1956-07-18

Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Monday last, July 16, hon. members in this house heard the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), speaking on federal-provincial tax agreements, state that equalization payments made by the federal government to the provinces were "charitable gifts" or, as he said it in French, "des dons de charite". The Canadian Press and other parliamentary correspondents quoted in their respective newspapers these words of the hon. member for Hull. On looking at Hansard of the same date we find, however, that these words "charitable gifts" were replaced by the expression "merely an act of distributive justice", or in French "simplement un acte de justice distributive", which has an entirely different meaning than the words originally used in this house by the hon. member for Hull. That is to say, Mr. Speaker, Hansard has been changed once more for self-serving purposes beneficial to the hon. member for Hull.
I therefore suggest that the hon. member for Hull owes this house a full explanation for the unqualified change made in Hansard of July 16, stating where the authority for such a change to be made came from.
Furthermore, I request that the words actually used in this house by the hon. member for Hull be restored. Changing Hansard must not be permitted to become a contagious disease.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) is absent at the moment. I am sure he will take note of the remarks made by the hon. member and govern himself accordingly.
[Later:\
On the orders of the day:


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Now that the hon. member for Hull is back, not in his seat but near his seat-


Mr. Caron:: It is none of your business.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -would he be in a position to help answer the question of privilege I raised a few minutes ago and give us an explanation of the change?


Alexis Pierre Caron: 1 prefer, since the question
comes from the hon. member for Quebec West, to read what he actually said before I give an answer.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I think this matter is serious and I will, with the permission of the Speaker and the house, read the question of privilege I raised a few minutes ago.


Mr. Speaker:: No; the hon. member has risen on a question of privilege and it is on the record. The hon. member for Hull was absent while the matter was being raised, and it is quite legitimate for the hon. member for Hull to read the remarks of the hon. member before he makes whatever explanation he cares to make.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Hon. members will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on June 12 I tabled in the house the text of a letter addressed to me by Premier Bulganin on the question of disarmament. Similar messages, as hon. members know, were received by the heads of six other governments: United Kingdom, United States, France, Germany, Italy and Turkey.
Hon. members will observe that all recipients are members of the North Atlantic alliance; they felt that, before replies were dispatched, there should be full consultation with the other members of the organization which were concerned with the issues raised in these messages. My reply, which took full account of the views of our NATO partners, was transmitted on Monday, July 16. In accordance with the usual practice in these cases, we agreed upon a brief delay in making the text public and I am pleased now to lay copies of my letter before the house.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the letter of Mr. Bulganin to the government of Canada was known at the time

External Affairs
it was presented, and in view of the very general interest in the subject, I wonder if the Prime Minister is in a position to summarize the nature of the reply he has made, short of actually reading the letter if he deems that is not advisable? It seems to me there is general interest in the subject and that the members of the house might wish to know the effect of what has been said to the Russian government in these circumstances.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would not care to attempt to summarize the letter. The letter will be made public. It is now tabled and it will receive such publicity as the gentlemen of the press feel its importance would justify.
We do express the view that had there been such a reduction at the time the western powers were making their reductions in armaments ten years ago it would have been apt to produce greater satisfaction throughout the world; that notwithstanding this reduction it is still quite evident that the armed forces of the Soviet republics in Europe will still greatly exceed in numbers the armed forces of the western powers and that we cannot accept the charge that neither we nor the western powers have been making any effort to bring about disarmament; and that from the very inception of the establishment af the atomic energy agency Canada has been a member of it and has also been a member of the disarmament commission and that although the disarmament commission has not achieved great material results up to the present time we think it would be extremely unfortunate if its efforts to bring about a genuine system of progressive disarmament that would also progressively produce greater mutual confidence between the nations of the world were in any way hindered.
The situation as to the destructiveness of modern methods of warfare is making the problems of agreed disarmament more intractable, but there would still be a great opportunity to serve the whole of mankind by general agreement with respect to disarmament which would provide effective control and effective safeguards against surprise attacks.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the general interest in this topic I am wondering if the Prime Minister would not consider it wise to have this letter printed as an appendix to Hansard. I think that would be better than relying on the press. If the Prime Minister has no objection I suggest that that be done.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I certainly have no objection. The letter is now a document before the house, and if it is the desire of the house to have it printed as an appendix to Hansard for the convenience of hon. members I certainly have no objection. Perhaps Mr. Speaker might ascertain whether that would be the desire of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Instead of having the letter appear as an appendix perhaps it could be placed in Hansard following the remarks of the Prime Minister. Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The, letter follows:
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa,
July 16, 1956.
His Excellency
Nikolai Bulganin,
Chairman of the Council of Ministers,
The Kremlin,
Moscow,


[Stage Direction]
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter of June 6 on the question of disarmament with which you forwarded the statement of May 14 of the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The government of Canada has given earnest consideration to the contents of your letter and the accompanying document.
We have noted with interest the announcement of reductions in the armed forces of the Soviet union to which you refer in your letter. However, our satisfaction over the announcement is somewhat tempered by the reflection that these reductions would have been more timely ten years ago, when the western powers demobilized the great armies they had brought together in the common interest of the United Nations, and that the Soviet union will continue, even after the reductions, to dispose of a far greater number of divisions in Europe than those which the western powers have stationed there. We have also, of course, considered your letter and the related documents in the light of a number of recent statements on the part of Soviet authorities concerning the modernization and expanding might of the Soviet armed forces.
It is because of such considerations that Canadian representatives have consistently expressed our firmly held view that, if they are to contribute to international confidence, reductions in forces should be part of an agreement providing for machinery to reassure all signatories that the reduction measures are in fact carried out. We believe that the need for such controls together with an adequate system for warning of preparations for surprise attack has become more pressing during the past few years when, as you observe in your letter, new and increasingly destructive weapons have been developed.
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, Canada has been directly associated with the search for an agreement ever since the United Nations general assembly in its first resolution created the atomic energy commission and laid upon Canada, as a permanent member of the commission, a part of the continuing responsibility for finding a solution

to the problem of disarmament. Our participation in the negotiations in that commission and more recently in the disarmament commission and its sub-committee has made us acutely aware of the difficulties which beset the problem; it has also enabled us to associate ourselves intimately with the repeated efforts and initiatives on the part of the western powers to bring about a general disarmament agreement. This is not the place to recapitulate these successive endeavours which stand in the records of the United Nations. However, you will understand, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues and I are impelled to state that we cannot accept the charge of a negative stand, as alleged in your government's statement of May 14, on the part either of Canada or of the other western powers.
The government of Canada shares the regrets you have expressed that the discussions on disarmament have not been productive of agreement. However, it is our impression that the more recent negotiations, particularly in the sub-committee of the disarmament commission, have given some cause for encouragement. We therefore differ with the stated views of your government that the discussions in the sub-committee have been marked by futility. It would, in our opinion, be unfortunate if these negotiations were to be interrupted. We favour the continuation of efforts through the United Nations to reach an agreement covering limitation, reduction and control of armaments including nuclear weapons. We consider that discussions in the sub-committee of the disarmament commission as well as in the commission itself are more than ever necessary in order to reach an agreement which will ensure the security of all by means of an adequate system of international control.
It is the belief of the government of Canada that the international situation which we hope ultimately to achieve can be created only through the establishment of greater mutual confidence progressively and by stages. In any comprehensive program directed to that end there should be arrangements designed not only to cover disarmament and control but also to solve urgent political questions, in particular the reunification of Germany and the problem of European security.
The government of Canada is strongly of the opinion that if a mutually satisfactory agreement on disarmament can be negotiated an important contribution will have been made to the development of greater confidence between nations. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that for our part, we will continue to exert every effort in negotiations within the framework of the United Nations to draw closer to an agreed solution. We are the more prepared to make these efforts to reach agreement because of our conviction that the disarmament problem is becoming even more intractable with the passage of time but that, if there is a corresponding willingness to co-operate in these negotiations on the part of the Soviet government, significant and gratifying results can still be attained.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) Louis S. St-Laurent.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether or not the evidence of
Questions
Chairman J. S. Armstrong, of the United States security and exchange commission, given before the United States Senate committee has been brought to his attention, to the effect that Canada may be being used by the communists for the investment of money in American industry? Has he ever heard of any suggestion along that line and has any complaint been made by the United States government or has any investigation with regard thereto been made by the United States government?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have read the evidence in question. We are looking into the matter. However, to my knowledge, no matter of this kind has been referred to us as a complaint or otherwise by the United States government. We are making inquiries.



STARRED QUESTIONS


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. McCullough (Moose: Mountain):
1.	What was the cost of the investigation, under the Combines Investigation Act, into the alleged combine in the manufacture, distribution and sale of electrical wire and cable products?
2.	What was the cost of the prosecutions against the companies found guilty under the act?
3.	What is the approximate estimate of undue profits made by these companies during the period when they were found guilty of breaches of the act?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The answer to the first of the hon. gentleman's questions is that the cost of the electrical wire and cable products investigation, not including general office administration, was $40,581.20.
The answer to the second question is that the cost of the electrical wire and cable products prosecution, not including general office administration, was $34,889.41.
The answer to the third question is that no estimate of undue profits could be made. The anti-combines legislation assumes, and I believe rightly so, that if competition is allowed to operate resources will be best employed, cost-saving innovations will be most quickly adopted and prices to the public will be the lowest. Where competition has not been allowed to operate, it is almost always impossible to determine accurately, from the records or other evidence available, what portions of total net profits of the accused corporations during the period in question are attributable to the lessening or elimination of competition by the accused corporation.

Questions



PUBLIC SERVICE INSURANCE

Mr. Knowles: 1.	Are civil servants or other government employees who are entitled to life insurance or a death benefit under part II of the Public Service Superannuation Act provided with any card, certificate or other document to show that they are covered by such protection?
2.	If not, will consideration be given to the issuing of such a card, certificate or other document so that such employees might have evidence of such protection?
Mr. Benidickson, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Finance: In the absence of the minister, I wonder if the hon. member would allow this question to stand.


Mr. Knowles:: Agreed.
Question stands.



QUESTION


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many orders in council are in existence which, while not classified as secret, have not had their contents made public?
2.	On what date or dates were such orders in council issued?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is on the order paper, and there has been for some time, question No. 437, which was placed there by the hon. member for Prince Albert and about which the clerk of the privy council and I have had some conversations with him. He has suggested that he would prefer that I make a preliminary oral answer rather than make it in written form at this time. The question is:
1.	How many orders in council are in existence which, while not classiffied as secret, have not had their contents made public?
2.	On what date or dates were such orders in council issued?
It is not possible to give a meaningful answer to this question due to the difficulty in determining what orders in council could be said to be in existence and which of those have had their contents made public. A good many hundreds of orders have been passed each year for many, many years, and the great majority of those have never been revoked. The majority of them, of course, are spent in the sense that the actions which they authorized have been taken and they no longer have any current significance. They remain, however, I suppose technically in existence as the authority for the action which was taken at the time. Serious practical difficulties have been encountered in endeavouring to determine what orders could be said to have had their contents made public otherwise than with respect to those

that are published in the Gazette, part II, statutory orders and regulations.
The problem arises from the fact that a great many orders, particularly those of an administrative character, are not published in the sense of being printed in the Canada Gazette, but each is made known to those concerned with it and is normally available for inspection by anyone interested in its content. Such orders range, for example, from those that are printed in the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Royal Canadian Navy, the army and the air force, which are of course very widely circulated in printed form. And then there are specific orders such as one, for example, that authorizes the construction of a wharf under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, of which properly certified copies are supplied to the applicant and others who may have any legal need for such copies.
There are also many orders relating to matters purely within the public service and a variety of administrative orders authorizing the entry by ministers, departments or agencies into contracts, land transactions and like matters. We could not tell without a diligent search of departmental records in each case whether those individual orders have ever been made public in any particular interpretation of that term. In some cases it will have been simply by chance that someone may have asked for an order in which he was interested; whereas other orders of a similar kind are not asked for and have not been made known except by those directly concerned with them.
All these orders, of course, have been listed in the summary that has been made available to parliament since July 1, 1948, and those which members of parliament have asked for, based upon the summary, have been provided except in the very few cases of the type that was mentioned earlier in this session and about which I spoke on January 31, as recorded on pages 701 and 702 of Hansard. Those were orders concerning transactions with other governments, and which were not secret orders but which it was felt out of courtesy to the other governments should not be widely publicized, but about which I declared they would be communicated confidentially to any hon. member who might be interested. I have had a count made of the number of orders of that kind that have been passed since I spoke in the house on January 31 and which it may be that the hon. gentleman had in mind in his question of April 20 last, and perhaps which he still has in mind. These are orders which, of course, we are prepared to make available confidentially to members but about

which we would not wish to give wide publicity because of the interest of other governments concerned in the transaction to which each one of these orders refers. The number of these since January 31 is 12, eight of which authorized the transfer of mutual aid supplies to NATO countries, and four of which authorized the sale of material in defence stores under section 11 of the National Defence Act.
Perhaps the hon. gentleman who asked the question could consider the difficulties I have outlined and let me know what he would be interested in and I can assure him that we shall make every effort to supply such information as he feels it would be proper to have placed on the records of this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if it is
permissible to ask a question at this time I should like to do so. In view of the statement of the Prime Minister to the effect that there are many orders in council which it is impossible for the privy council to know are or are not in effect now or have been exhausted, would the Prime Minister consider placing in the Canada Gazette a record or list of all orders in council that have not been published as yet which amend, suspend or abrogate any statute or portion of a statute so that the people of Canada may know exactly what the law is and, if the law has been changed other than by parliament, the manner and the degree to which the changes have been made.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to have the cumulative index that is made of part II of the Canada Gazette arranged in such a fashion as to provide that information. The hon. gentleman knows there are several statutes which provide that the governor in council may make some variation in their application. I think all of those are published in the statutory orders and regulations. I will have a diligent search made and should there be any that are not published in the statutory orders and regulations I will endeavour to have the cumulative index arranged in a fashion to indicate it.
I would assume that the hon. gentleman would not ask that that should cover the matters within the civil service where there are variations made in the application of the civil service regulations but rather those that have any general application to the Canadian public.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, so that the public may know the law at any one time.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In order that we may make it as convenient as possible to refer to anything that has a general application.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Regier:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister or any cabinet minister and any person or persons and organizations, since January 1, 1950 to date, regarding the establishment of a Canada Council.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or possibly the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any date has yet been set for the meeting that was to be held between officials of the Canadian government and the United States government to discuss, among other things, problems relating to international waters?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No date has yet been set, but discussions have been taking place with the United States government with a view to agreeing on the date.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the composition of the Canadian delegation to deal with this particular subject of international waters been decided on?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) if he is yet in a position to answer my question of last Friday concerning Mr. Bartram?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked last Friday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with

Inquiries of the Ministry regard to the appointment of Mr. Victor G. Bartram as general manager of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation I can give the following information:
Mr. Bartram is chairman of the board of directors of Shawinigan Chemicals Limited and a director of St. Maurice Chemicals Limited, B. A. Shawinigan Limited and Canadian Resins and Chemicals Limited. His positions as chairman of the board of Shawinigan Chemicals Limited and director of the above mentioned companies terminate in March, 1957. I wish to point out that there is no relationship between Mr. Bar-tram's position as general manager of the crown corporation and his association with the above mentioned companies. Mr. Bartram will be responsible for monitoring the loan to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and for laying the necessary groundwork for the construction of the northern Ontario section of the line as well as supervising construction when this phase is reached. In carrying out these duties he will be responsible to and take direction from the directors of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, who in turn are civil servants appointed by and responsible to the government.
I repeat that none of Mr. Bartram's duties with the crown corporation will have any connection whatsoever with the companies of which he is a director. The duties and responsibilities of the officials and directors of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation are clearly laid down in the act, and the terms and conditions upon which they shall operate are further set out in detail in the indenture of mortgage with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and other agreements between that company and the Canadian government. I might say that Mr. Bartram is serving without pay and will continue to do so until he is free from all other engagements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Is it not a fact that B. A. Shawinigan Limited, of which Mr. Bartram is president according to the statement just made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is owned in part by British American Oil, which through its ownership of Canadian Gulf is interested in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines because of the fact that Canadian Gulf owns over 300,000 shares of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines stock? I ask again the question I asked on Friday, does the government think it is appropriate-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is true that B.A. Oil is a shareholder in B.A. Shawinigan, and it is true that Gulf is a shareholder in B.A. Oil, but it seems to me that it is following a very devious line of thought to suggest

that that association as shareholders would influence the position of a man engaged by the crown company to undertake totally different duties. My hon. friend seems to have a curious idea of the morality of people that have risen to the top in Canadian industry if he thinks otherwise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the basis of my idea of morality, whatever the Minister of Trade and Commerce thinks of it, I ask him whether he thinks it is appropriate for an official to sit on both sides of the table?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no sitting on both sides of the table. Mr. Bartram's sole engagement is to see that the government gets value for advances by way of loan to the pipe-line company. Responsibility for his decisions in that regard is taken by his board of directors, and the ultimate responsibility is taken by myself as the responsible minister. This idea seems to be a fixed idea of the hon. member-that the crown company can go out on the street and hire a man without any background and get more reliable service from such a man than from a man who has been through all stages of an industry in this country, has risen to the top and has retired with considerable kudos attaching to his past experience.


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask a supplementary question? Does the minister mean to inform the house that there is only one man who is capable of acting as chairman of this company, when he says that you cannot go out on the street and pick someone up? Are there not other men who have had experience and so on and who are in no way connected with any company which has commitments with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A man that is not connected with any company is one of the army of unemployed, and as such, in this country at this time, I do not want him.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister is taking me up the wrong way. I did not say "not connected with any company". I said "not connected with any company involved in this trans-Canada pipe line."


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will suggest some names that will compare in experience with the name of Mr. Victor Bartram, I should be glad to look them over, but I have always gotten on fairly well by backing my own judgment. My judgment is that Mr. Bartram is the best man available to take that position.


Major James William Coldwell: Of course we do not always agree with the minister's judgment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know that. Thank goodness tor that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another supplementary question. Is it not also a fact that Mr. Bartram is a director of Shawinigan Water and Power Company which is owned substantially by the Power Corporation of Canada which also has shares in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and that there are other connections as well that involve Mr. Bartram with the private company on the other side of the table?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Bartram is the chairman of the board of Shawinigan Chemicals Limited which in turn is owned hy-I think it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Shawinigan Water and Power. Shawinigan Water and Power Company is one of the largest utilities in Canada. It is owned by practically everybody in Canada. Whether the corporation in question has a comparatively small holding in it, I do not know. But as I say again, I cannot worry about the devious mind which my hon. friend brings to bear on these matters. If he were equally scrupulous about some of the questions he has raised in the house, I think we would have less to worry about.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if he will investigate this matter and ascertain to what extent the Power Corporation of Canada does own the Shawinigan Water and Power Company? The minister says it may have some small holding. My information is that it has a substantial holding and that in turn it has a substantial holding in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did all the investigating of Mr. Bartram's associations that I thought was necessary before we asked him to join Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. I will therefore make no further investigations. If my hon. friend continues to think about it as he does, he can continue to think so.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is predicated upon the news that came out yesterday that some members of the Ottawa council are placing some responsibility on the Minister of Transport for trains speeding at crossings in the greater
Inquiries of the Ministry Ottawa area. May I ask the minister this question. Has he received any representation in respect to this matter? In any event, what action does the department expect to take in the matter?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I read the report last night in the newspaper and, from the circumstances that seemed to be related in the newspaper account, I would say that the railway concerned was not one that falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport.
As to the second part of the question, whether any representations have been received by me, the answer is no. No representations on the subject have been received. Until representations are made, I think I should not take any action.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE

[Stage Direction]
420 SQUADRON, LONDON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) asked me what the plans of the Royal Canadian Air Force are in respect of 420 auxiliary squadron at London.
In reply I may say that following withdrawal of 420 auxiliary squadron from its flying role, arrangements are now being made to convert it to an aircraft control and warning squadron.
Aircraft control and warning squadrons are essential elements of the ground control organization of the air defence system. Their functions are to man and operate the radars and associated communications for the detection and warning relating to unidentified aircraft and for the control of friendly aircraft and defensive interceptors within the air defence system. The auxiliary units provide back-up of the regular squadrons by maintaining trained fighter aircraft controllers, radarscope operators and operations room staff.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
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 Health and Welfare in connection with the major civil defence exercise proposed for Canada late this month. Will this house be offered an opportunity to set an example to the rest of Canada by
6116	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry participating in the evacuation exercise or any other aspect of the civil defence operation?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, apart altogether from the relation of my hon. friend's question to civil defence, may I say to him that I believe the whole nation would be interested in a quick evacuation of this house.


