equipment and with what you might call continued promises, which are not met, that they will be supplied with this modern equipment.
Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. member any data. I understand that the militia units are fairly well equipped with Sherman tanks, but there are no figures I can give him with respect to the Centurion.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could the minister give me the information I asked for?


John Borden Hamilton: I waited so long that somebody got in ahead of me with the same question, but there is one further question. I notice an increase from $1,900,000 to $2,500,000 for architects, engineers, land valuation and legal fees. Is there any particular reason for that increase this year? That is on page 325.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Apparently the work of this particular branch, architects and engineers, has lagged behind. I might interject that this is administered by Defence Construction Limited. The estimate for the current year was prepared before we realized last fall that the figure was low and would not be adequate, and the additional sum of $600,000 was put in to cover what we estimated would be the eventual requirements beyond the original estimate.


John Borden Hamilton: I do not think that answers anything. Is there any particular special project in any of the four categories mentioned that requires an additional $600,000? Perhaps the minister might tell us what method is used to pay these people. Are these evaluators on contracts of some kind? Are they individually employed in the various districts, and if it is for legal fees what special project is involved? I think we should know that.


Ralph Osborne Campney: These are consultants who are hired by Defence Construction Limited for our account. I might say that in the last two years we have instituted a small branch in the department to correlate and further our construction program. It has been very successful, and it has had three results. In the first place we have had far less replanning and changing than was formerly the case. In the second place it has meant planning further ahead than was heretofore possible. In the third place, and probably partly as a result of the two factors I have mentioned, in the current year construction has been stepped up very materially. Whenever construction grows in volume we naturally have to have more architects, legal people and consultants. I think it is also directly as a result of the changes we have made, which have been very effective in these other particulars.

Supply-National Defence


John Borden Hamilton: I expect that in future years, if this is to take care of a more prolonged program, this item should not be jumping again by $600,000.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I should not think so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I notice that armament equipment has increased from $7,760,000 to $10,227,000. I wonder whether the minister could indicate to us briefly what that increase is intended to cover in the way of armaments.


Ralph Osborne Campney: This increase is attributable principally to the introduction of the new rifle, which is to be produced in Canada, the tooling and commencement of production, and also to the deliveries of 105 millimeter howitzers for which we have provided funds.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think the minister finished giving his answer. He said that money was provided for 105 millimeter guns but he did not say what it was.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The figure with respect to the 105 millimeter howitzers is $3 million in this vote, and with respect to the FN rifle it is $2| million.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, the other $5 million is more or less for replacements?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Could the minister tell us how much the department is paying for these 105 millimeter guns?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That probably could be answered by my colleague the Minister of Defence Production, when his estimates come up. I did know the price, but I do not recall it now, and I would not care to guess.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the minister know how many guns he got for the $3 million?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We do not give out figures as to quantities of armaments. We never have, and I do not think we should start that now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think that answer is very satisfactory. As a matter of fact we have mentioned a number of guns of various kinds on frequent occasions, both here and in the defence expenditures committee, and I would ask the minister to what extent the Canadian army has been rearmed with 105 millimeter guns.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The regular army has been fully rearmed with these guns. These are for the militia.


Douglas Scott Harkness: To what extent is the militia being rearmed with these 105 millimeter guns?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We hope eventually completely, but this is a start in that direction.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then might I ask how many guns per militia regiment have now gone out?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As far as I know none of them have gone out.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is my information, that none have gone out; but the minister says these guns are for the militia regiments.


Ralph Osborne Campney: They are being purchased. They are being built for that purpose, but they are not yet available.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They have not been built yet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask once more how many are going to be supplied to each militia regiment, and how soon?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that the scale is about eight per regiment. I certainly cannot give the date for the production of the guns. I would not give a date of production of anything after two years in this department, because there are all kinds of production problems, and we are now in the middle of a steel strike.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This great reluctance or inability on the part of the minister to give such information as how many guns are covered by this $3 million order, on the basis that it would break security to give it, is a good example of how little necessity there is for security of that sort, because the number of field regiments in Canada is quite well known. It is published in various publications, and anybody can get the information. If these guns are being purchased for the militia regiments on the basis of eight for each, no consideration of security enters into the matter at all.
I think this is a good example of the fact that we have been denied information very frequently in this committee, in the defence expenditures committee and in other places as far as defence matters are concerned on the excuse of security, when there was no real security reason whatever. It was either the fact that the people concerned .did not have the information or they were afraid to give it because they thought there might be some unfortunate consequence politically from doing so.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I asked the minister several questions with reference to Camp Gagetown and he said he would have the information.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The information has not yet come to hand, but I have not forgotten it.