William McLean Hamilton: That is what we have been trying to tell you for weeks. Dissolve it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a difference between dissolution and evacuation. With regard to the question which my hon. friend quite properly asks, may I say this. The nature of this particular exercise is to test the communications of civil defence in a number of our Canadian communities. It will involve the use of some 5,000 civil defence workers in accordance with arrangements made with the civil defence authorities in the United States. I am sure that my hon. friend, who studies these matters with great care, will appreciate the significance of my reply.



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Is he in a position now to state when the McRuer report will either be tabled or published?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps before I attempt to answer my hon. friend's question I should inquire which McRuer report he means. The hon. chief justice of the trial division of Ontario is chairman of two separate commissions. Which one has the hon. member in mind?


Frank Exton Lennard: The one on criminal sexual psychopaths.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thought that was the one he had in mind, but before I gave an answer to that one which would be inappropriate to the other inquiry, of which the chief justice is chairman, I thought I had better make sure. With regard to that one about which he has inquired, may I say that I understand that a draft majority report has already been made and that work is now being done on a minority report.* We will table them as soon as they become available.
* See amended statement on page 6155.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. On July 13 I asked the question of the house leader and he said that he would draw it to the attention of the Minister of Justice. The question was with respect to the reason for the delay in appointing a judge for Bruce county.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I must admit with some embarrassment that there is some fault attributable to me in this matter because of my [DOT] having been absent due to illness. I hope we shall be able to make an appointment within the next fortnight.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Andrew Ernest Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. When may I expect a return tabled in connection with No. 88 with reference to lighthouses?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I shall have to make inquiries to find out what the state of the return is.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Andrew Ernest Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have another question. I wish to direct this one to the Minister of Public Works, or in his absence the parliamentary assistant may take it as notice. Can he bring us up to date on what plans have been carried out up to now in connection with the new post office in Teeswater which the department is intending to build this year?


Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Parliameniary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will take my hon. friend's question as notice and will give an answer later on.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
235. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward

the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $143,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $3,470,423,461 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,675,484,744 will come due for payment in future years). $1,722,797,717.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that a considerable period of time has elapsed since we discussed the estimates of my department on June 20, 21 and 22, it seems appropriate and desirable for me to deal with some of the points and observations made during that period of debate before we resume the debate today. I should like, therefore, to comment on a number of matters arising out of the debate in that three day period.
I should like to make some remarks with respect to the white paper. It seems to me that there is a certain amount of misapprehension about the nature of the white paper.
I must say I was considerably surprised at a number of comments made by opposition members. I think the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich said the white paper was out of date and did not reflect the changes which had taken place. The Leader of the Opposition said the paper says nothing and it could have been taken out of the record of several years ago. The hon. member for Cape Breton South said it leaves much to be desired. There were certain other derogatory remarks but I think the high, or low, depending on which way you look at it, was reached in a remark made by the hon. member for Nanaimo, who referred to it as a piece of impudence.
It is not my idea that the white paper is formulated to announce policy, but rather to provide members of parliament and the public with general background details and comprehensive statistics about our defence program and about its progress during the past year. Its 50-odd pages dealt with facts and figures for the three services, the defence research board and the activities of the department generally. It deals with various subjects which we consider are of interest both to hon. members and to the public, such as manpower, construction, equipment, etc. I have never regarded the white paper as a policy statement for the future nor a prophecy in respect of things to come. So
Supply-National Defence far as policy statements are concerned, I believe they should be made in the house and I endeavoured to do that in my opening remarks. I may also observe that I do not know how popular or well known it is, but the department also publishes an annual report of 90-odd pages based on the fiscal year, whereas the white paper is based on the calendar year. In view of all that has been said and of the existence of these two documents, my present intention with respect to the future would be to combine these documents into a single publication at a considerable saving in labour and money and endeavour to make it available in the early spring of each year for the previous calendar year. I think in doing that we would be more or less following the precedent which has been set by my colleague the Minister of Defence Production. In any event, in coming to any final conclusion I will be glad to consider any observations hon. members may still care to make.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich raised a number of matters about which he asked for information, and two of them had to do with mutual aid. He expressed some surprise that there was a contemplated reduction in mutual aid and also expressed surprise at the intimation which was contained in my speech that NATO air training would probably be adjusted downward commencing in 1958. Dealing first with the reduction in mutual aid, I would point out that our mutual aid effort now totals over $1,275 million. It was first instituted somewhat after world war II to provide from existing equipment for our NATO allies defence forces. They had bodies and uniforms, but they did not have very much equipment. Later, it was extended into the field of aircraft. We are now reaching a stage where the primary objectives have been pretty well met and our problem now, in relation to our NATO allies, is how to assist in keeping the equipment of their forces modern. We do not have to take the leading part in that because many of them have developed industrial capacity to take care of their own needs. Having regard to the fact that the equipment we now transfer to our NATO allies is from new production in our own country, I think that $143 million in the current year is very substantial assistance.
With regard to NATO air training, to which I made reference in my opening speech, we have now completed discussions with the military authority of NATO and most of the NATO countries have built up their air crew requirements to the desired level. They have developed their own training facilities to the point where they can look after their own needs. In view of the increasing cost
6118	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence of defence in our own country it is proposed that we will now close the air training scheme for most nations beginning in 1958 with the exception of three smaller countries in respect of which we hope to work out some further method of continuing assistance.
The hori. member for Esquimalt-Saanich wanted to know how many of the 23,000 militia troops taking summer training were training in units, and how many were taking individual courses. The figures show that about 95 per cent of the militia in training will train as units and the remainder will undertake special courses or training duties. The hon. member also asked as to what steps were being taken to develop a modern short range fighter to succeed the Sabre. The Sabre jet is, of course, primarily a United States development, although it was considerably improved in Canada when equipped with an Orenda engine. Since we never have, in Canada, developed a short range day interceptor, while other nations have, when the time comes to replace the Sabre we will have an ample field from which to select, depending of course on the nature of our needs then. It is not, therefore, a matter of importance at the moment. If we require one at that time we would do as we did before, because of the choice available among day fighters.
The hon. gentleman also stated that he had no criticism in respect of construction of the D.E.W. line, but he questioned the desirability, or the need, of establishing the mid-Canada line. The function of the D.E.W. line is to give warning of impending attack, of course, and to provide the maximum possible warning to the strategic air force and to the civil authorities. The mid-Canada line has the function of confirming the warning of attack and of indicating the direction in which it is heading and of alerting the air defence forces in more detail to get in a position to meet the attack.
The "Pinetree" line provides for control of interceptor counter-attack against attacking enemy forces. The whole of the system forms one vast network linked up by a very comprehensive system of communication. The mid-Canada line, therefore, is an integral and necessary part of our warning system, as is any other part of the system.
A number of other hon. members have also discussed various aspects of our radar line, especially the mid-Canada and D.E.W. lines, and our air defence system. Those hon. members who have had difficulty in understanding what I said about the system in my opening remarks on my estimates might very well look at the statement made in this

Supply-National Defence
Perhaps I should also add that the cadet component affiliated with the army has for some time been close to its ceiling of 65,000 and we have recently authorized an increase in this ceiling to 75,000, thus bringing to 107,500 the total ceiling for cadets of the three services.
There is only one other point that I would like to make at this time. When you look at the size of the regular forces in particular, you must also take into account our civilian establishment. When we take on civilian employees to cover off positions formerly filled by service personnel, those service personnel are freed for other duties. Apart from some ieconomies involved, this has also been a factor in decreasing the pressure to revise service maximum strengths upward. But our objective for both service and civilian personnel is to employ only that number of persons who are required to meet this country's defence needs and to do it by achieving that balance between the military and civilian which results in the best interests of over-all efficiency. Perhaps I might add that our ratio of approximately one civilian for every 2 [DOT] 1 servicemen compares favourably with the setup in the United States and the United Kingdom.
The Leader of the Opposition referred at some length in his remarks and with great .gusto-more gusto than conviction, I thought -to some allegations in a magazine article written recently by the former chief of the general staff. When I asked the Leader of the Opposition whether he was quoting from this article with approval he stated, as reported at page 5250 of Hansard:
Mr. Chairman, I am not giving blanket approval to this article; I disagree with many opinions expressed by General Simonds.
This was, I suspect, the voice of caution checking the ardour of enthusiasm.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate that at this moment I interject that what I had said was that there had been articles written by senior officers who had just recently left their duties and that there should be an opportunity to examine those statements and that it was not the responsibility of any hon. member to say whether or not they were correct, that we could not know.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, I am not trying to requote the hon. member's speech but the impression that he very clearly gave me was the one I just expressed that he was not too sure how choice a political morsel this might prove to be.


George Alexander Drew: That, of course, is not a correct interpretation at all of what was said. I might say, Mr. Chairman, it is dealing very lightly

with statements made by senior officers who were recently relied upon by this present minister. What I was pointing out is that we should have an opportunity to examine the accuracy of those statements before a committee and I asked for that committee at a time when it still could have been appointed.


Ralph Osborne Campney: If the Leader of the Opposition will let me continue with my remarks I will deal, I think seriously enough, with these observations.
May I say at once that I have no quarrel whatever with the former chief of the general staff now, nor did I have one in the past. As I have already stated, I believe he was an able and efficient chief of the general staff and so far as I am aware our relations were of the best. He has now retired and as a Canadian citizen he is free to write what he chooses. Canada is still a free country. That does not mean, of course, that I or anyone else must agree with what he writes. He is simply expressing his own personal views as he is, of course, absolutely free to do, and I might add that these views are merely expressions of opinion and not necessarily statements of fact. I would call that particularly to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition, who apparently from his remarks was seeking to create an impression otherwise.
I think it might perhaps be helpful to the committee if I were to outline the duties of the chief of staff of any service and his relationship to other chiefs of staff and to departmental officials in the larger setting of the department and its responsibilities to the government and to the country.
A chief of staff of any service must be intensely interested in his own service. He must be zealous for the welfare of his own service and he must be eager for its development. If this were not so he would hardly be fitted to be a chief of staff of that service. Under such conditions he might like to be left alone without controls or restrictions, unhampered to pursue the administration and development of his own service along his own lines. Unfortunately for that point of view the situation is not as simple as that. The pressure of events defence-wise, the complicated nature of present-day defence, the necessity of establishing defence priorities, the complexity of defence problems pressing in day by day, the interrelation of service planning and of NATO planning have made it increasingly necessary-very necessary indeed-that chiefs of staff work closer and closer to each other, that each has a fuller knowledge of what is going on in the other services than was once the case, and that they co-ordinate their efforts more and more.

1 think it was the hon. member for Calgary North who suggested that the army and the air force might eventually be amalgamated, adopting a view along the line of that cf Lord Montgomery.
The pressure of these events has also made it necessary that the moneys available are properly allocated as between the services because the present-day costs of all items of equipment are very great indeed and that priorities be established in respect of defence projects with the knowledge and understanding of all chiefs of staff.
With the advent of the defence research board the chairman of that body, in view of his duties affecting all services, obviously should be a party to any discussions of military policy. Arising out of the necessities of the case as I have briefly outlined, the chiefs of staff committee, following the last war, was reorganized with an independent chairman. It was also considered desirable for obvious reasons that the deputy minister of the department, a representative of the Department of External Affairs and the secretaries to the cabinet should be members attending meetings of the chiefs of staff committee in order that their respective departments may be kept informed, departmental misunderstandings prevented and wise planning facilitated. However, and this I would emphasize, only the chairman, the chiefs of staff of the three services and the chairman of the defence research board tender military advice to the minister; the others who attend have only watching briefs and in fact attend only when requested.
The chiefs of staff committee has proven highly useful and its efforts have been very successful. This is true to such an extent that last year our setup was taken as the model for the establishment in Great Britain of a chiefs of staff committee similar to our own. Of course, the establishment of the chiefs of staff committee has interfered to some extent with the independence of individual chiefs of staff, in my view necessarily and desirably so, because defence today is too large, too complicated and too expensive a matter for it to be otherwise. I think that must be obvious to all hon. members who have participated in the discussion of our estimates and who follow our activities.
But, and I again want to emphasize this, the various chiefs of staff are not in any way interfered with in the internal conduct and administration of their own respective services, nor indeed are they limited to their activities outside of their own services to their places on the chiefs of staff committee as regards their influence on the formulating of military policy. They can always see me
Supply-National Defence as minister individually with respect to their problems, and they do so in fact very frequently.
Moreover, the chiefs of staff are all members of the defence council. The defence council is a body over which I preside as minister and which formulates and decides interservice administrative policy. The views of the chiefs of staff are always given the fullest consideration by the defence council.
In addition, the chiefs of staff all attend meetings of the cabinet defence committee. The cabinet defence committee consists of several cabinet ministers, including me, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, who meet with the chiefs of staff and other senior officials and service members to discuss matters of major military importance so that it may make suitable recommendations to the full cabinet. The chiefs of staff are free to participate and do participate very fully in the discussions at meetings of this committee of cabinet.
Then, too, the chiefs of staff are represented by their vice-chiefs on the permanent joint defence board which is made up of representatives of Canada and the United States. This board since its formation in 1940 has contributed greatly to the solution of military problems affecting both Canada and the United States and has built up an excellent record of achievement through the years. It is a purely advisory board, not concerned with policy but only with working out joint arrangements once policy has been settled by the governments concerned. I am in fact surprised that anyone would criticize this board in view of the yeoman service it has rendered in the field of Canadian-United States relations.
It supplements but does not interfere with direct contacts between the chiefs of staff of the two countries. Any chief of staff of this country is free to meet and discuss matters with his opposite number in the United States whenever and as often as he desires to do so, and the converse is equally true. Such meetings as a matter of fact occur frequently. No closer or better relationship would be possible than that between our chiefs of staff and those of the United States collectively and individually.
I thought it desirable under the circumstances to take this much time to outline the position of the chiefs of staff of the services under our system of government in order to make clear that while they are responsible to their civil chief-me at the moment-and I would not expect anyone would wish to change that principle, they are still clothed with very wide power and responsibility in

Supply-National Defence their respective services and they are consulted at every turn in respect to the development of military policy.
May I say in concluding my observations on this particular matter that speaking from my own experience I have found national defence headquarters to be well organized and efficient in its operation. I believe it would under the strain of hostilities, if they should ever occur, meet such strain without any difficulty and carry on thereafter in the manner that would be expected by the people of Canada.
The hon. member for Calgary North complained that the arms of the army are almost as they were during the last war. That charge is really incorrect. In saying that, I might point out that there are very few areas of army equipment in which we have not made improvements since the end of the second world war. We have a complete new range of combat vehicles; a new range of greatly improved wireless equipment; a new tank; a new mortar; a new anti-tank rocket; new field medium and anti-aircraft artillery; a new flame thrower; and we hope shortly to be producing or purchasing new hand grenades and a new submachine gun, and of course will shortly be taking into use the new FN rifle. I think it can be said that seldom has so much progress been made in the short span of ten years.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris complained of a lack of information. Knowing of his desire always to be fair I was rather sorry to hear him say that, because since I have been minister of this department one of the things which I have zealously tried to carry out is to provide information in answer to all questions which have been asked. In fact I can recall only two occasions when information was withheld and that was for security reasons. I may say that I have always endeavoured to answer hon. members' questions, not only fully but promptly. I would have thought that my efforts in that direction might at least have been noted.
However, the hon. member made up for his lack of observation, if such it was, by the interest which he expressed in the Royal Canadian Air Force, and particularly his reference to incentive pay, which he will be pleased to know is under active consideration at the present time, and also with respect to his remarks about the radar network. So perhaps I can leave his remarks for the present with the honours evenly divided.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked why we should be developing the CF-105 interceptor. Very briefly I may say that even when the intercontinental missile era has arrived, which personally I think will


be much longer from now than some of the columnists think, it is not anticipated that aerial warfare will be exclusively a guided missile war. Guided missiles are very difficult to make and to use, and a great deal of development is still required. The continued development and production of manned long-range bombers in Russia as is going on now will constitute a serious threat to this continent for the period of operational usefulness of such bombers, whether we have intercontinental guided missiles or not. Our problem is how to assist in meeting that threat.
It is to meet this threat that the CF-105 is being developed and we are confident that it will be an effective part of our defence. I might say that the Royal Air Force and the United States air force participated in exhaustive studies from which we concluded that, for the special needs of this country, to proceed with the CF-105 was the best thing to do because no comparable British or United States aircraft under development will be available by the time we need it.
At this stage I should like to comment on a matter that it seems to me is the subject of a good deal of misunderstanding. As I read the comments by various critics and commentators in the newspapers and so on, there seems to be a tendency to take the present-day fighter and compare it with the bomber which is expected to be in operation five or ten years from now. In other words, instead of comparing today's fighter with today's bomber as far as it is in production in numbers, they take the fighting element and compare it with some future bomber development which is not yet in production in operational numbers. That tends to cast reflection upon our present-day fighter. I think that is a general statement as to a condition which exists generally in the public mind.


The Deputy Chairman:: May I interrupt the minister to indicate that he has gone over the 30-minute limitation, but of course he may continue with the consent of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Thank you. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked as to the cost of the Velvet Glove project. Our first expenditures were made in 1950-51 and the total to date is just under $24 million. This money has been well spent. It represents Canada's contribution to the build-up of know-how in this field, for what we have done has been done in conjunction with other work by the United States and United Kingdom research teams. As a result, here in Canada we have some 400 scientists and specialists in industry and in the forces who have acquired practical experience in the

air-to-air guided missile field. Therefore Canadian industry today has the capacity and the know-how to produce such weapons and is able to undertake contracts for producing a Sparrow type of air-to-air missile for use in our present and future aircraft, and this would not be the case if we did not have ample scientifically trained people to carry on. We have also developed the Cold Lake missile range with the use of the Velvet Glove, and we have acquired therefrom in the past year a great deal of very valuable information.
The hon. member also commented on the increase in the defence research board estimates from $52J million last year to $79 million this year, an increase of about 50 per cent, and he asked for some details about the increase. This increase is made up of an additional $6-8 million for the air-to-air missile program, $11 million for the CF-105 project and an additional $7-3 million for the PS-13 engine for that aircraft. These are three items accounting for just over $25 million of the increase, and the remainder is for increases in various development projects for the army and the navy.
The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace complains that the department is operating a substantial number of schools for children of service personnel. Surely he would not dispute that we have an obligation in that regard. What we try to do is to provide the best education we can by the most economical methods. The policy in that respect is clearly set out at page 23 of our annual report for the fiscal year, 1954-55-the very book from which, I suspect, the hon. member must have got the information he quoted regarding numbers of schools, pupils and so on. It reads as follows:
Wherever possible, dependents of service personnel attend local civilian schools and the department undertakes financial responsibilities to a level agreed with the civilian educational authorities concerned. Where no civilian facilities are available the department provides schools by using existing buildings or, as necessary, by constructing buildings for the purpose.
In Canada such schools are operated in accordance with the educational standards of the province in which they are located. Departmental schools overseas, for dependents of personnel of the Canadian brigade and air division serving in Europe, are operated according to Canadian practices and standards, and teachers are obtained by arrangements with school boards from across Canada with the co-operation of provincial education authorities.
Surely this constitutes a sensible approach to the problem, and I may say that it works. I may say further that the observations of the hon. member in connection with our schools are the very first words savouring of criticism that I have ever heard in connection with what I regard as the very fine educational work we are carrying on.
Supply-National Defence
With respect to married quarters, the hon. member suggested, I believe, that we ought to leave it to private enterprise to build such accommodation for service personnel. Of course, the actual construction is carried out by private enterprise, but I think that the hon. member was suggesting that the department should stay out of the housing field entirely, or at least in urban areas. Such a suggestion overlooks completely the very obvious fact that because of the very nature of military life, training courses, rotation of personnel and so forth, service personnel are not in the same position as civilians, and I find it difficult to believe that the hon. member would seriously suggest that we should do nothing to help our service personnel in this regard. As a matter of fact, if we were to do so, conditions would very quickly become chaotic.
Then the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace got down to a few minor matters. He made some reference to the Royal Canadian Air Force hockey pamphlets. These pamphlets, as a matter of fact, were written by a service officer and printed by the queen's printer at a cost to the R.C.A.F. of $397.50. They are available for sale to and are being sold to the public. If these booklets had not been made available for sale to the public, the cost to the R.C.A.F. would have been much more. The booklets will, of course, be on sale within the R.C.A.F., and they are being sponsored in certain circles by the Department of National Health and Welfare, but limited free distribution will also be made to each station of the R.C.A.F., chiefly to assist volunteer coaches who contribute so much to the R.C.A.F. recreation program. Perhaps if I quote one paragraph from the foreword by the air vice-marshal for personnel it will give the hon. member a clear idea of what is intended:
To assist the recreation specialists and the many volunteer leaders on whose services the extent and quality of recreation programs depend, and to assist participants to improve their skills, the R.C.A.F. prepares and distributes special guidance and instructional material concerning the many aspects of recreation. The R.C.A.F. series of sports booklets are also intended to assist service personnel and their families to enrich their leisure time in service life by increasing their interest in sports and improving their playing ability within the best rules of sportsmanship.
I am sure that no one would disagree with that.
Finally, as far as the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace is concerned, whilst he was professing in his remarks to be concerned about individual rights, he appeared to desire to expose to ridicule a number of young men in the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps because they were taking instructions in dancing at a private school. I should like
6124	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence to advise the hon. member that these young men are not cadets, as he indicated, but are young army apprentices and, further, that they attended these dancing classes in their own time and at their own expense. I commend them for their initiative.
I think it is rather cheap that they should have been singled out for criticism and held up to ridicule for their activities when off duty, particularly when our own activities in the field of apprentice training represent, 1 am sure, one of the finest youth movements in Canada today.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings mentioned a number of civilian personnel matters at defence establishments in his constituency. I might say that the Department of Labour reviews all hourly wage rates for employees of the Department of National Defence at least once a year. Such a survey is being carried out this summer in the area to which the hon. member referred. As a result of surveys in recent years, the wages of labourers in that area have been increased by 50 per cent, and wages of electricians by 33 per cent. When revisions in prevailing rates are recommended, we put them into effect as quickly as practicable.
On looking into the case of the prevailing rate employee mentioned by the hon. member as earning $39.60 per week, I find that he was, as the hon. member suggested, for a time responsible as a maintenance mechanic for the work of a number of seasonal firemen-labourers. The classification of the maintenance mechanic position is under review. Although the position recently advertised for Camp Gagetown, to which he also referred, is similar, its level of duties and responsibilities has been assessed by experts of the civil service commission as that of maintenance craftsman, grade 2, which is a somewhat higher classification than maintenance mechanic.
Lastly, the hon. member for York West indicated that he felt that more information should be made known generally. I have made reference to that phase of his remarks in commenting on those of other hon. members. He particularly asked with regard to the unit costs of aircraft, engines and so on. 1 should like to say to him, as I have already said, that since 1 have been minister I can recall only one parliamentary question about aircraft costs, and the information requested was given, but perhaps the hon. member would be interested in the following figures as they illustrate a few of the problems in this field.
Take the Sabre project. First, on May 28, 1951, as shown on page 3443 of Hansard for that day, we tabled the initial development
TMr. Campney.]

costs for the F-86 project. For some time thereafter the unit cost of a Sabre was about half a million dollars. Although we made a number of improvements in the Sabre, our aircraft industry also managed to work out substantial production economies and the current unit cost of a Sabre Mark VI, complete with spares, is now about $340,000.
Similarly, in the case of the CF-100, development costs prior to the production of the first plane were given last year as being around $122 million. The current unit cost, with spares, is a little over $700,000. But as to comparative costs, the real point here is that the only reason that Canada undertook to develop the CF-100 was that there was simply no comparable aircraft being developed anywhere in the free world. We undertook the CF-100, and now the CF-105 primarily because the area over which we have to carry out interceptions is far greater than in the case of almost any other country in the world with the possible exception of Russia, and the distance between suitable airfields in this country is great, also when compared with Europe or the United States. The cost of a multitude of new airfields for shorter range fighters would equal many times over what we have spent on the CF-100, with less closely spaced airfields.
Perhaps the most significant thing about our military aircraft industry here in Canada is that we have a good record in the military aircraft projects we have undertaken. As everyone knows, it is possible to work on a new type of aircraft for several years and then have to scrap the whole project. But so far Canadian-built Sabres with the Orenda engine and the Canadian-built CF-lOO's with the same engine have been very successful and are giving fine service for the tasks they have to do at this time. From what I have seen so far we have every reason to expect-and that is all I can say at the moment-that the CF-105 project will be a success.
That concludes my comments up to the present time. I think I have covered most of the questions raised by my hon. friends in the three days of debate last month.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. Just before the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich speaks, may I make this observation. At some stage of the discussion of the first item there is always a point where we get away from defence policy generally. In order to keep the discussions orderly and in order to enable the minister to have the proper officials before him, we start calling for discussion the subheadings in the details. The item, of course, is carried as a whole. I am

entirely in the hands of the committee. I wonder whether the committee would indicate whether we have reached the stage at which they would prefer that 1 start calling the various services by the subheadings or whether there is to be further general discussion on the item as a whole?


Mr. Pearkes:: I do not think we have quite reached that stage yet where we can go on to the discussion of the various items. However, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that at the present time we should confine our remarks to general defence policy and general defence organization rather than deal with the various items of the defence services.
I have really only a brief comment to make in reply to what the minister has said, and it is more in the nature of a request for further information with regard to the position of the chiefs of the general staff. The minister compared our system with the system which was introduced in Great Britain last year where, for the first time, a chairman of the chiefs of staff committee in Great Britain was appointed. But there is a slight difference that I think should be pointed out, namely that the chiefs of staff committee, through their chairman, on all matters of policy and strategy report to the Minister of Defence but-unlike our system here in Canada-in Great Britain each service has its own minister. Hence the chief of staff for the army has the opportunity of reporting directly to his own minister, the Secretary of State for War at the war office on all matters dealing with administration of the army. Of course, in our organization, on matters dealing with strategy and policy, the chiefs of staff will report to the Minister of National Defence; and on details connected with the administration of the various services they also report to the same minister, namely the Minister of National Defence. There is that difference.
I had rather hoped that the minister, when he was explaining the duties of the chiefs of staff, would emphasize the corporate responsibility of all three of them-or all four of them if you include research-in the preparation of what one might call a triservice policy for national defence. It is in that respect that the chiefs of staff of the British services have a dual responsibility. They have not only a responsibility for the administration of their own particular service but they have a joint responsibility as between all three services in submitting to the Minister of Defence the defence policy that the three of them, as a trinity, recommend to the Minister of Defence. I thought perhaps the minister might have stressed that
Supply-National Defence responsibility. No doubt he referred to it, but his reference was a brief one. I think that is one of the major responsibilities of the chiefs of staff. They must at a certain time subordinate special pleading for their own service in order that there may be produced the best possible defence policy for the country.
At a latter stage in the debate I hope to make some comments in connection with the army. I had the opportunity of visiting the brigade in Germany only last week and I have only a few comments with regard to that matter. However, I prefer to make them when we come to the army estimates. I appreciate the remarks made by the minister in explaining the position of the United States and Canadian joint committee. I think that was something that required explanation in view of some of the comments which have been made outside of this house.
There is one point to which the minister did not refer and which was raised in a question I had asked. I had referred to the term "stockpiling" with regard to CF-lOO's. Now that the role of the auxiliary squadrons has been changed, quite obviously there will not be the same need in Canada for the same number of CF-100's as were originally designated. I asked whether it was not possible to dispose of some of our CF-lOO's to some other NATO countries. If we do not take the opportunity to sell to NATO countries some of our CF-lOO's now, it will not be very long before NATO countries will say that CF-lOO's are obsolescent, and they will not be as anxious to purchase CF-lOO's as they are at the present time.
I understand that there are certain NATO countries who have been very anxious to purchase the CF-100. I am told that one of the reasons why the CF-100 cannot be sold to NATO countries is that there are certain pieces of equipment in the CF-100 which are under a ban of security. They are classified highly, and at the moment they are only being released to the United States and the United Kingdom. If that is so, I think it is unfortunate because we have got to have confidence in our NATO allies. As one representative of a NATO country said to me only last week, are you having two classes of membership in NATO? Are you having second class NATO countries who are only to be allowed to have certain types of equipment, whereas there will be first class NATO countries who will have the latest and most up to date equipment? The remark was made, but you still expect our men to serve with the forces of the first class NATO countries in western Europe, and surely you are not going to deny them the most up to date

Supply-National Defence equipment. I think there may be some justification in that complaint.
One may well realize that the forces of some countries have not proceeded far enough with their training to enable them to use or to entitle them to use the most modern of equipment. I can understand that point of view. But I do suggest that stage with respect to the CF-100 has now passed and the CF-100 should be made available to any NATO country who may desire to use that particular type of aircraft. If we do not sell the number that are surplus to our requirements of CF-100's, the time will soon have passed when they will be in demand.


George Alexander Drew: Before we proceed to the general remarks, I just want to refer to one point raised by the Minister of National Defence. Any suggestion that the reference to statements made by senior officers identified either myself or others with those statements is entirely out of keeping with the way in which the argument was presented at the time. What was pointed out to the minister, as he himself indicated some considerable time ago in this session, was that senior officers, including the gentlemen who formerly held the offices of chief of the general staff and adjutant general, had severely criticized the organization of the Department of National Defence and various aspects of our defence preparations.
I pointed out at that time, and I repeat now, that hon. members of this house are not in a position to judge the accuracy or otherwise of those statements. Those statements have been made, however, by senior officers upon whom the Minister of National Defence and the government were relying until a short time ago. I pointed out at the time I mentioned those statements that the minister himself had emphasized the dependence of the government upon our senior military officers in their expert capacity. This dependence has been emphasized by what he has again said this morning. He has emphasized his own agreement, in most cases, with the former chief of the general staff, and doubtless that applies to other senior officers who were, until recently, associated with the government, and who have expressed different views.
My reference to those statements, and they were statements which were directed to fundamental weaknesses if they do exist and if those statements are correct, was that those statements seem to justify the demand for a standing committee on national defence. Either those statements were right or they were wrong. The place where that could have been found out and the place where the facts could have been obtained was

before a standing committee on national defence. The Prime Minister made a strange statement in answer to my suggestion to this effect, that we do not operate under the same system as in the United States. This assertion had no relevancy at all to the suggestion. We already have a standing committee on external affairs where there must, certainly, be questions of security just as high as in the Department of National Defence. We have standing committees on other subjects.
Before those standing committees, under the rules guiding the direction of the affairs of those committees, it is possible to call for witnesses and the production of documents. My contention was that the way we could find out what the facts were in the light of the statements that had been made was to set up a standing committee on national defence so that all of us could have the real facts in regard to that department, which has been spending more money than any other single department of government. What the minister has said this morning in regard to this whole subject, where he has reviewed things that could have been under consideration before a committee, merely supports the demand that was made earlier that there should be a standing committee on national defence. I believe the government is shown to have failed in its duty in not appointing a standing committee on national defence when that was requested long ago. I believe what has been said justifies it still further.
I hope it will be realized by those who read the reports of what takes place here, that there are none of the facilities before a committee of the whole house which would compare, in any way, with the facilities offered by a standing committee; where the individuals themselves could be brought forward, where documents could be produced and where the information could be obtained upon which well informed decisions could be made in regard to this vitally important subject.


Mr. Thomas:: I agree wholeheartedly with the statement just made by the Leader of the Opposition. These statements that have been made to the press, these magazine articles and so on, have left not only the members of the house but the whole population of Canada undecided as to whether or not Canada is carrying out her defence program in the best interests of security. I think the only possible way that we, as members, could dig into those statements to find out whether or not they are correct, find out whether or not they are responsible or irresponsible statements, whether or not they come about as a result of prejudice and a certain liking for a certain

service, is to set up a committee on defence and to call these men as witnesses. We could call in any other witnesses we might be able to find who might agree or disagree with those statements. In such a committee we could get hold of the documents to determine whether or not the arguments were valid.
In addition, I think we could do a great deal of general good in digging into these defence estimates, being able to question the different officials, the different people, the different army officers, and get right down to sincere discussion of the entire realm of defence spending. I am not going to say any more about it at the present time, but I would urge that the government consider this very carefully and set up this defence committee because I think it would save a lot of worry and dissipate a lot of misapprehension on the part of the people and on the part of members of parliament. It is long overdue. We need it. Let us have it, and if we do have it we can do a good job on these estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words in support of the position that it would have been a good idea, and would still be a good idea, to have these estimates referred to a committee of this house. That has already been requested by this group, and I hope that even yet the government might give consideration to the suggestion.
The further word of support that I offer at this time for the proposal that reference be made to a committee relates to the way in which these estimates have been presented to us. You have called, sir, for consideration by the committee, item 235, which is one of 10 items under the heading of national defence. Those 10 items include six items to be voted and four items that are statutory. Although there are 10 items in all, it will be noted that the item we are now discussing, item 235, represents 97 per cent of the money to be appropriated for the Department of National Defence. This item is for $1,722,797,717 which, as I have already suggested, is 97 per cent of the total of $1,775 million.
Other speakers have drawn attention to the strange coincidence that the grand total asked for this year is precisely the same as the grand total asked for last year. I suggest that that coincidence is even more glaring when one takes a moment or two to look at the composition of the figures. As I have said, there are 10 items, four statutory and six to be voted. We are dealing with one in which there has been proposed a reduction of $6,487,477. We have indicated that we feel the reduction might have been much
67509-389i
Supply-National Defence greater. The point I am making at the moment is that that is an interesting figure to look at. It prompts the question, how was that figure arrived at? It is a reduction from $1,729,285,194 last year to $1,722,797,717 this year, a reduction of the odd figure of $6,487,477. What is passing strange, what is the kind of coincidence that I am sure would not happen more than once in a billion times, is that that figure is exactly equal to the amount by which increases have been made in the other items.
As I have said, there are nine other items. In two of those other items no change has been made. In seven of the other items changes have been made. In two instances there have been slight decreases of $520 and $250, or a total of $770; but the other five changes were increases varying from $200 to a figure of over $6 million. The increases add up to $6,488,247. The net change with respect to those other items, other than the one we are discussing, when you subtract the small decreases from the larger increases, is that you have an increase in' all the other items, believe it or not, of precisely the same figure by which this large item has been reduced.
The changes made in the other items, the seven changes, are changes which I have examined. All of them have a logical basis. Some of them arise from provisions in statutes; some of them arise because certain civil service salaries have been increased; some of them arise because of changes in positions or the death of a particular pensioner. At one place there is an increase because the Newfoundland rifle association has been brought in along with similar associations in other provinces. In other words, it is clear from examining the makeup of the estimates that any changes made in the other smaller items-there are seven cases where changes have been made-are changes that can be accounted for. It is therefore quite clear what was done with the larger item now before us. It certainly cannot be denied that all that was done with this major item was to change it, to reduce it, by precisely the same odd number of dollars by which the other items were increased.
I wondered if perchance that meant that that decrease had been made in two or three lump sums in various places in the estimates, but as I go through them I find that there are some 17 main sub-totals in the estimates in the latter part of the book that we shall be getting at in a moment. I find most of them have been changed; some are up, some are down. The changes are in some cases very small decreases of a few thousands and in other cases decreases of hundreds of millions.