I can assure the hon. member he will have it, but I do not know that I will have it before ten o'clock.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want the committee to have it.


John Angus MacLean: I asked the minister for an explanation, and perhaps he has it now, of why the proportion of civilians to servicemen is so much higher in the army than in the other two services.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am told that one of the
principal reasons the number of civilians in the army is higher than in the other two services is the type of work for which they are used. For example, the transport situation is far greater in the army than in the other two services and a much larger civilian staff can be employed to service vehicles. The same applies to ordnance. Much of our R.C.A.F. repair work is done by the aircraft industry. To put it shortly, a great deal more maintenance and repair work can be done by civilians in connection with army operations than in the other two services. It is cheaper to do it that way and equally effective, and in the interests of economy we try to use civilians wherever practicable.


Mr. Green:: I should like to ask the minister a question which, while it affects comparatively few men in the regular force, is of great importance to them. He will remember that two or three years ago there was one regular battalion made up of four highland companies. One of these companies was from Vancouver, the Seaforth Highlanders. For some reason or other a change was made and the whole battalion was converted into a Black Watch battalion rather than a Seaforth battalion, which I think should have been done.
However, the young officers from the Sea-forths were compelled to buy completely new highland outfits with the Black Watch tartan. Unless it has been done recently, I believe no help has been given them to meet that expense. In view of the fact that they were forced to get these new uniforms I suggest that they should at least have been given some allowance by the army to help with the purchase of the uniforms.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I may say that I am entirely sympathetic with the hon. member in this matter. I made two different submissions to treasury board, and I am not sure whether there may not have been more. I do not want to shove the matter off on treasury board, but I must exonerate myself. I have not the power to take the remedial action that I think should be taken. The members of treasury board have different views, as they have a right to have, but I agree with the hon. member. These changes having
Supply-National Defence been made in the natural course of evolution of the army and through no fault of these personnel, I believe there should be some assistance. But I must admit that up to now I have not been able to get a satisfactory solution.


Howard Charles Green: Has that suggestion been turned down by treasury board? If so, will the minister again place it before treasury board; because I think here is a case where, since there are so few men involved, treasury board is not being fair. These young men have a good claim for help in the purchase of these expensive uniforms. I hope the minister will again put the case before treasury board and that this time the suggestion will be met. Can the minister give the committee the assurance that he will again take it up with treasury board?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, I will be glad to do that because, as I say, there is no difference in our opinions on this matter.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does that complete the discussion under this heading?


George Harris Hees: I was amazed at the answer given by the minister to the question asked him by the member for York West about the evacuation plan for the relatives of married personnel in Europe. Perhaps I did not understand what the minister said. Would he explain just what the plan of evacuation is in case the balloon goes up over there? How are these people to get out in safety?


Ralph Osborne Campney: If I may repeat, these matters are under consideration not only by us but by the NATO authorities and by other departments. I think I am right in saying that such matters are not publicized, that no publicity is given to what plans we may have in mind or maybe trying to evolve. It is of course, as everyone knows, a very important matter. I do not know that any good purpose would be served by discussing publicly the plans that have so far been evolved nor, in fact, the plans when they are finalized.


George Harris Hees: Why does the minister not say there are no plans and cut it short?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Because that would not be in accordance with the facts.


George Harris Hees: Is there a plan? I am not asking what it is. I want to know if there is a plan or if there is not a plan.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I answered the question before the hon. member came in. I said the plan had been evolved to a certain point. I was asked whether the ports of debarkation and the methods of assigning those ports had been settled and I said no. I said there

Supply-National Defence were a number of problems in connection with evacuation that had not yet been settled. I said that plans had been partially formulated but not completed.


George Harris Hees: How long does it take for the government or this department to work out plans for a brigade that has been in Europe a number of years? Is it going to take another two or three years before you finally get a plan worked out? Just what is the process of the department's thinking? How much more thinking has been done during the past year than the year before, and when do you expect to have a plan worked out?


Mr. Nicholson:: Ten o'clock.


George Harris Hees: All right, we will call it ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does that complete the questioning under this heading?


George Harris Hees: No, it does not. I call it ten o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with these estimates tomorrow and when they are finished, as I hope they will be, we will proceed, I think, with defence production-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Defence production, then agriculture.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Lusby: 1.	Have tenders been called for construction of
Question
a new Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment building at Amherst, Nova Scotia?
2.	If not, when are they expected to be called?
3.	Is it intended that the building shall be constructed during the present year?
Answer by: Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary Assistant, tor the Minister of Public Works:
1.	No.
2.	August, 1956.
3.	Yes.

Friday, July 20, 1956



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch (Pictou).