Supply-National Defence And yet, Mr. Chairman, what a marvellous coincidence it is that with all of those changes made all through the details of this larger item, some up and some down, the grand total results in exactly the same number of dollars by way of a reduction that the grand total on the other side amounts to by way of increase and the figure again is the odd figure of $6,487,477. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the evidence is very clear that we are not presented with what can really be called estimating; we are presented with a juggling of figures to make them balance, to make them come out the same. It looks as though a directive must have gone out, let us have the same total this year as we had last year, for that is the way these figures are presented to us. I think the case has been well made from this side of the house that these estimates should even yet be referred to a special committee of the house for a thorough examination.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Churchill:: The Minister of National Defence this morning has revived the discussion of the estimates of this department which were started late in June. I suppose because of the fact that there has been such a long intermission from the start of these estimates to the present time there will be a certain prolongation of the discussion. It is unfortunate that we cannot start a department like this and carry on for three or four days in order to complete it all at once.
I do not wish to repeat arguments or statements that have been advanced by other hon. members but I would like to say a few words in general consideration of the policy of the Department of National Defence. I notice in the white paper and in the earlier statement of the minister that Canada's objectives in national defence remain the same concerning the defence of Canada, our commitments under the NATO alliance and our obligations, if any, under the United Nations. There has been no change from the past several years but nevertheless the world situation has altered rather materially and li' wonder whether the minister and his officials have taken that fully into account.
Other people have drawn attention to the fact that the estimates for this year do not vary by a dollar from the estimates for last year' It is a little surprising in view of the necessity for making a reappraisal of the

world situation each year. It is again a bit surprising in view of the action taken by other countries within the NATO alliance with regard to their defence expenditures.
I would have thought there would have been some change in the total amount made available for national defence. Surely it is not just a revolving fund that is going to remain unchanged from year to year.
There must be some alteration one way or another when one recalls that it is only a few years ago, in 1950, I think it was, that our expenditures for national defence were running at about $435 million; and then with the outbreak of war in Korea and with the necessity of assisting our allies under NATO and the necessity for stockpiling and preparing for a possible third world war the estimates for national defence jumped and have remained at a high figure from that time forward. They are now in the neighbourhood of $1,775 million.
From the minister's statement of several weeks ago and his statement today I am not clear that his appreciation of the world situation is the same as that expressed by other people charged with similar responsibilities in other countries. The impression I get from reading magazine articles and newspapers with regard to defence thinking in other countries is that the threat of a thermonuclear war, a third world war, has diminished but that we still have to take precautions and not let our guard down, but nevertheless I do not see that world opinion considers that a third world war is imminent at the present time.
On the other hand I gather that anyone who is thinking of warfare is of the opinion that if trouble breaks out again it will be of a limited nature and conventional arms will be used. Under those circumstances the policy of the Department of National Defence must be rather nicely balanced.
We as a country are not in a position to enter into competition in the development of thermonuclear weapons. We have to be dependent upon our more powerful allies. We apparently are not in a position to do very much in regard to the development of missiles and there again we must be dependent upon those who have greater financial resources and who are ahead of us in experimentation. I wonder if it would not be wise for Canada to place a greater reliance upon our larger allies in these matters and perhaps give our attention to other matters.
The minister has pointed out that it is worth while developing a team of experts who will have some knowledge of the construction of missiles. That is all right as far as it

goes, but perhaps greater reliance should be placed upon those other countries who have gone further in that field. There is nothing to prevent the Department of National Defence of this country from keeping well up to date and in a fine state of efficiency the three fighting services as we have known them in the past, and keeping them supplied with the necessary modern equipment for the type of warfare that has been carried on since the second world war.
I think it is an open question as to whether that is being done. I feel we have not yet received an adequate answer from the minister with regard to the great amount of money that has been expended over the last five or six years in strengthening our defences. We are not yet assured that we have forces in being ready to take action on short notice either in this country or elsewhere. We are not yet assured that air transport is adequate to lift a substantial portion of the army. We are not yet assured from the standpoint of mobility that the army is equipped in modern fashion so that it can be not only transported but supplied by means of air.
And yet what has happened to all the money that has been spent over the last half dozen years? I have no objection to the development of a camp such as Gagetown.
We saw the necessity for that at the time of the Korean war when our troops had to go into the United States to receive their training. I have no objection to the better facilities which are now available for service personnel at the various stations across Canada; that is all right. We have raised no serious objection to the stockpiling of equipment which was the major point of policy a few years ago. However, some of those things must surely have been completed now, and throughout it all there is a doubt as to whether our forces in being are capable of immediate action. That may be true of the air force which is stationed in Germany; it may be true of the air force in Canada; it may also be true of the naval forces, although they are not complete. But I wonder if it is true with regard to the army? The minister has not cleared up that point. The difficulty in discussing defence estimates is that the curtain of secrecy descends just about every other second and you cannot get a great deal of information.
I noticed that in his opening remarks on June 20 the minister referred to what he described as a major change within the army. This is a matter which we have discussed from this side of the house on many occasions. It is a matter concerning which I was rather critical of the minister last year. I refer to the substantial increase in the armoured corps within the Canadian army. This
Supply-National Defence is indeed a concession to opposition criticism and is an acknowledgment of the existence of modern thinking with regard to balanced forces within the army. The minister has told us that a third armoured regiment is to be activated. He did not say when; he did not name the regiment and he did not notify us whether the three armoured regiments which would then be under command would be brigaded or whether they would simply operate as independent units.
I was glad to discover that the minister had arrived at a conclusion that something should be done with regard to a subject which I have discussed so many times in the house, the armoured personnel carrier, the finest protection for the infantry soldier that has been brought about in modern times. I should like to quote the words of the minister as reported on page 5212 of Hansard of June 20 as follows:
Another important new development on which the army is working is an armoured amphibious 9-ton tracked carrier.
This will be capable of mounting field guns or of moving 10 or 12 infantry men and will be resistant to small arms fire and to splinters from shell fire. The minister stated that the army was working on this development. I do not know whether that means it is just drawing up plans, whether this vehicle is on the production line or whether it is in use. We shall certainly watch with interest the development of vehicles of this nature. Last year we were informed that the army was watching with interest the development of vehicles of this nature in the British and United States armies, but that is as far as that information went. I think the minister might very well give us information later on as to how far this development has gone. I certainly welcome it and am glad to hear that our authorities are going to make provision for the protection of the infantry along such a well tried line.
I would draw the attention of the committee-to the fact that in the army being developed! in West Germany there is a marked emphasis on armour. In the NATO letter of January 1, 1956, at page 13, reference is made to the 12 divisions which will comprise the German army as follows:
Half of the twelve divisions will be armoured divisions while the remaining six will be grenadier divisions, that is to say fully mechanized infantry divisions (as far as possible on tracked vehicles) with strong armoured support.
Profiting from their experience in the last war and being now able to start afresh with their special sagacity in military matters, the Germans are balancing their army most carefully as between armour and infantry and are planning to have the infantry in tracked

Supply-National Defence carriers, thereby creating mobility to move across the country and not be tied down to roads as the army was in the second world war.
The Germans are particularly efficient in military matters, as they have shown in the past. When they plan an army on that basis I think it is well worth the attention of Canada. Our army should be planned along similar lines with sufficient armour to balance the infantry forces which should be in position where they can achieve mobility with protection and to permit crossing the country which can be done only with tracked armoured vehicles. I would hope that in the exercises now being conducted at Gagetown some emphasis will be placed on this_ method of using the infantry and that the'tactical exercises being conducted there will utilize the experience of the past and be in line with modern developments.
In connection with the general over-all allocation of funds, the minister has discovered that he requires the same amount of money this year as he sought in past years. Although he has made changes up and down within the various groupings in the Department of National Defence, the grand total remains the same. I notice that in making any reductions that are made the axe is used on the army to the extent of $24 million.
I wonder why the army was selected as the service which should have to suffer this reduction. If there was to be an over-all reduction perhaps each service should have been affected. If it was to be a temporary re-allocation of funds so that the research end could be supported, as happens in this case because they get this money, why do not the other two services make contributions toward that end? But no, it is the army which has to bear the brunt of this change to the extent of $24 million.
In any war in the immediate future which is not a world war the army will play a major part. It played a major part in Korea. A recent publication of the historical section gives the story of Canada's army in Korea and indicates that of Canada's 1,557 battle casualties, all but 14 were suffered by the army. The air force participated in that war by supplying a certain number of pilots to the United States air force and by using its transport squadrons to ship supplies and men overseas. The navy participated in Korean waters, but the brunt fell upon the army. In any war similar to Korea the brunt will again fall on the army. So I wonder why in effecting reductions the minister should select the army as the place where they will be made.
What will it mean? The minister might tell us what it will mean to the army. Is it [Mr. Churchill.l
going to mean something different in the way of equipment? Will there be a shortage of guns or transport? Will there be delay in providing tanks for the newly activated armoured regiment? Will there be a delay in providing these specially designed armoured personnel carriers? Something will have to be curtailed in so far as the army is concerned. Yet, if trouble breaks out as it did in Korea, and the decision has to be arrived at within 24 hours or within a week, I am sure that it will be the army that will be called upon to play its part, because none of these wars are fought solely by navies and air forces. The army has to get in there on the ground. The experience of Korea is an indication that the air force alone cannot win a war. Air superiority was enjoyed by the United Nations forces in Korea, and yet the North Koreans and the Chinese were able to bring that war virtually to a stalemate. In the closing year of the second world war in Europe, although we enjoyed air superiority, the Germans were able to put up very effective defensive operations.
So we cannot be dependent just on air, and certainly not just on the navy. We come back finally to the army. The army has to be there and has to take over, run the risks and endure the casualties. The army must be kept in as good a state as either of the other services. I wonder whether that is in the plan of the minister as regards this reduction he has proposed this year.
There is another point. I should like to know from the minister whether he has been drawing upon the experience of the past in order to make the army a more effective fighting instrument. Perhaps the minister has heard sufficient-he may hear more- with regard to the criticism offered against his department by recently retired generals. I have here a publication by Major General Burns dealing with manpower in the Canadian army, a very fine study of the situation that prevailed in world war II concerning the utilization of manpower by the Canadian army. I wonder whether the minister has given attention to that and whether the present forces of the Canadian army are built up with the experience of the second world war in mind, as brought to our attention by Major General Burns.
He points out in his study that in his opinion about 6 per cent of the strength of the Canadian army in Europe in world war II could have been utilized-or saved, as he puts it-for fighting purposes, that is, in his opinion, far too many of our troops were engaged in the rear areas and in administration and on staff, and more should have been available for the fighting edge or

fringe of the army. He makes a comparison with other forces in that war and indicates that in the Canadian set-up we exceeded the British and the United States forces in the number of people that we had behind the lines in the supply line, in the administrative echelons and so on. If his conclusions are correct, that lesson should be applied to the formation of the Canadian army at the present time.
What is the effective fighting strength of the Canadian army now? Are there too many people behind that fighting edge? Is it top-heavy in the wrong places? I do not know; I have not had a chance to check Major General Burns' figures against those of other nations, but he is of the opinion that percentagewise the Canadians had far too many men in the pipe line. I hardly like to use that word nowadays, but in wartime it was used to indicate those who were coming along from the depots and so on up to the front. It may be that we have not profited by the lessons of the second world war and still have too many people back of the fighting fringe; and it is the fighting fringe that is the important element. Perhaps at Gagetown, where the troops are now assembled, there may be more men in the rear areas than there should be. I should like to hear what the minister's comments would be with regard to that.
I do not wish to prolong this aspect of the discussion, Mr. Chairman, but in general I think that the Department of National Defence faces a tremendous problem. We admit that. Although we feel it is necessary to offer criticism of that department, we recognize the tremendous problem involved. We recognize the fact that the department has to keep in mind two types of warfare, the third world war with thermonuclear weapons and the brush-fire type of war where conventional weapons will be used. We recognize the fact that more importance is being attached to air than was the case years ago, and so on. Nevertheless a department which is utilizing about 40 per cent of the taxes collected by the dominion government must he submitted to close scrutiny, and I think an accurate accounting of the use of all this money is certainly required.
From my standpoint, the vital factor is whether or not we have efficient forces that are capable of being used immediately they are required. We cannot overlook the fact that in 1950, when the Korean war broke out, we were not prepared to send a force to Korea and had hastily to assemble a large number of men, and there was a great deal of wastage. To keep 8,000 men enlisted, well -over 10,000 had to be brought in even before
Supply-National Defence the brigade sailed for Korea; and 1,500 were discharged because they were unsuitable for active service; they should never have been taken in. Is that type of wasteful use of manpower going to occur in the future, or what protection have we against that?
That is the type of criticism that I think should be aimed at the Department of National Defence. There should be a strict accounting of the use of all this money that is available, to indicate to us that we are enjoying the protection we want and that we are able to take part at any time we are required to do so under our commitments with regard to NATO or the United Nations.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I was glad that the minister took time at the beginning of the discussion today to reply to some of the comments that had been made when his department was last before the house. In those remarks he made one or two references to me, particularly on the subject of my comments concerning the importance of Canada's radar screen. I was glad to see that on that point there was some degree of agreement in regard to this important subject. However, whilst he quoted with some degree of relish my remarks in that regard, I think he still failed to get the point I raised when I was referring to the importance of the radar screen. At page 5266 of Hansard of June 21, I concluded my discussion of that subject with this statement:
Therefore I am one of those who believe that the radar installations are a very necessary and important development in any comprehensive program of air defence at this time.
I should like to stress the words "in any comprehensive program of air defence at this time". I still agree with that statement, namely that in a comprehensive air defence program it is imperative at the present stage of air power development that we have a radar screen capable of giving sufficient advance warning to make it possible for the United States strategic bomber air force to carry out its role of massive retaliation and to make it possible for the Canadian air force to carry out its major role of defence of the North American continent. However, he did not include the proviso that I have made to the effect that I did not feel that, at the present stage of development, Canada had a comprehensive air defence program nor, for that matter, an over-all clear-cut comprehensive defence program generally. If we are to put my statement in the proper perspective, I think it is necessary to include that proviso.
The minister stated further, Mr. Chairman, that in making my observations the other day, I seemed to have a fair degree of information,

Supply-National Defence and he suggested that that fact more or less rebutted complaint that we in this house lack sufficient information to deal intelligently or adequately with the discussion of defence matters generally. Last year I think I complimented the minister. He had just taken over the department, and I think I complimented the minister on a change in emphasis in so far as this particular problem was concerned. I suggested that the minister had been more free with his information and that statement was true at the time. But as he has acquired experience in the office, he seems to have been returning to the former policy of reticence which makes it extremely difficult for the private member in this house to have an adequate grasp of defence matters. It is because of that fact that I would agree heartily with the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that we need a committee that can discuss matters of defence which, by their very nature, tend to be concerned with a classified kind of information, and thereby put ourselves properly and adequately into the picture. If I seem to have any grasp of the problem at all I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is largely as a result of information that I have been able to acquire owing to my own service experience, and particularly by examining the more detailed information that is available from United States sources. If it were possible for a private member in this house to read and to analyse carefully the information, for example, that is placed on record before the various hearings in the United States, we would be completely informed on defence matters. However, with all the other responsibilities resting on us, time does not make it possible to carry out that exhaustive analysis. We are able to get only the highlights of those discussions from the publications that appear from time to time. Those publications have largely been the source of my information on the general problems relating to air defence in Canada and air defence in North America.
Having dealt with those two particular references by the minister to my previous remarks, I want to carry on with a subject that I was not able to deal with the other day because of lack of time. One of the deficiencies in our air defence program as well as in our defence program generally relates to manpower. As I said in my closing remarks on June 21, I want to make some reference to the subject of the utilization of reserves and auxiliary personnel in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Back about four or five years ago, before we had any fully operational permanent air force squadrons available for the defence of Canada, the idea used to be put forward that the auxiliary squadrons were our front line of defence and
IMr. Dinsdale.l
that they were sufficiently well trained and that their numbers were sufficiently large to assure an adequate defence of Canada and this continent from any possible approach from the north.
I can remember taking issue with that thesis at the time. Others from relatively high level sources in the auxiliary also disagreed with the thesis. I think Wing Commander Rohmer of Toronto, for example, disagreed rather heartily in a public statement with that particular theory. By reason of the obsolete equipment supplied to our auxiliary squadrons, it was not possible for them to cope with any challenge that might come to this continent at that time. This year quite obviously the minister agrees that we were a little bit overoptimistic in those days concerning the ability of the auxiliary and reserve units adequately to defend this country. But unfortunately the pendulum seems to be swinging too far the other way, and there is now a tendency to underestimate completely the ability of the auxiliary units of the air force to serve in any defensive capacity. For example, in his initial statement the minister gave us the information that a general reorganization of our auxiliary units was under way, and that reorganization included the disbanding of 424 squadron and the reassignment of 420 squadron in London to new duties as was announced at the opening of today's sitting. Further, it has been announced that the participation of auxiliary flying units in actual defensive combat is to be strictly limited. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that that is carrying the reaction much too far to the other extreme. From the information I have and from the personal contact I have had with auxiliary work, I am quite prepared to state that our auxiliary units are in a position to cope with any kind of defensive role to which they may be assigned in this country.
Before world war II I remember there was a lot of criticism concerning the functions of the university squadrons that were operating in the United Kingdom. At that time they were the backbone of a numerically very weak air power. It was felt that the types of aircraft were advanced in those days at least; the Hurricane and Spitfire were much too complicated and hot for the week-end university squadron fliers to cope with. As it turned out, during the battle of Britain these so-called week-end fliers became the first few who met the first onslaught of the formidable German luftwaffe. Some of our thinking from that period has carried over into the post world war II period, and we have the idea that advance jet aircraft are much too complicated to be coped with by part-time fliers on a week-end basis.

It seems to me, from the information I have been able to glean, that is not the heart of the difficulty. It is not a lack of qualified aircrew personnel, both pilots and navigators, which makes it difficult for our reserve units to continue operational in their defensive role, but rather it is a shortage of ground and maintenance personnel. It is very difficult to get reserve auxiliary people to put in the necessary time to keep themselves up to operational requirements on a short-term basis. If that is the difficulty, I am sure the recent action taken by the Department of Defence, as announced by the minister in this house, to reorganize the role of auxiliaries is not going to contribute in any positive way to the solution of that problem. Rather, the abrupt manner in which No. 424 squadron is being disbanded peremptorily, and it would seem without any preliminary warning, is going to have a further detrimental effect on morale and esprit de corps amongst auxiliary personnel.
I was surprised, speaking just for a moment to the difficulty faced by No. 424 squadron at Hamilton, at the degree of protest that was generated by this rather arbitrary action. For instance, in the eleven o'clock T.V. news roundup on C.B.C. they showed rather extensive pictures of a parade of protest that had been organized by the citizens of Hamilton because of this rather high-handed action on the part of the defence department. Now, that aroused my curiosity and I made some inquiries as to the reason for this enthusiastic response. I had it confirmed that the squadron was all prepared for its period of summer training. The majority of the squadron personnel had made arrangements to get leave of absence from their various businesses for the period. They had had no preliminary warning at all that flying operations were going to be discontinued. They had had an outstanding record, as incidentally have all auxiliary squadrons, with reference to safety. They have had, I understand, an accident-free flying record, which is an exceptional record when we consider the accident rate even in the best trained civilian aviation circles.
Furthermore, I understand that all the flying personnel were operational on T-33 jet type aircraft. Enthusiasm was high, morale was high, esprit de corps was high. They were a model auxiliary squadron, prepared to move into action immediately in the defence of the vital Hamilton industrial area. Suddenly, without warning, without previous contemplation, they found themselves abolished. Now, that is hardly the type of action that is going to overcome the reluctance that is manifest from time to time in getting Canadian civilians to spend time as part-time fliers or maintenance personnel in auxiliary
Supply-National Defence squadrons. It is very bad for morale. If we have had difficulty in the past in keeping auxiliary maintenance personnel up to strength, that problem will only be aggravated by this particular action.
Now, other than the experience of No. 424 squadron, I have had some personal experience down through the past five or six years in this matter of serving in auxiliary or reserve capacity. I have brought this subject up year after year. We have an active air force association in my city of Brandon, an air force association that has repeatedly taken honours because of its enthusiastic participation in the activities of the air force association of this country. Recently, I received from that association a circular which was rather disconcerting. This group of veterans who have since the end of the war been trying to find a niche in Canada's defence scheme of things in an auxiliary have, in all instances, been turned down. I have recited the procedure before. They hoped to have an auxiliary flying unit in the first instance. Then, they moved to the ground observers corps. Then, they hoped to have a radar light warning unit, but in each case, according to official information, there was no possible niche into which they could fit in the auxiliary scheme of things. However, they continued to thrive largely as a social club. You can only continue to operate on that basis successfully for so long, and now the interest is waning. The circular was in the form of a questionnaire asking a couple of hundred members of the association whether they considered it worthwhile to continue as an organized unit. I mention that again because it seems to fit into the general attitude which has been felt towards the role and function of auxiliary units in Canada. I think the attitude towards No. 424 squadron has been outstanding in this respect.
Let me be somewhat more positive regarding auxiliary functions. One of the most worth-while projects of the department has been the M.A.T.P., mobilization assignment training program. On April 24, in answer to a question, I received the information that since the inauguration of this scheme in 1951 the officer personnel serving under the M.A.T.P. plan, that is understudying permanent officers in various roles in the air force, have increased from 78 in 1951-52 to a total of 481 in 1955-56. There was a slight decrease in figures, as a matter of fact there was a decrease of some 14 in the number serving from 1954-55 to 1955-56. Therefore, I would take it from these figures the minister and the department concluded that this is a very worth-while project.

Supply-National Defence
Let me turn to the N.C.O.'s scheme of things. Here again is where we have difficulty with maintenance personnel. Your maintenance personnel are going to be drawn largely from the N.C.O. ranks. I believe it was in 1954-55 that the scheme was first opened to senior N.C.O.'s and in that year 60 served, but in 1955-56 the total went down to 57. We are not doing so well in interesting the N.C.O.'s in this worth-while auxiliary service capacity. I do not know where the problem is there, but I do believe that because of the tremendous expense involved in supporting a large enough air force in Canada to carry out our primary defence role, the difficulty that we have been having is obvious. All that is necessary is to look at the newspapers that almost plead for our young people to become interested in serving Canada. The bands of the air force are busy all year round visiting high schools in an attempt to interest our young Canadians in a career in the air force, and yet we seem to ignore the most fruitful source of manpower, and that is the underlying interest of the veterans in serving in an auxiliary capacity. As I said in the opening part of my remarks, I feel that the auxiliary branch of the air force, if the proper approach is made by the department, is capable of serving in every way in the various parts of Canada's defence operations.
There is one specific point that might be raised which could probably explain the lack of interest of N.C.O.'s as well as the decline, so far as officers are concerned, indicated in the past two years. No way has as yet been devised whereby both officers and N.C.O.'s serving in the M.A.T.P. scheme can receive promotion. I have raised this problem before. It is not uncommon, for example, to find a flying officer understudying a squadron leader. He is learning the job that in the permanent force is handled by a squadron leader of the permanent force. This flying officer returns year after year, four, five or six years, to understudy the squadron leader, and so far as he is concerned that is the highest level to which he can rise in the air force scheme of things. There is absolutely no incentive from a promotional standpoint.
During the war when a man served as a wartime member of the air force and occupied a certain position he was elevated to the acting rank of that particular position. When he no longer functioned in that capacity he was demoted to what they called their substantive rank. I feel it might be a further source of incentive for officers, and particularly for N.C.O.'s, if it could be made possible for them, as they accumulate experience in the air service, to move gradually
fMr. Dinsdale.]
toward the equivalent rank that they are understudying. There is more than the status of rank involved, there is also the difference in pay; and when you are taking time off voluntarily from your civilian occupation- and in a good many cases civilians do not have a long enough holiday period to cover the basic 15 days required in this type of service-it would be a relatively inexpensive way of bringing the strength of the air force personnel up to the numbers required to carry out adequately Canada's defensive role. On this point, Mr. Chairman, I think our civil service is the worst offender so far as making it possible for members of the civil service to obtain leave of absence to serve in a reserve or an auxiliary capacity is concerned. I have bumped into this complaint specifically from acquaintances I have in the civil service. If the minister makes an inquiry he will find that it is extremely difficult for a civil servant to get the necessary time off to serve his country in this additional way, and certainly the public service should be the first in establishing the pattern, in setting the example for private employers and private industry.
This is all I have to say on the auxiliary and on the reserve at this time. I feel it is one of the deficiencies in a comprehensive air defence policy in Canada. It is fine to have an expensive radar screen spanning the continent at three levels, but it remains only as a Maginot line unless you have the personnel, the aircraft and the other aspects of defence necessary to carry out an adequate air defence role.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, this matter of national defence is a most complicated field, probably the one in which greater doubts can be expressed and questions raised than in almost any other field with which members of parliament have to deal. And, certainly, one is not speaking with any professional knowledge of the subject when one attempts to speak this afternoon. Any experience that I had was in a war many, many years ago, whose practices and weapons have been completely outmoded.
However, I do not feel too bad about dealing with this matter at this time because I understand the minister himself in his opening speech-and I think quite properly- admitted and said-and perhaps this is one of the more encouraging things that we have found from the minister's approach to his department-that he himself did not know the answers to many of the problems with which he was confronted, and he felt quite certain it would be a long time before all the answers were given. With that I quite

agree. In approaching the matter this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I am doing it in that spirit, not in one of criticism as such except perhaps on one particular approach; that is, I feel that because of this doubt, because of the uncertainties, the request that has been made by this party, and particularly by the Leader of the Opposition, that the whole matter should be referred to a committee for investigation, is entirely justified, although I realize it cannot be done at this session at this late hour. Anything I do say about these problems I hope will be directed toward the end that in another year that will be done.
The problem of war is very different now from what it was at one time. Originally, I suppose, people went to war to get food and possibly to get slaves; some tribes went to war to get wives, and gradually they went to war to capture land. Wars were therefore at one time profitable, or at least our ancestors must have thought so.
I remember a former speaker of this house, the late Mr. Rhodes, telling me once of a trip he made to Britain during the first world war. While he was there he was entertained at a luncheon by the Vickers Armstrong Company, I think it was, the great armament manufacturers. During the course of the luncheon he said he assumed they had solved all the problems with which they were confronted and they said, "No, we have only one problem with which we still have to deal, and that is to find a shell that will pierce the strongest armour plate and conversely find an armoured plate that will resist any shell."
I presume that problem is still with us. Perhaps, however, it does not have to be solved today, because I suppose you could have the strongest armour plate in the world; but a battleship with the greatest thickness of armour plate cruising the seas does not have to be struck by a shell. A bomb bursting 5,000 feet or more above it, or perhaps several miles away, could reduce the armour plate to scrap and everyone within the ship to a burnt crisp in a matter of seconds.
We have reached the stage, Mr. Chairman, where one sometimes wonders if these discussions concerning war are-I will not say archaic, but are hardly realistic in one sense of the word. We have all heard a great deal of talk about whether we are going to have a brush fire war or an all-out war. Who is going to draw the line between a brush fire war and an all-out war? I do not think anyone can answer that question. For instance, if Hitler had had a thermonuclear weapon in the latter part of the last war and had realized he was losing the war, who would
Supply-National Defence question the fact that he would not have hesitated to use it even though there might have been an understanding at the beginning of the war that it would not be used?
We talked a great deal about the other side not using gas in the last war, but to a large extent that was perhaps a tactical weapon. I am sure that in the last few days of the war Hitler would not have hesitated to use gas if he had felt that by doing so the war could have been won. I do not think there is any real value in our hoping that certain weapons will not be used, nor in our hoping that we will have a brush fire or a conventional war rather than an all-out war. One can start off with that hope and with that plan, but when one side realizes it is losing the war and hopes that by using some other weapons the loss of that war can be avoided, I think one can expect that such weapons will be used.
The ultimate aim of all these things, of course, as the minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs realize, is to create a state of disarmament wherein there can be some real hope that neither brush fire nor thermonuclear warfare will be engaged in at all. I think what we have to do in the meantime until that situation develops is to work out some modus vivendi whereby we can maintain our own way of life and stand prepared to defend ourselves against an attack should it come. That, of course, as the minister said, constitutes the problem with which we are confronted.
The hon. -member for Brandon-Souris in justifying the expenditures on radar lines a few moments ago said that after all

and this is a point which I think the general public does not appreciate-their real purpose is to give the strategic air command a chance to get its planes off the ground. Their purpose is not to protect the public, as I understand it, but is rather to give the bombers a chance to get into the air so they will not be destroyed on the ground and in order that they can launch a counter measure of massive retaliation about which we have sometimes heard in the past. Well, if that is the hope and the only hope to be derived from them it does not hold out much comfort for the rest of us, because we are probably going to be burnt to a crisp anyway. If we reach that stage of crisis where we are under attack and are launching a retaliatory attack, the world will be in that state that has been caricatured by a monkey scrambling over the rocks overlooking the devastated countryside and commenting to himself that no one should ever start this foolishness all over again.
We do not want to go that far, yet apparently that is the degree of desperation

Supply-National Defence to which we are forced when we talk about these radar lines. Several hundred years ago when our ancestors came to this country they erected stockades and withdrew behind them every night. Then gradually they spread out over this continent and the pax Britannica spread over the world. We had several centuries on this continent and one century as far as the world was concerned of prosperity and relative peace. At least any wars that occurred were on a tribal basis.
I sometimes wonder if we are reverting to the stockade mentality in this country, withdrawing behind the stockades of the radar lines in North America as our ancestor withdrew behind their stockades in order to protect themselves from Indian attacks. The only thing which occurs to me in this connection is that perhaps the stockades which protected our ancestors against the Indians were more effective than the stockades we are erecting on this continent today.
When I come up to this house in the morning and return at night I cross the Rideau canal, and it is forcibly impressed upon me that it was the distant early warning line of the past because we were then guarding ourselves against attacks that might have been launched against us from the south. We know from our reading of history that the canal was built from Ottawa to Kingston in order that we could move our troops into the great lakes and ward off an attack from the aggressor which would come from the south.
That D.E.W. line, if I might call it that, may have served a useful purpose; it may have protected us against aggression, I do not know. I really doubt it. Nevertheless it certainly involved the expenditure of terrific sums of money in those days which may have been all to the good in expanding the gross national product. It undoubtedly serves a useful purpose today because it is now one of the beauty spots of Ottawa, and young boys and girls can paddle up and down there at night in canoes and whisper sweet nothings and make love to one another. It therefore really serves a tremendously useful purpose.
I sometimes wonder if the radar lines in the north will ever serve a useful purpose. It is not possible to sit on them and hold hands and whisper sweet nothings. I have been informed that it is too cold up there, even for the birds to do that, so I wonder whether the expenditure for the stockade of today will have the same justification as the expenditure which was made for this D.E.W. line of a great many years ago. In any event, we are told it is necessary as a part of our defence machinery, and there is

a great deal one has to accept on faith. I presume the statement of the experts to that effect falls into this category.
But there is one thing one learns in this country, and I suppose in any country, and that is that it is advisable to know what the public are saying. I think generally we who believe in the democratic system, although we may violently disagree with the results that are sometimes expressed, also believe that the verdict of the people is something that has merit and something to which one should listen. I think the trouble with a good many people today is that they cannot listen. If you go into the average home you will find the television set blaring and you are not able to have a conversation. If you travel on a plane you find that it travels at such a vast speed and makes so much noise that it is impossible to be heard by your travelling companion and it is equally impossible to listen to him.
I prefer to travel by train and take it leisurely. If one does that one can sit in the club car or the smoking lounge and talk to people and listen to them, and one can learn what the average businessman and the ordinary citizen of this country are thinking. There are many of these ordinary Canadian citizens who wonder just what justification there is for the expenditure of millions of dollars on the various radar lines. We hear of hundreds of millions of dollars being paid out for all this, yet in the next breath we hear that the I.C.B.M. will be developed within a few years. Apparently all we have to learn is how to bring it down from the air without it burning up, and how to make it hit its target. If we can do that we will have mastered everything and will have a weapon capable of blasting us into kingdom come.
The minister told us that he thought that weapon was further removed than the columnists seemed to suggest. I hope he is right. However, I do not think anyone expects, and I do not think the Secretary of State for External Affairs will suggest, that there is any danger or likelihood of war breaking out in the immediate future, a conventional war with planes and all the rest of it. At any rate these questions are being raised by the public. They know that something must be done and no one is particularly critical, yet there is that reserve of doubt which is increasing as time goes along.
That is not good. Apparently we are in for a long-term pull in this world in which we now live. We have seen the difficulties which the secretary of state and his associates have had in trying to work out even an approach to disarmament. We hear of the evasions, the

committees, the adjournments, the postponements and I am sure the utter frustration that comes from it all. The fact is that we have to maintain a high degree of preparedness and defence for many years to come. To do that we must have a spirit of acceptance by the Canadian people and the public generally. No one is going to refuse for one moment to pay out money if it is necessary and if the expenditures are justified, but sometimes there is the thought that perhaps we are living in two worlds. At one moment we are told that war is an impossibility, then at the same time we are asked to prepare for war.
We have heard a great deal in this country about co-operation among ourselves and other countries. The public are becoming a little alarmed about this. We do not seem to be able to even co-operate on the manufacture of our rifle. I think there must be a greater degree of co-operation, of mutual trust and of working together than anything which has been indicated in the past. This morning the minister told us, I think in answer to a question, that we had spent $24 million on the "Pussy Willow" or the "Velvet Glove" or the "Puss in Boots", whatever it is, this mysterious weapon which we tried to develop and then had to drop.
There is some question as to the degree to which a country such as ours should embark upon scientific work of that kind unless we are assured that there has been close study, that this work is closely integrated with that of other countries, and that they are prepared to co-operate. One country should not try to take more credit than it deserves because of national pride or the ambition of someone to carry out work which should be spread more evenly across the board.
From what the minister has said, from this expenditure of $24 million we at least got some negative benefit or perhaps constructive benefit, in that we found out how it could not be done. That is quite a high price to pay for such negative results. It reminds me of the college mathematics professor who stood up before his class and put a great many algebraic and geometric designs on the blackboard. Finally he stood back and scratched his head. One of the students asked him what that proved. The professor replied, "My boy, that proves we cannot do it that way." If that is all we got from the $24 million expenditure it may be hard to justify it.
The unfortunate part, and here one can be more critical, is that quite often it has been necessary to go to the records of the United States in order to get information on these things. I believe the minister was sincere when he said this morning that he had never
Supply-National Defence refused to answer a question, that he had given all the information it was possible to give. He even convinced me at the moment that he believed that statement when he made it. But certainly the newspaper editors of this country do not believe that. They do not doubt the minister's word per se, but they certainly doubt that we can get the necessary information. Members of parliament do not believe that. We do not get the information we want. It is impossible in a bulky committee of 175 members, or whatever the number is, in a short period of three or five days-


An hon. Member:: It appears to be less.


George Clyde Nowlan: After all there are four other committees sitting at the moment, which makes it all the harder for one to explore these matters and get the background and the, shall I say, philosophic approach to the problems with which the department is confronted. I suggest that that cannot be done in a committee of this kind in the short time which is available to us. It is just utter nonsense to think it can be done.
The minister may say that he has given us all the information he can and all the information for which we have asked, but that is not the case. Since the Korean war and up to the end of this year we will have spent in Canada over $10 billion on national defence. I venture to suggest that the great majority of Canadians know much more about the Einstein theory of relativity than they do about how the Department of National Defence spent that amount of money during the last few years.
Year after year we were denied information because it was classified, particularly by the minister's predecessor; yet the Leader of the Opposition spent 15 minutes one day reading into the record evidence given before a Senate committee of the United States where everything which had been denied to us as being classified was exposed. Only lately we had a general from the United States air department giving criticism of the CF-100, our inadequate radar screen and all the rest of it. Unfortunately it seems that we can get more information from the proceedings of a committee of the United States Senate than we can from our own department.
I could go on giving illustration after illustration, but I do not propose to take the time of the committee to do so. I simply want to say again that I believe and I think we all believe we are in a long, long period of tension during which this country and other freedom-loving countries will have to
6138	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence spend much more money than they want to spend. They will have to do it in order to preserve their freedom. If you are to do that you must have an educated and instructed public opinion to give you its support.
There are many ways in which the communist menace can be met, and I do not think it is going to be done by picket lines. I do not think it is going to be done by bayonets alone. It has to be done in other ways. We have to maintain our financial strength. We have to maintain public opinion. We have to have the zeal, the determination and the belief that we are doing the right thing and that we are working together toward the right end.
We read what is written by perhaps a fifth columnist; we read what is written by experienced newspapermen like Norman Smith or by industrialists like James Duncan; but whichever way you turn you read how the Russians are working with zeal, with determination and with interest which everyone suggests puts us to shame. If we are going to work as we should, I say again that we have to mobilize public opinion as much as we have to mobilize our manpower.
I think one way in which that can be done is by the setting up of a defence committee such as has been urged by the Leader of the Opposition.
As I said earlier, I know it cannot be done at this' late hour in the session if it is to serve a useful purpose, unless it is allowed to sit after the housg rises, but I suggest that the minister take this suggestion seriously. When this house reconvenes next year, whenever that may be, he owes it to the Canadian people and he owes it to himself that there should be a full and searching inquiry into all these matters to which I have made vague references this afternoon.
We know that the one key to our survival is that we have the power to defend ourselves, to retaliate, to deter others from acts of aggression because we have the power to strike back if they strike us. We are in the unfortunate position, with our way of life, that we have to sit back and be prepared yet not take any aggressive steps ourselves. That requires a great deal of thought and development of the proper approach psychologically and socially in a nation. As I said before, and I do not wish to repeat myself, one way in which that can be done is by the appointment of this committee. I certainly believe that should be done when this parliament reconvenes.


Mr. McLeod:: At the outset I should like to endorse wholeheartedly the remarks of the previous speaker. I think he hit the nail fMr. Nowlan.]	!

on the head when he spoke of the need for public opinion and the determination of the people not only of Canada but of any nation to defend themselves and equip themselves for that defence.
A few days ago, when these estimates were previously before the house, our leader, the hon. member for Peace River, spoke of the struggle being waged to spread communism throughout the world and the battle between two great ideologies. I think all of us agree that this has divided the world into two great camps of which the dividing lines are constantly changing. In a state of fear, the democracies are spending billions of dollars to put themselves in a position for the defence, not only of themselves but of all friendly peoples, against the military might of the nations behind the iron curtain. These nations seem determined that the ideology of communism shall prevail not only in their own countries but shall spread throughout the world.
Today this small nation of 16 million people is faced with estimates of $lf billion for the purpose of defending itself against this threat, and we in this parliament are properly quite concerned. We do not begrudge the money, and we are certainly in accord with the first sentence of the white paper:
The aim of Canada's defence program and planning is to provide for the security of Canada.
We agree with that wholeheartedly. We have read this white paper through quite carefully and we are in agreement with the ideas expressed therein. I do not believe there is a single Canadian who will question the fact that it should be the aim of Canada to provide a program and plan of defence for the security of Canada; but the time has passed when we must accept these estimates blindly. I agree with every speaker who has spoken thus far and suggested that these estimates and the whole problem of defence should go before a committee on defence.
I believe this committee should be permanent and should be sitting not necessarily only while the house is in session but as need arises throughout the year. The Leader of the Opposition made a moving demand for such action, and I am sure the thinking members of this house will support that demand.
The minister himself expressed the wish that we should ask questions so he could add to the information he has already given in his speech and in the white paper, but how can we ask questions when there is nothing concrete placed before us on which to base our questions? What facts have been given to us? Are we still at the stage where we are put off with the old eyewash that it is not in the national interest to make these

things public? I claim that the only enemy we can think of at the present time knows more about our military defences than any member of this house, and I am not excepting the Minister of National Defence himself. Since coming to this house I have been made to feel that I would be disloyal if I questioned these estimates in any way, but I believe the day for that type of thinking is passed. The time has now come to get down to brass tacks and study in a businesslike manner the expenditures with which we are faced.
There is one thing we ask, and I think it is the important thing in the minds of most people. Are we getting value for the dollars being spent? The people of Canada have a right to know the answer, and we as their representatives have a right to get that answer for them. We want facts, not literary gems as we were handed in the white paper.
I refer to paragraph 6, wherein we are told:
Canada's principal support of the west's retaliatory striking power is our contribution towards early warning and air defence on this continent.
I should like you to visualize a map of Canada showing these warning lines on which we have spent so much money. We have the <'Pinetree" system, the mid-Canada supplementary warning line and the distant early warning line. When we see these on the map we are lulled into what may be a false sense of security. I know that the defence department feels justified in having these lines and in feeling that it is the only way to provide what they hope these warning lines will provide. But we read articles in our press and periodicals, supposedly by experts, who tell us that these lines are obsolete. What are we to do? Whom should we believe?
There I think is another reason why we should have the opportunity of calling these experts before a committee and getting the facts. Millions have been spent on these lines. I hope they have been wisely spent, and I hope the plan to continue to spend many more millions will also be wise. But, on the other hand, if it should be proven that those lines are obsolete, why continue spending millions of dollars of our taxpayers' money on this system of defence? The taxpayers would certainly like to know.
Then in paragraph 7 we speak of our navy and the defence of our sea lanes. The minister recognizes our responsibility with respect to the naval service, but is recognition enough? In the same white paper, at page 6, we see a listing of our naval strength. It looks very imposing and I hope it is very effective. However, we should like to be assured by naval experts that the strength and the composition of our navy will allow
Supply-National Defence it to do the job that will be required under conditions that will exist in a future war.
Then we come down to paragraph 9, which reads in part as follows:
9. As a result of the build-up in defence strength and organization during the past several years, Canada's armed forces are now more effective than ever before in our peace-time history.
That is certainly good news, Mr. Chairman; but then is it enough? It is not a question of whether these may be more effective than they have ever been before in our peacetime history. The question is whether they are effective in comparison with what we know is the standard today in the nations that may be our enemies tomorrow. That is the kind of information we want to get. Experts who profess to know something of the science of modern warfare contend that we lag far behind. I am not going to stand up here and put forward any opinion as to who is right or who is wrong. However, I would still say that we want to know the facts, and that the only way in which to get those facts is to have these experts before a committee set up to study the whole problem.
There is a controversy over the mobility of our forces and there is also a controversy in the old country at the present time over the same problem. I notice that there is a difference of opinion as to whether we should have fluid mobility on the ground or whether our defensive troops should be airborne. We see that the trend is toward airborne troops, and I am personally inclined to believe that that is the proper procedure. But then, in the light of the fact that experts have said it is unwise to neglect ground mobility, I would say that we should again ask ourselves the question, are we neglecting ground mobility for airborne mobility?
I am perfectly satisfied that, with regard to getting into the northern areas of Canada, we have not the roads by which we could transport troops. Instead of depending on air mobility, might not the smart thing be to build access roads into those areas? I can quite agree that if troops were landed by an enemy power in those parts of Canada, once they had occupied their position on the ground, in any attempt to meet that threat by means of airborne strength our forces would certainly be at a great disadvantage in landing, especially when within reach of an enemy who was already settled in those areas. Hence it may be that ground mobility still has a large place in the make-up and in the consideration of providing defence for our remote areas.
Of course there is another reason why we should have a committee, namely to get the
6140	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence considered findings of the experts who should know. We are not questioning the ability of any official of the Department of National Defence. I hope the plans that are being followed are the best plans that the brains and the know-how of our people can provide. But I believe that all doubt raised in our minds by these noted authorities not only in Canada but in the United States and Great Britain should be cleared away; and again I would say that the only way to do that is by means of a committee of this house.
I now come back to the first sentence in this white paper:
1. The aim of Canada's defence program and planning is to provide for the security of Canada.
The whole emphasis is on military defence, but I just wonder whether that is the allimportant thing in connection with the problems which we we are facing today. The only enemy, of course, we have in mind is Russia and the iron curtain countries, but I sometimes wonder whether it is just wise to concentrate on warfare conducted entirely in a military manner. We think of world war III, the war about which we talk so much and hope will never happen. We visualize a rain of devastating destruction delivered by the Russians, something which may never happen yet could happen.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that we have been at war. This world war III has been going on for some years. In fact it has been going on ever since the communist leaders decided to spread their doctrines throughout the world. You can call it world war III, the cold war or the battle for men's minds- it makes no difference what you call it -but as yet there has been no clash of the armed forces and so far our defences are geared entirely to meet that clash that we are expecting to happen.
Yet there have been battles. We do not like to say that they have been wars. We like to refer to them as incidents. There has been the Korean incident. There has been the incident in Indo-China. There has been the incident in Morocco. There have been the Israeli-Arab border clashes. We have the Algeria incident, and we have the Cyprus incident. All this is similar to what was happening before the actual world war II broke out in full force. As you will remember, before that happened we had the Ethiopian incident and we had the Saar valley incident. They were similar to the incidents that are taking place in the world at the present time.
Then after world war II was actually under way in earnest, you will remember the months that the German army stood motionless before the Maginot line. You


heard and read of the phony war. We could not understand what was going on or what was taking place. Yet actually what was going on? The same thing was going on at that time, Mr. Chairman, as is going on today. The nazis were no more idle than are the communists in this day and age. The nazis were softening the enemy from within. When this had been done, what happened? The German juggernaut rolled on into France almost without opposition. Laval and his gang had softened qr had broken down the French people's will to resist, the will to defend themselves. Then we had Quisling in Norway.
I do not blame the local people or do not pretend to say that Quisling and Laval were set up there at the wishes of the Norwegian and the French people. These traitors, Mr. Chairman, were put there and encouraged to gain control of their people by the nazi agents, just the same as we have communist agents working in the various countries of the world today. This gives us something to think about. We do not like to even suspect that there may be a Quisling in Canada or in any of the other free nations of the world, but then who would ever have thought there would be a Quisling in Norway, a country we knew for generations as one of the most democratic and freedom-loving? Yet Quisling came to the front in Norway. The same thing could happen here. We have planning and scheming to weaken our people from within and to destroy our determination to stand for individual freedom and to defend our democratic way of life. In this struggle, Mr. Chairman, we can ask ourselves, will communism survive or will freedom prevail?
In this struggle I have mentioned these are incidents or steps in the greatest battle the world has ever known. There will be more leading up to the final clash. If it comes it will mean the obliteration of one of the great forces in the world. Will it be communism or democracy that survives? That is the question that thinking men and women of the free nations of the world are asking themselves as they look into the future. If the armed clash never comes it will be the greatest victory the free world has ever known. If it never comes it will mean that the communists know they have lost the battle for men's minds. It will mean that Canada and the other free nations have provided for their security, not by military preparedness but, as the hon. member who just spoke mentioned, by building up the determination and the will of the peoples Of the free world to defend themselves against communism on the home front.

Communism, Mr. Chairman, is the enemy against which we must defend ourselves. It cannot be done with armies, ships and planes. It must be done by education, by leadership, by giving our people and all the free peoples of the world, as well as those people who would like to be free, a way of life and ideals that communism cannot give. That is the answer to communism both from without and within. It cannot be done by any one department. It cannot be done by the department of defence. It cannot be done by the government of Canada. But I will say that it can be done by all the governments and all the free nations co-operating in a plan to give the free peoples everywhere something better to live for, and something better to die for if need be. It will not be an easy struggle. It will take billions, but I am satisfied that the free world including the people of Canada will not be averse to spend their billions if they see they are winning in this fight against communism.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Speaking earlier this morning, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence said he felt he had given all the explanations for which he had been asked, with one or two limited exceptions which he listed, and that he found it rather hard to understand why members criticized him or his department on the basis of being unable to get full information about national defence policy and activities. There is one outstanding matter for which I do not believe the minister will contend for a moment he has given adequate explanation or information, and that is the fact that the total asked in the estimates for national defence this year is dollar for dollar with the amount asked for last year, notwithstanding that there is in this country a large body of opinion which feels that our defence program should be substantially revised, and notwithstanding that in other major western countries there have already been substantial revisions of the defence program.
We have had nothing in the way of an adequate answer to the criticisms that have been made of the old look of Canada's defence program and of the concrete suggestions that have been made for revising and altering the character and composition of our defence program so we might have a new, up to date look with respect to our defence efforts. It is within that general framework of inability to get concrete, down to earth discussion of defence policy that the detailed criticism arises of the minister and his department for not furnishing adequate information. It is because of that sense of frustration, if you will, resulting from the inadequacy of the discussions and answers which are given
Supply-National Defence here, that the demand for a committee on defence estimates has arisen. We have not had an adequate answer from the minister as to why that demand should not be met. It met with a substantial body of support in the press and from other informed critics in Canada. We have not had an adequate reply from the department.
It is also in that framework that I want to make certain criticisms of the department and of certain things which have taken place. It may be said that these incidents to which I shall refer are in themselves minor matters; at least of some of them that might be said. I am quite prepared to admit that one or two of them are small matters, primarily of local significance. However, the only explanation I can find for the incidents to which I shall refer is that the policy of the department and the minister's grasp of the department lack cohesion and lack a central co-ordination. It is the multiplication of this sort of incident which gives rise to the general criticism and the feeling that until we get some adequate method of discussing and coming to grips with defence policy, we shall not be able to improve the situation.
Reference was made earlier to certain unsatisfactory conditions with respect to civilian employees of the department. The minister in reply this morning told us that the Department of Labour carries out an annual study of the prevailing rates of wages in areas where the department employs casual or prevailing rates employees, and an attempt is made to keep the scales of pay of those employees of the department in conformity with the prevailing rates in the area. Well, we accept the minister's word for that, but I do not know why it is that there is so much dissatisfaction and such discrepancy between the rates paid to civilians in the department and those paid in comparable civilian employment in the area itself. I have annually, some cases more than annually, complaints from the employees of the naval ammunitions depot near my own city, particularly from the fire-fighting personnel in that depot. They had facts which they laid before me and which I passed on to the department, and they certainly substantiate their claim that they are not in receipt of remuneration comparable with that received by those in similar employment in strictly civilian capacities in that area.
Just recently I have had correspondence with the minister with regard to the situation at the former No. 37 ordnance ammunition depot at Kamloops, particularly with respect to the provision of fire-fighting personnel to protect that depot. There exists here a state of absolute confusion, confusion

Supply-National Defence confounded, as I shall indicate to the minister by his own replies to me which are apparently at variance with what the department itself is doing there with respect to the employment of fire-fighting personnel.
We had three ammunition depots at Kamloops, a naval depot, an army ordnance ammunition depot and an air force depot. It was recently decided to close down the air force depot and move the personnel and I believe the ammunition to Edmonton, and that the army ordnance personnel should take over the air force depot. That move has now been completed and the former ordnance depot-that is the magazines and the physical installations-are no longer manned on a full-time basis by the ordnance corps personnel. I should of course observe that each of these ammunition depots naturally enough requires not only civilian guardians but adequately trained fire-fighting personnel ready at a moment's notice to deal with an outbreak of fire, should it take place. The situation is that the fire-fighting personnel formerly in charge of the work at the ordnance depot have been moved out to the former air force depot which the ordnance has taken over; but in the magazines of the former ordnance depot there is stored, and I am told will be stored permanently a very substantial amount of ammunition, though the personnel by and large have all been moved out to an area at least some 12 miles from where the former ordnance depot is. All that is left at the old depot to protect the magazines full of ammunition are five guards who are on a 24-hour basis, which means that there are three in the day watch, one in the evening watch and one at night.
I should point out to the committee that those magazines are near a growing area which was first built up by the Veterans Land Act authorities. It is just outside the city limits, and beyond it lies this Veterans Land Act settlement where there are now, I should think, at least 150 families and, as you will appreciate, Mr. Chairman, families in the nature of things with an increasing number of young children. I am told that the experience of the guards there has been that on an average of three times a week they have found those young children wandering about and getting into the area of the magazine. You will appreciate the concern that causes the parents, when they know that large quantities of ammunition are stored under what I submit definitely is inadequate care, and in an area back in the hills where children are in the habit of wandering about.
I brought this matter to the attention of the minister because I learned that the firefighting personnel previously in charge of
IMr. Fulton.]
these physical establishments had been laid off during the period of the move, and those at the former air force depot were now being laid off. Upon learning that and also upon learning of the concern felt by the residents of the district for the safety of their children and their own homes, I got in touch with the minister on June 18 and outlined the situation to him, and asked him a question in the house on June 20. In reply to that question the minister said, as recorded at page 5206 of Hansard:
I have looked Into the situation and according to the advice I have received there is a permanent staff of five civilian watchmen at No. 37 ammunition depot at Kamloops. They are all well-trained in fire prevention methods as laid down by the Royal Canadian Ordance Corps regulations. In addition, of course, the navy has a fire-fighting detachment on the other side of Kamloops which is on duty in three shifts 24 hours a day and is therefore always available.
I do not know whether or not the minister has been given the full information, though I would hope he would make it his own concern to get it because, as I told him, this is a matter of very great concern to the people of that district. The answer that there are five civilian watchmen at the depot gives a wrong impression. There are five there, yes; but they are, as I say, on three shifts. There are three during the main daylight watch, but in the two other watches there is only one to guard an area of a score or more of acres, if my impression is correct. There is only one telephone at the old entrance to the camp, and this one man, when there is one man on duty, has to make a tour of the area. If he should find any trouble he may be a matter of half a mile or a mile away from the telephone. When he is there all alone it would take him a matter of some minutes, at any rate, if not an appreciable number of minutes, to get back to the telephone and get word to anyone to come to render any assistance. This one man could not do anything with respect to fighting a fire, should a fire break out.
The minister says there is a naval firefighting staff. They are some three miles on the other side of the city. They would have to go right through the city to get there, and it seems to me to be courting disaster to say that a fire brigade which is still necessary on the basis of a constant 24-hour watch at the naval depot is going to be relied upon to travel about two miles, and then one mile through the city of Kamloops, and half a mile on the other side of the city and then deal with a fire out there. How long does the minister think it would be before men could be got to it, and what would happen to the naval depot in the

meantime? Yet the minister apparently has been told, according to what he said to me, that his department thinks that adequate safeguards, adequate care and fire protection, are available at the old naval ammunition depot. He went on to explain the situation with regard to what I had told him in these words:
I think probably what the hon. member refers to is that recently there was a fairly large amount of ammunition supplies being transferred to the [DOT]depot at Rayleigh.
That is the former air force depot which the army took over. I continue:
A number of civilians were engaged on a temporary basis to assist in this movement and to ensure safe handling. They were classified as watchmen or fire-fighters. When the transfer was complete they were released.
Well, X have written the minister again since this question and answer took place, pointing out to him some of the facts I have laid before him and before the committee, and I pointed out to him that it was an odd thing that he would tell me on June 20 that a number of these personnel had been released, notwithstanding what I had told him as to the necessity of fire-fighters at this former depot. Yet I have in my hand a poster put out by the civil service commission of Canada dated Vancouver, British Columbia, June 15, reading as follows:
Civil Service of Canada Requires Fire-fighters-
Department of National Defence-
Kamloops, B.C.
On the one hand the department tells me on June 20 these men were laid off because their services were no longer required, and on June 15 the same department puts out a poster advertising for fire-fighters.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That was for the naval depot, as far as I am aware.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why were not the men transferred? One of the complaints I brought to the minister was that these men were being left without jobs. Why should there be this involved process of laying them off because they were not required at one depot-a statement with which I disagree-and then the expense of a poster and an examination or competition to take fire-fighters on at another depot? Does it not strike any ordinary person as being a sensible course of action, if these men were really not required at one place, to simply transfer them?


Ralph Osborne Campney: According to my information the men laid off were not actually firefighters, and I think I explained that when the question was raised in the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They performed duties in the nature of fire-fighting and guard duties.
Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: They were classified as firefighters, but they were actually movers of ammunition. I think that is the information I gave to the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Some of them were, but my information is that others who are now without work were certainly involved-I am not able to say whether or not they were definitely classified in this way-and were performing the duties of fire-fighters before the move and during the time the move took place.
There is a twofold difficulty that the magazines not now in active use but in which a large quantity of ammunition is stored are without adequate guard and without adequate fire-fighting protection; these men have been laid off, and at the same time the civil service advertised for fire-fighters for the Department of National Defence at Kamloops.
I would ask the minister now to look into the situation himself and find out what are the facts. I am confident if that is done he will agree with me there is a need for another look at the situation. I believe there is some conflict of opinion in his own department concerning the matter. I believe that if he investigates the matter and gets to the bottom of it he will agree with me there is a confused and unsatisfactory situation in this connection.
I would also like to refer to another situation which is causing concern to the people of Canada, and that is in connection with the radar line installations. I have a twofold criticism here, both a general one and a particular one. We are very much concerned both over what Canada is spending on these radar lines from the point of view of whether we are getting value for the money. Others have discussed that and I do not need to deal in any detail with that problem. We are also concerned as to whether Canada has in fact parted with its sovereignty particularly with respect to the D.E.W. line, and to a lesser extent in connection with the "Pinetree" line, and whether the basis upon which the handing over of the installation and the manning of these lines to the United States was justified.
In this connection I would refer the committee to a thoughtful though critical article by Mr. Ralph Allen, the editor of Maclean's magazine, in the May 26 issue, entitled "Will D.E.W. line cost Canada its northland?" On page 17 of that issue of Maclean's, referring to the D.E.W. line installation, Mr. Allen said this:
It is the charter under which a tenth of Canada may very well become the world's most northerly banana republic. For a sum of money that has been officially estimated at four hundred million

Supply-National Defence
dollars we have at least temporarily traded off our whole northern frontier. In law we still own this northern frontier. In fact we do not.
In the illustration on page 17 the approximate locations of the three lines are traced out and the following wording appears:
D.E.W. line, cost $400 million. United States pays all.
Mid-Canada line, cost $170 million. Canada pays all.
Pinetree line, cost $450 million. United States pays two thirds.
Judging from many of these articles and other comments I have heard and read the justification for the situation on the D.E.W. line is that it is of primary benefit to the United States. It is going to cost $400 million; therefore it is only fair that the United States who wanted it built as a crash program should pay for it. I have also seen suggestions to the effect that it is extremely questionable whether Canada had either the physical resources to build it or the trained and skilled personnel to man it, and therefore it is said again it is quite appropriate to have the United States build and man it on the basis they are doing.
Mr. Allen has some interesting comments on that aspect of the matter at page 69 of his article. This article is based, I should say, on a personal tour he made under arrangements made by our defence department and that of the United States government, in conjunction with a number of other newsmen. He says:
In return for the luxury of not spending money on the D.E.W. line we Canadians have surrendered something that for the last generation we have regarded as our greatest necessity: our independence. For a sum of money that during the approximate construction period of D.E.W. line- roughly 1954 to 1957-will be somewhat more than equalled by the taxes we will pay on tobacco, we have delegated the effective working control of at least 10 per cent of our land area to the United States air force.
Mr. Allen makes a sincere and conscientious effort to be fair about this, and he does pay tribute to the United States personnel who are manning these installations and those in charge of them at United States headquarters for their concerted effort not to be irritating to Canadians and to do everything possible to avoid any personal breaches or anything which would give rise to a feeling on the part of the Canadians that the Americans are in fact bossing the situation up there. He does point out, however, that the existence of the situation makes such a feeling inevitable despite how conscientiously the Americans may try to avoid it, and he gives these examples of the feeling that has been engendered.
The following incident occurred on the way up to the R.C.A.F. station at Frobisher
[Mr Fulton.]
bay on Baffin island. In referring to the incident on page 70 the author says:
Later the station commander explained the exact division of functions on the base between the U.S. and Canadian air forces. "The USAF," he said, "is responsible for administration and operations. The R.C.A.F. is responsible for policy." Walking back to the mess, I asked a fellow reporter what he made of these distinctions. "It's easy", he said. "If you want to fly airplanes around here, you ask Washington. If you want to open a saloon you ask Ottawa."
A little later on he says:
But no amount of rough-hewn, new-world courtesy can conceal from anyone the simple facts that our basic allegiances-
He was referring to the two allegiances as between Canada and the United States.
-though nearly parallel, are not exactly so and that a good and loyal Canadian and a good and loyal American are not necessarily good and loyal in precisely the same manners and directions.
I am going to quote at some length from this because it is a revealing article. He refers to the feeling which is engendered as between Canadians and Americans out of the D.E.W. line and the inevitable feeling of annoyance which comes to Canadians. I continue:
In this confusion and mistrust there may lie unsuspected threats to the shadow of Canadian dominion over the Canadian north. The substance has already begun to disappear.
The most experienced and responsible Canadian I met in the north was a man I'd rather not identify more closely than that. I asked him bluntly: "Do you and your friends resent the presence of the Americans here?" "No," he said sadly, "it's the other way around. They resent our presence here."
Then he sums it up as follows:
How many dollars equal how much independence? How much independence have we really lost and how much of it could we have saved? How much more will be lost as our comfortable acceptance of the presence here of U.S. military commanders, U.S. military troops and U.S. military installations becomes as naturally ingrained as our acceptance of U.S. business capital and U.S. television, books and movies. To make any comparison, however remote, between what a few Canadian NATO squadrons might mean to the national identity of France and what a U.S. military base 2,500 miles long within Canada's geographical limits might mean to the national identity of Canada is to invoke one of the largest and sickest red herrings in the history of debate.
Under the original agreement Canada still has the right to take over the operation of D.E.W. line on "reasonable notice". To do so might represent a decline in the quality of our bookkeeping but there are good reasons to believe it would also represent an improvement in the quality cf our statesmanship.
That is the sort of situation which makes Canadians question the policies of the Canadian government with respect to national defence the way we intend to defend our country, to do our part in defending Canada, as we say we do from time to time, according to the statements of the minister in the house

and as contained in the white paper. The question is whether this money we are spending is being spent wisely and efficiently.
The other experiences which have occurred in connection with these radar installations give rise to the same outlook. These experiences have to do with the readiness of the department to hide its actions under the cloak of security considerations. It is disturbing to the Canadian people to learn that these things are being built, and they want to find what they are being built for and how much they are costing. You cannot get that information because of the so-called security.
I should like to relate a couple of experiences I had which reinforce this feeling. There is a radar installation in the northern part of my riding. I am quite certain that its location is known not only to our potential enemy but to hundreds of my own constituents. It was supposed to be a secret. Suddenly a large number of United States service personnel began to move into the area with bulldozers, trucks and other equipment. Contractors began to move around and considerable construction took place at a point some 60 miles from the nearest substantial centre of population.
I was up visiting this area one day and found people waiting for me at the hotel. They wanted to know what they could do about getting compensation from the government for the damage they had suffered because of the construction of this radar station. I told them there was not much point in my trying to obtain anything because I knew nothing about it. They asked me if I did not know that the United States was building a big radar station at a point which I shall call X. I told them I knew they were building a radar line, but I did not know the exact location. I told them that when I went back I would take it up with the department. I was given the details of the damage suffered.
The minister's predecessor was then in charge of the department, and when I came back I outlined this situation to him in as strong language as I could use and still be polite. I told him I felt it was absolute folly that the last person to learn of the installation of a radar station in a constituency should be the member who represented that constituency. I said that a member should not be jplaced in the position of going up to an area and having people ask him how they would go about getting compensation, and having to say that he did not know the station was there.
I pointed out to the then minister, as I point out to the present minister, that these things cannot be kept secret. You cannot instal a radar station and bring in Americans
Supply-National Defence with all their construction equipment and keep it a secret. Members of parliament, whether on the opposition side or the government side, should be in a position to be of assistance to the department in smoothing the way for the installation of these things, in smoothing the settlement of claims and in explaining to their people who are annoyed at what is going on, that the installation is necessary and justified. A member should be in the position of being able to assist the department in explaining these things to those who from time to time are resentful and critical.
The minister of that day agreed. He said he felt that was a reasonable point of view, that perhaps it was not wise that these things should be kept secret from members, especially when knowledge of them was bound to become widespread.
Recently I was taking my family home for the summer, and after spending two or three days in Kamloops I returned to Ottawa. At that time I was not making any extensive tour, but my next door neighbour asked me about the radar station that was being constructed up at a place he named not very far north of Kamloops. He told me that United States servicemen were moving in in large numbers. I said that I thought this was the same old story, that this was supposed to be a security matter and I asked him what he knew about it. He told me that they could not find out very much about it, as they were told it was secret. But some United States servicemen had come in along with construction machinery. This was all taking place on a favourite ski slope, but the area was fenced off and they could not get in there. Yet no one was supposed to know anything about it. You go home and you have your neighbours asking you about these things and you have to give the foolish answer that it is a security matter and members of parliament cannot be told about it; and all this notwithstanding the conversation I had with the minister's predecessor, when I thought the point had been established.
On the way back to Ottawa on the train I picked up the Winnipeg Free Press at Winnipeg as I always do, which contained the following article:
Four Die in B.C. Crash
Kamloops, B.C. (CP)-Four Vancouver men. on a top-secret survey mission for the federal government, died Wednesday in the unexplained crash of their amphibian aircraft.
A transport department investigation has been ordered.
Carl J. Baxter has been identified as the pilot. Also aboard were Don McVeigh, a construction superintendent and Ron Grierson, both employees of Bennett and White Construction Co. Ltd., of Vancouver.

Supply-National Defence
The fourth man was identified as W. J. Sckyra of Defence Construction, Ltd., a crown corporation operated by the Department of Defence Production.
The plane, a twin-engine Grumman Widgeon, was owned by Bennett and White but company officials declined comment on the nature of the survey, stating:
"It is classified-we can't tell you everything."
The article said "everything" but I think they should have said "anything" because that is the attitude of the department. In a later press story I saw that the crash had taken place on the mountain near Kamloops on which this radar installation was being made. How absolutely ridiculous it is. Not only are we not told in this house the particulars of the cost and purposes of these things, we are told that we cannot even be told where they are located. We go home and are asked by our constituents about it, and we are the last people to find out about it. Then an airplane crash takes place practically on the site, and it is reported in the press, but they say, "We still cannot say anything about it or what is going on up there." We are not able to get information when United States servicemen are being brought into the area and say, as they have in the past on occasion said to our Canadian con-situents, "You can't come in here, bud; this is security." We are told this is all supposed to be secret, that these things are to be installed and the Americans are manning them.
No wonder the Canadian people are critical of the attitude of the department and the way it spends their money, and no wonder members of parliament are unable to do anything but agree with the Canadian people in that attitude. I feel no false personal pride as a member of parliament. I am only saying that because I am a member of parliament I should be told, because one of the things that members are for is to obtain knowledge on behalf of their constituents of what goes on. What the government overlooks so often, it seems to me, is that members of parliament have a right to know and that the people also have a right to expect their members to be informed so they can tell them what is going on, and so the members can exercise their proper function of ensuring that the people's money is spent wisely and that the people are getting value for that money.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exceeded his time. However, with the permission of the committee, he could, of course, conclude his remarks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am just concluding. The situation I have outlined makes it impossible for members to discharge that function or to draw any other conclusion than that the


people's money is being wasted and that attempts are being made to hide a good deal of the waste behind a veil of so-called security.


Mr. MacLean:: Four or five decades ago wars were small operations engaged in by a few professional troops. War itself was probably looked upon as an extension of diplomacy. It was something to be used where diplomatic methods failed. Up to the first world war, the nations of the world had war departments as departments of government. Then, with the last two world wars, people began to realize that wars were no longer something engaged in only by a few professionals. They were no longer matters that were not the concern of the whole population, because a modern war required the efforts of the whole population and could be a national catastrophe. Then it became the custom to call certain departments of the government "departments of defence" or "departments of national defence". War departments became defence departments.
Since the second world war there has been a great acceleration in this evolution. It may or may not have been progress, but in any case we in this age find ourselves in an entirely new set of circumstances. It is my contention that under the present circumstances what we need in reality is not a department of defence but a department of survival or, better still, a whole segment of government which in close co-operation and co-ordination tries to discover a means whereby we as a people and as a nation can survive.
I am deeply worried by the fact that, instead of that, we seem to have not even a government with certain departments concerned directly or indirectly with defence but a government made up of compartments which should together be concerned with defence, compartments which see their own problems and try to meet them conscientiously but without seeing the significance of the over-all picture. This set-up reminds me of the six blind men of Indostan, who went to see an elephant so they-


Mr. Dickey:: That was in your leader's
speech the other day.


John Angus MacLean: -could have a first-hand view of the situation-


John Horace Dickey: The same elephant.


John Angus MacLean: It is the same problem, and it is an elephantine one anyway.


John Horace Dickey: You must have got the same script.


John Angus MacLean: Now that the senior member for Halifax has finished, I shall continue. We have the situation where the Department of National Defence is carrying on programs, I think conscientiously, trying to meet the problems of defence as it sees them from a professional soldier's point of view. We have the Department of Defence Production claiming that it has no concern except to supply what the Department of National Defence requires, regardless of whether or not it makes sense from a production point of view. As a result of that, we also have the Department of Defence Production doing most of its producing in our large cosmopolitan areas. The result is that our large cities are growing larger every day, and to house the growing number of workers congregated in these areas we have the Minister of Public Works helping to build more houses in these congested areas. From there the problem is tossed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for the matter of civil defence. These problems are being created by one department to be solved by another.
We have the situation that our cities have become so large and congested that it would be impossible, or at least impractical, to evacuate them in case of an atomic attack. That is why I likened the situation to the six blind men of Indostan. The minister of defence could be likened to the second of the six:
The second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear This wonder of an elephant Is very like a spear!"
That illustrates in a homely way the situation of defence if you look at it only from the point of view of professional soldiers. There was a fifth man also, the one who happened to grope against the ear, but to save the minister embarrassment I shall not mention him further.
I say this not in a spirit of ridicule or of jest but because I think it is a suitable homely illustration of what the situation actually is. We have ministers apparently living like hermits within their own departments, thinking only of the immediate problems that come to those departments. There seems to be a lack of over-all review of the situation and a lack of co-ordination, so that the efforts of one department will not create problems in another.
A moment ago I mentioned the problem in connection with our growing cities. As far as I can see there is no conscious endeavour by the government to curtail or to direct in a different direction the tendency of our
Supply-National Defence large metropolitan areas to grow even larger. To me, if an atomic war should ever occur this is a problem of major importance. I think it is fair to say that at the present time there is no means of defending large cities 100 per cent against atomic attack, even against aircraft let alone against other means such as the intermediate range ballistic missile or the intercontinental ballistic missile of the future.
I think perhaps there is a tendency to take large cities for granted. Not only is there that tendency, but there is a tendency to brag about the fact that our cities are growing larger all the time and are surpassing other cities in population, area and that sort of thing. To me that sort of thing is something like a hypochondriac boasting about the magnitude of his ailments. Cities now are obsolete.
Cities were first created for three principal reasons. It was necessary that they be congested because a wall had to be put around them for defence. Second, in previous ages communication was a great problem and could be accomplished only by sending a messenger from one person to another. Third, there was the problem of transportation.
In this day and age of instantaneous communication cities are not justified on those grounds. On the ground of transportation they are not justified, because our cities now have become so large and congested that we are obliged to tunnel through the earth to get from one place to another, and it is impossible to find a place to park in most of them. Then in the third place, from the point of view of defence modern cities are a detriment and a handicap rather than an asset because, as our cities grow larger, a larger and larger percentage of our population and of our potential production can be knocked out by a minimum number of atomic bombs. It is therefore my belief that large cities, perhaps even cities over 50,000 in population, are as obsolete as are medieval castles in this day and age.
I feel that we have here a huge problem- an elephantine problem,-as I said before. I feel it is one that must be attacked with a brave new way of thinking, with the realization that progress is not something that just happens by accident and is not something that is inevitable, but that it is something that must be brought about by hard work, conscience and sound thinking. We as a nation at this time need real, inspired, and dedicated leadership. We require men of great ability to find the thread that leads to progress in the tangled skein of problems that are before us at the present time.
6148	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
The lack of such leadership has left us like babes in the woods, like children lost in the countryside, not knowing what direction will lead to escape. Sometimes we wander in the direction of progress and sometimes we wander by accident in the way of retrogression, thinking that we escape. Real leadership can correct that situation.
Speaking of babes in the woods reminds me that I used to notice, in England during the last war, that when one was on the ground one had the impression that the landscape of England was very confused and irregular, and that every landmark led to nowhere in particular. But those who flew over England found that once you got up above the tangle of the situation you realized that there were straight lines radiating in all directions across England, especially from the old Roman camps, and that those lines were made up perhaps of a road here or a mark of a different colour across a field or something of that sort. That is the sort of situation we are in at the present time. We need leadership that will see the whole problem and coordinate our effort in one direction so we can make progress, and so the progress will be real, not something that is painted as progress but which in actual fact may be retrogression.
I think at the present time there is a real necessity for all leaders in all fields in this country to have a real appreciation of the problem before us. It is no longer something that can be left as a problem to be met only by professional soldiers. The problem is wider than that. As a step in this direction I should like to see set up in this country a defence college to which leaders in all phases of life would go in order to get an appreciation of what the problem is. Such a plan should include leaders in industry as well as our top-ranking military men. It should include political leaders and our top scientists. The problem of survival is a complicated one that involves all these fields.
If we are trying to look into the future and see what are the immediate possibilities, we can see that there are a number that are open to us. By some happy combination of chance we might in the near future embark upon a future of real peace. If that were the case, defence would become a secondary problem. But as far as I can see at the moment there does not seem to be any likelihood of that happening in the immediate future. We may find ourselves engaged in a period of small wars like the Korean war and others. Only in such a situation would our present defence efforts meet the problem because, generally speaking, our defence concept is based on former wars rather than on what

may occur in the future, although I grant that in many directions attempts are being made to meet the problems that may arise in the future.
Then of course we may be obliged to live through a prolonged period of cold war during which we will have to spend large amounts on national defence. If we fail to meet that threat it is not because we are not spending large amounts of treasure and great amounts of energy and endeavour in national defence. For example, this year it is proposed that we spend $1,804 million on defence; that includes defence production and civil defence. This amount is 37 per cent of our national budget and about 7 per cent of our gross national product. Hence if we fail to survive it will not be because we have not spent enough money. But on the other hand we should realize that the spending of money alone will not guarantee survival.
There are many lessons to be learned from history in that regard. Only recently the French nation spent vast sums to build the Maginot line. Further back in history you have similar examples. It was not lack of endeavour or lack of funds that prevented them from defending themselves when the war came. In a condition of prolonged cold war, in our very effort to defend ourselves we may defeat our ends. We may lose some of our liberties; we may strain our resources in other directions so we cannot compete commercially in world markets and our economy will suffer. I think it was Nietzsche, the famous German philosopher of the last century, who said that simply by being compelled to keep constantly on his guard a man may grow so weary as to be unable any longer to defend himself. There is a real danger that the western world in general might find itself in that position if the cold war continues.
Then there is the theory, of course, that we can dispense with most of our expensive defences of a conventional nature and bank everything on massive retaliation, and in that way scare any potential enemy out of attack on us. This, in my opinion, is a dangerous gamble at best. It is only a type of Russian roulette, and some day if that is continued, though it may be justified on a short-term basis, someone is going to pull the trigger and have his brains blown out. If that should happen we would be engaged in a full scale atomic war, something that is more horrible to contemplate than the average person realizes.
There is a tendency for humans generally,
I suppose, to have a blind faith that this cannot happen to them. Most of the peoples of the past who fell into tragedy and were

eliminated believed it could not happen to them. They lived on in blissful ignorance until the catastrophe was upon them. There are those people who feel that a full scale atomic war would be too horrible to contemplate and therefore it cannot happen. If we look at history at all it does not show that just because a thing is horrible it will not happen.
I am not one who tends to give much credence to prophecy; nevertheless I would not be so callous as to suggest that such a thing is impossible. If one reads through Tennyson's "Locksley Hall", which was written about 115 years ago, he will be struck by the accuracy of some of the prophecies there. For instance, one verse reads:
When I dipt into the future far as human eye could see;
Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales;
We in our lifetime have seen that prophecy fulfilled, not only in general outline but even to the extent of the way in which it is presented.


Mr. Philpotl:: Why not recite the optimistic part?


John Angus MacLean: There are optimistic parts, but I am going to give the next verse which is not an optimistic one, and if it proves to be true it is something rather horrible to contemplate. This verse reads:
Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew
From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;
I am not suggesting that the policy of the defence department should be based on Tennyson's poems or anything of that sort. Nevertheless that lays before us a picture of what may be in store for us. A responsible senior officer of the United States recently gave evidence before a committee of the United States Senate, and estimated that in a full scale atomic attack on Russia as many as 800 million lives might be wiped out, depending on the direction of the wind. Most people do not realize that the hydrogen bomb is measured in megatons, the equivalent of a million tons of T.N.T. A modern hydrogen bomb could wipe out a city entirely, leaving nothing in its place but a huge crater. In addition there would be great destruction from atomic fall-out for a long distance down wind. Those of us who live in the extremities of the country have concern and pity for the people who are forced to live in the large urban areas of this country for many 67509-390
Supply-National Defence reasons, and that is only one of them. If we wanted to be selfish about it, I do not think I could imagine anything less desirable than to have atomic fall-out land on my farm which consisted of the debris of and ashes of the inhabitants of a city like Toronto; but it is something that would be a reality if full scale atomic war were to come about.
There is a tendency for us to take a narrow view of things, not only so far as the general concept of the problem is concerned but to put a special importance on the small period of time in which we happen to be living. We are in the position that we have very little knowledge of the life of the earth except for a small period of recorded history. We are in the position of the weaver who can only see the last thread in the carpet in the loom. We would appreciate our own insignificance if we were in a position to unroll the carpet and see the full pattern from which we might be able to determine where we go from here. We should realize that for vast eons of time before man was ever seen on the earth, life went on in the form of lower animals and insects.
It is believed, as a matter of fact, that for a long period of time insect life was the major form of life on the earth and that a higher form did not evolve at that time because radioactivity was still so intense the higher forms of life could not survive. It is a scientific fact that insects can stand a much higher concentration of radioactivity than the higher forms of life. It may well be that if a full scale atomic war should ever come the results may be more devastating than we even care to contemplate. But the fact that that is so will not prevent it. As a matter of fact, it could well be that after such a war the human species might be found only in remote islands in the Pacific or down around Cape Horn, or somewhere like that.
Of course, I have been asked to look at the optimistic side, and there is a long-range optimistic thing about this. That is that radioactivity also causes an acceleration in evolution by mutation, and after a long period of this, after a full-scale atomic war, it might be that a more intelligent form of human being might evolve, a form of human being that could find the means of solving the problems that to us have been so insurmountable, a type of human being that could even learn to find a way whereby nations could live in peace with each other. To satisfy the hon. member who interrupted I shall quote, though I did not intend to, a more optimistic verse from the same poem:
There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,
And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.

Supply-National Defence That is desirable, no doubt, but I should like to think there is a more direct way of achieving it that we do not have; that even not we have arrived at the position where we shall learn, without having to learn the hard way, because the hard ways to learn are getting harder all the time and more destructive all the time, and the chances of survival are becoming less and less.
I would like to think that we can have some real leadership in this problem of defence, this problem of survival, and that some attention will be given to those wider aspects of the whole problem. I have avoided, and intentionally avoided, speaking about the particular problems of the minister's department at this time, but I may talk about some of them as the individual items are called. I make no apology for that, because I believe it is good once in a while to stop looking at the individual trees and stand back and try to have some conception of what the whole forest looks like. Only by that process can we meet these problems that the human race has never met before, has never been confronted with before; problems that cannot be solved by old methods, problems that require decisive action, the best brains available and concerted dedication to their solution. Only if that comes about can we hope to suggest that Tennyson was justified when he said: Yet I doubt not thro' the ages one increasing purpose runs,
And the thoughts of men are widen'd with the process of the suns.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the committee but I do think a number of things have been said in the debate this afternoon that call for some comment. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the hon. member for Kamloops and others have spoken of the danger of our defence planning taking on the aspect of a "stockade mentality", which was the term used by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. This arises out of the very large expenditures and the very great and extraordinary efforts that over the past few years have gone into the construction of the radar warning lines that are now taking shape in Canada's northland.
Of course the question of one's mentality and one's approach to these things is a matter of individual responsibility, and I cannot speak for the hon. members who have expressed this view. All I can say is that I have not been able to find in anybody with whom I have discussed these things in the defence department or in the other departments of government that are dealing with them, or among the public, anything that 
indicates that there is any kind of a "stockade mentality". I think these early warning and other warning lines are properly understood and their function is quite reasonably well appreciated. They are what the term implies, warning lines.
The hon. members opposite who speak on matters of defence generally have some experience in one or other of the armed services, and I am sure they know and realize that in military matters the most important and the most essential thing is to know where your enemy is and what he is doing. In modern warfare, in a situation where we must foresee and where we may be faced with the possibility of aerial attack over the vast uninhabitated northern areas of Canada, I cannot imagine any other way in which the essential information of where our enemy is and to where he is going can be secured except by using these modern developments of radar and electronic communication to get that essential information.
Nobody believes that simply getting that information is any defence, any more than to pick up a spyglass and see the armada coming over the horizon in the English channel was any defence against the armada in that day. It is a matter of getting the information about your enemy's movements in the best and the quickest way possible and getting it when the enemy is as far away from his objective as is possible, and then communicating that information to the vital defence centres and taking the necessary remedial action.
If the expenditures that are being made and the very extraordinary efforts that have been put out by the contractors and the people who have been working on these lines are going to be misunderstood and represented purely as building up a Maginot line across the northern part of this country, I think a good deal of the value of these things will be wasted. I believe it would be well for all hon. members of this house to take a more realistic and more fundamental approach to these problems.
Most of the hon. members who have spoken in the debate this afternoon have, in one way or another, repeated the suggestion which has been heard so often inside this house and outside of it that there is a lack of information in this country about defence. Before we take this repeated assertion as proof we should look for a moment at the information that is available, not only to our members but to the Canadian public generally, and see just what are the facts.
First of all, the basic facts of national defence are very easily available to all hon. members and to members of the general

public. In the first place there is the annual report of the department. That is a publication which is simply crammed with facts about national defence, about the three services, about what has gone on during the year and about the general policies which are being followed by the department and the success that is being achieved in meeting the defence objectives we have set up.
Then there is the white paper which is prepared by the department and tabled in the house annually by the minister prior to consideration of the defence estimates. That is also a publication that is put out to explain the basic policies of the department, outlining the particular achievements which have been realized during the year and setting out tables showing the strength of the forces and detailed information of that kind which is thus available to the house and the public.
In connection with matters of policy within the department and of defence policy more generally in the international sphere there are statements made from time to time in the house by the Minister of National Defence, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by the Prime Minister which clearly set out the matters with which the department is dealing, our relations with our NATO allies, the projects that we undertake either in general association with other NATO countries or in special association either with the United States, the United Kingdom or another of our allies and related subjects of that kind.
Then concerning the question of expenditures there are 110 pages of details of the expenditures of the Department of National Defence in the public accounts this year. Every year a similar number of pages, which are very closely printed and full ot facts, are contained in that document which is readily available. In the book of estimates that is before the committee at the present time there are over 40 pages of details of the expenditures which we are presently considering.
Finally, the Minister of National Defence and other ministers concerned with the more general aspects of defence are in the house every day the house is sitting and are subject to questioning by hon. members opposite.
The hon. member for Kamloops raised a question about security and the denial of information on that basis, and the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke raised very briefly the same problem. It is a problem. I am sure nobody claims that any system of security can be perfect. I am equally sure no one claims it is possible by classifying a particular project or subject and saying that information relating to
67509-390i
Supply-National Defence it cannot be published can in every case prevent information getting out into the public domain that is either helpful to potential enemies or which is capable of being helpful to them.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, all hon. members must agree that a department dealing with so many matters which are of a secret nature of which the confidential nature must be kept through some system of security, must lay down some rules which the department itself must to the best of its ability respect, not only in our own national interest but also in the light of our duty to keep faith with our allies, who share very confidential information with us in the belief that we will make a reasonable effort to see that such information is treated with the confidence it deserves. That is all that is implied in those rare and unusual cases when it is said in this house, in committee or some other place that information on a certain subject must be denied publication because of the consideration of security.
In addition to what I have already said, Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of common knowledge to everybody in the country that Canadian newspapers, newsreels and radio and television programs contain a great mass of information about our armed forces and about what is taking place in matters of defence.
Many hon. members of this house during the last few sessions alone have visited radar stations of the kind referred to by the hon. member for Kamloops, and have visited air stations and the defence centre at St. Hubert, for example. They have visited army camps, naval depots and ships as well. In other words the integral parts of our defence set-up and of the three services are open for inspection.
It may be that some particular development of a confidential nature with respect to armaments or something of that kind may have to be kept confidential, but one might say that 99 per cent of these installations are open for inspection, and the greatest facilities are given by the minister and the department for members of parliament-and at times when it can be arranged for members of the public-to visit these places and see for themselves what is going on and understand as best they can what our defence system comprises.
Let me review very briefly what are the main facts about Canadian defence that are so well known. First of all it is well known that we have an air division and an army brigade in Europe. At least 20 hon. members of this house in the last few years have visited either or both units of the air division and

Supply-National Defence the army brigade. A number of hon. gentlemen have reported on their visits in this house, and I have yet to hear any hon. member report that he was not permitted to visit freely and was not given every facility for inspecting these overseas installations to see how things were going, to talk with the officers and men involved and to see their equipment and all that sort of thing. What more could be done to disclose to the members of this house and the Canadian public what we are doing in connection with our contribution to NATO? I think very little further can be done, and I have heard no suggestions as to exactly what more could be done.
We have three army brigades and a mobile striking force in Canada; that is well known. The camps at which the army units are stationed are known not only to hon. members of this house but to the public, and many people who are interested secure access to these army installations. They see what is going on. In many cases they have friends amongst the officers and men and they receive a great deal of information. Information of this nature is freely available to every hon. member of this house. Any hon. gentleman in this house can visit these locations, as I am sure many of them have done, and if they find anything they think is wrong or anything they think is not being done in accordance with proper policy they are free to bring it up in the house, either on the estimates or as a question on orders of the day.
Then with respect to the navy, in which I am particularly interested, we have two main and substantial naval installations located in Nova Scotia and another substantial installation on the west coast. These installations are on exactly the same basis as the army installations all over the country. People who are interested in what is going on can find out. Civilians work in these places along with service personnel, and there is no lack of information about the things being achieved in the naval installations.
We have 40 fighting ships serving on both coasts. While those ships are not generally open for inspection, they are open at regular times when the public are invited to come aboard. I know that quite often hon. members when on the east or west coast take advantage of the opportunity to visit these ships, and often go on short cruises at sea.
As far as the air force is concerned, it is well known that we have nine CF-100 squadrons in Canada on an operational basis and that altogether we have more than 3,000 aircraft which are operational. The R.C.A.F.

stations both at home and overseas are open in the same way as are the naval and army installations.
By reason of all this anyone who is really interested in our defence spending and policy can look around if he wishes to do so. On the basis alone of information that is so widely and generally available, any hon. member has ready access to much factual material, and if he desires additional information he can put questions or inform himself in any number of ways.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings repeated and supported the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the type of defence committee the Leader of the Opposition now thinks should be set up by this house to look into defence matters. Of course this is based on the incorrect assumption and repeated assertion that information on defence is not readily available. I submit that that is not correct, but in any event that is the basis of the request for a committee.
The hon. member went on to explain the kind of information he would like to get through such a committee. Actually most of the information is just as easily available when the estimates are being considered as it would be in such a committee.
However, it is interesting to look at the history of these requests by the Leader of the Opposition for committees on defence. Most hon. members will remember that in 1950 after the defence program got under way as a result of the Korean war the Leader of the Opposition started to ask for a committee on defence expenditures. The presumption then was that the very large amounts of money that were being spent on defence were being spent to a large extent improperly and wastefully. So the request was made for a committee on defence expenditure.
That request was considered by the government and was granted. My understanding of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition was consulted with respect to the terms of reference to that committee, and that as a matter of fact those terms were drawn up in what he considered to be the proper wording in order to bring about the result he wanted in connection with the examination of defence expenditures.
That committee sat during three sessions. It sat first in the short session of the fall of 1951, when it held five meetings. But even then it received a tremendous amount of information which was asked for by members of the committee. The committee was set up again at the next session, that of 1952, under the same terms of reference. It held 17 meetings and received a correspondingly

greater mass of information on defence expenditures and defence matters which I do not think has been equalled by any other committee of this house and so far as I know not equalled by a similar committee anywhere else. Then the committee was set up again in 1953, and during that session held 26 meetings.
During the three sessions the committee held a total of 48 meetings and there are three volumes of the proceedings. The first one is rather small but the other two are quite substantial indeed. The way the committee operated was to ask the opposition members on the committee what features of defence expenditure they wanted to examine, and arrangements were made to examine those features in which they were most interested. You have only to refer to the minutes of proceedings to see the steps which were taken to consult with members of the opposition as to particular features at which they wanted to look. You can follow the proceedings right through and see how they were given every possible facility to question the officials who were dealing with the particular matters that they themselves had selected.
What was the result? The result was that the opposition members did not find what they thought they were going to find. They did not turn up the kind of mismanagement of defence expenditures and extravagance and the various things which they had stated in the debate before the committees were set up they were sure were there.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: What about the horses?


Mr. Sinclair:: They did not even turn up at most of the meetings.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member who was not in the house at the time should be the last member of the opposition who at this stage should bring up any reference to the so-called horses on the payroll which were proved to be non-existent.


Mr. Harkness:: No, they were not; they were proved to be there.


John Horace Dickey: In any event I would have thought that this business of horses on the payroll would be such a sorry memory for the Tory party that its members would not dare to revive these non-existent horses. The facts that came out so clearly as a result of this defence expenditures committee was that the opposition were not looking for facts. What they were looking for were facts that would conform to their preconceived ideas of what the facts should be. When the facts were proved to be different, then they were not facts.
Supply-National Defence


Douglas Scott Harkness: A completely incorrect statement.


John Horace Dickey: No, it is not an incorrect statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Completely incorrect.


John Horace Dickey: In addition to the various publications I have referred to and the long list of means which I have submitted the department takes to put facts before the house and the country, we have the three volumes of facts which were presented to this committee. The Leader of the Opposition and members of the opposition say that these are not facts. Why do they say they are not facts? Because they do not happen to agree with them. The facts as proved did not agree with what they hoped they would find.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are absolutely wrong.


John Horace Dickey: I submit that in reality this is the situation. Hon. members of the opposition are really searching around not for material on defence but for political material. That has been only too obvious in the past.
There has been some criticism about the armed forces in general. The point that should be emphasized in this debate is that anybody who has had occasion to look at the armed forces of Canada either at home or abroad has reported most favourably on the way in which those armed forces perform, their morale, their training and their general excellence. Some people who have made these statements-and I may say that I refer to members of this house-go on to say, in spite of this excellence that everything is wrong with the Department of National Defence. They say it is poorly organized, that the minister is not doing his job properly, that there are too many civilians hanging around, that they are not doing a good job, and direct these criticisms at the department.
How can a department which could be in any way described in the way hon. members describe the Department of National Defence possibly produce the excellent results that they admit are produced? It is the three armed services that are the real testimony to the organization of the Department of National Defence and the way the department is carrying out its purposes and its policies. I certainly am more than prepared to rest any defence that the minister and the department might need on the record of the three armed services of Canada, a record of which, I am sure, even hon. members opposite are proud.


Mr. Hahn:: I promise the committee that I shall not hold them as long as the previous speaker. It is not my purpose to deal in generalities with statements made by others

Supply-National Defence In this debate. I would agree with the statements by other members of this group with regard to charges, made by respected leaders, that have gone unanswered. As the minister said today, some of them were opinions and not facts, I feel that possibly we should have these men before a special committee set up for the purpose of discussing defence so we may arrive at our own conclusions as to whether they are opinions or facts. These men could answer the charges, and we could decide for ourselves.
The question I have in mind, however, is one of which I am not too sure the minister is completely aware. It has to do with the demoralizing effect on our civil service and casual employees of the Department of National Defence who are concerned with the labour pay question on the Pacific coast. I speak more specifically of the Chilliwack area.
The question I have in mind is that of rates of pay offered by the department for certain jobs as compared with the current rates of pay effective in the Chilliwack area. I am using as an illustration the rates for a certain project that was undertaken by the Department of National Defence on September 1, 1955, as compared with the current rates of pay in the Chilliwack area for the same jobs, effective on February 15, 1956. Whilst there is a slight discrepancy in the period, the minister will recognize that there is not enough difference in time to compensate for the difference in pay.
I begin by mentioning the wages paid to carpenters in each instance. The Department of National Defence pays $2.22 per hour for carpenters employed in the Chilliwack area, and the current rate of pay in the same area is $2.22 for other employees working at carpentering. Of course these two are comparable, and this is the only instance, I may say at this time, where the wages compare in any way.
Chauffeurs and truck drivers in the Department of National Defence are paid $1.45 per hour; in Chilliwack chauffeurs and truck drivers get $1.60 per hour. Heavy equipment operators in the Department of National Defence get $1.75 per hour; others working in the same area get $2.45 per hour. Those are men employed on drag line crane and bulldozer work. The ordinary labourer in the Department of National Defence gets $1.40; the labourer not working on defence projects gets $1.60. Plumbers' and steam-fitters' helpers in the Department of National Defence get $1.55, as opposed to $1.85. The plumbers and steamfitters themselves get $2.10 in the Department of National Defence; otherwise in civilian jobs they get $2.35 per hour.

Pipe layers, caulkers and solderers get $1.65. Pump operators get $1.82; that is the current rate paid in the Chilliwack area. Brush painters get $1.80 working for the Department of National Defence, as opposed to $2.16 for those working in civilian jobs. Those who work with spray guns at painting for the Department of National Defence get $1.90, as opposed to $2.26. Sheet metal workers get $2 per hour in the Department of National Defence as opposed to $2.35 in civilian jobs. Welders get $1.75 as compared with $2.
My time is limited, and I should like to finish if the committee would be kind enough to give me a few minutes more. I shall not be more than three or four minutes, you may rest assured, but I wish to point out this. The wages for carpenters in the Department of National Defence and for carpenters in civilian jobs are the same, but that is the top wage paid by the Department of National Defence for workers in that area. However, in civilian jobs, the bulldozer operator gets $2.45 as the top wage. The lowest wage paid by the Department of National Defence is $1.40 per hour, which is the wage for a common labourer, whilst in comparison truck drivers get $1.60, which is the lowest wage paid by private industry in the area.
My plea is that the rate of pay by the Department of National Defence should compare with the wages paid in the surrounding community, so we would not have this demoralizing effect upon the unions and upon the workers within the area itself. Those who are working as casual employees in the Department of National Defence are entitled to the same wages as those in other employment. I am sure the minister can understand that if his department is getting wage earners for a similar job in his department at from 20 to 30 cents per hour less than is paid in the civilian field, that is bound to have some effect upon the civilian employees as well as upon departmental employees. I think the government should set an example by maintaining wages in keeping with the wages in the communities themselves.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ralph Osborne Campney: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with consideration of these estimates and then take those of defence production and northern affairs if they are reached.



CRIMINAL LAW


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to revert to motions in order that I might make a correction in a statement I made this morning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This morning the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) asked me, without notice, to say how soon I thought the report of the inquiry concerning criminal sexual psychopaths would be available. In a mistaken recollection of a conversation which I had had with my deputy before my recent illness I said that majority and minority reports were being prepared in connection with this inquiry. This is not correct. It is the other commission presided over by Chief Justice McRuer in which a minority report is in course of preparation.
I think it might be helpful for me to put on the record the present standing of both these commissions. The commissioners appointed to inquire into and report upon whether the criminal law of Canada relating to the defence of insanity should be amended in any respect and, if so, in what manner and to what extent, are Chief Justice McRuer of the high court of justice of Ontario; Dr. Gustave Desrochers, assistant superintendent
Criminal Law
of St. Michel's hospital at the city of Quebec; Her Honour Judge Helen Kinnear, county court judge of the county of Haldimand, Ontario; Dr. Robert O. Jones, professor of psychiatry at Dalhousie University, Halifax; and Joseph Harris, Esquire, president of the Great-West Life Assurance Company of Winnipeg.
The draft majority report of this commission is complete. The majority report will be presented later simultaneously with a minority report which is now in the course of preparation, unless in the meanwhile the differences of opinion between the majority and the minority can be resolved. We hope that the commission's report or reports will be available this autumn.
The commissioners to inquire into and report upon the question whether the criminal law of Canada relating to criminal sexual psychopaths should be amended in any respect and, if so, in what manner and to what extent, are the aforesaid Chief Justice McRuer, Dr. Gustave Desrochers and Her Honour Judge Helen Kinnear.
The hearings of this commission have been completed and on the basis of information which my deputy secured from Chief Justice McRuer this afternoon we hope that the report of the commission will be presented this autumn, but it will not be before September 15.


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

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

Mr. Casileden: What construction is proposed by P.F.R.A. for 1956 on the Saskatchewan portion of the Assiniboine river in order to control flood damage on that river in 1957?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):
Surveys are being made which may result in construction.


BLIND PENSION PAYMENTS
Mr. Follwell: 1.	What were the total payments under the blind pension legislation in each of the years 1953, 1954 and 1955 (a) in Canada; (b) in each province; (c) in the constituency of Hastings South?
2.	How many recipients of blind pensions were there in each of the above years (a) in Canada; (b) in each province; (c) in the constituency of Hastings South?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1. (a) and (b). Under the Blind Persons Act the federal government pays to the provinces 75 per cent of the total blind persons payments in each province. The following figures show the federal payments to the provinces; the provincial share would be about one-third of the federal payment.
Province 1953-54
Alberta .. British Columbia . Manitoba . New
Brunswick

Province Newfound-	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56land	121,952	119,970	126,038Nova Scotia	250,567	247,788	254,604Ontario ... Prince Edward	602,041	607,709	609,974Island ....	28,126	30,516	32,279Quebec . .. Saskatche-	1,057,842	1,028,750	1,036,243wan	
Northwest	125,796	132,670	135,219Territories Yukon	4,537	5,175	6,330Territory .	720	900	1,350Canada .	$2,914,101	$2,886,184	$2,918,4951.	(c). Federal records are not maintained on a constituency basis.2.	(a) and (b).
Number of recipients of blind persons allowance as of March 31, 1956
Province	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56
Alberta	
British Columbia
Manitoba	
New Brunswick .. Newfoundland ...
Nova Scotia	
Ontario	
Prince Edward
Island	
Quebec	
Saskatchewan .... Northwest
Territories	
Yukon Territory . .
Canada	
400	409	415488	474	475411	405	411731	706	717336	338	353718	706	7261,710	1,731	1,71990	95	962,949	2,866	2,905366	374	38913	16	182	2	68,214	8,122	8,230
2. (c). See answer to No. 1 (c) above.

Thursday, July 19, 1956