1956-07-20

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

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Anderson (for Mr. Jutras).


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that yesterday Calgary's largest building company had to lay off a quarter of its labour force because of lack of mortgage funds, and other companies there are in the same position? Is the government now prepared to make any change in its policy in this regard in order to enable house building to go ahead?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to answer the last question in the absence of the Minister of Public Works. As to the former, I am unaware of the facts the hon. member states.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and in his absence to the parliamentary assistant or the Acting Minister of Public Works. I am sorry I have not given notice of this question and perhaps this will be taken as notice.
Has the Minister of Public Works received a letter from Mr. George F. Edwards, president of the senior citizens association of British Columbia, under date of July 10, relative to a refusal of the minister to consent to construction of low rental homes on property made available by the Vancouver city 67509-395
council for such construction, basing his refusal on the ground that elderly citizens should not be segregated? If this is so, will the minister explain his policy concerning housing for senior citizens and will he review his decision concerning the application of the city of Vancouver?


Mr. Maurice Bourget (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the minister has received such a letter but he will be back next week and I will bring this matter to his attention.



BROCKVILLE-LANDSCAPING CONTRACT, CHURCHILL PARK PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. I have not had an opportunity to give him notice but perhaps he would accept this as notice.
Can the minister inform me when Bergstrom Bros, of Clarkson, who received the contract to landscape the Churchill park housing project in Brockville, intend to start the work and when they expect to have it finished? I may say they received the contract in September, 1955, and drew a few loads of dirt-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hayden Stanton: -of which part has washed away and nothing has been done since-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hayden Stanton: -except that a man cut some weeds a few days ago. My question is this. When does the company expect to start the work and when does it expect to finish it?


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear anything that was said by my hon. friend but I will take it as notice after reading it in Hansard.


An hon. Member:: You did not listen, the whole bunch of you.


Hayden Stanton: I would like to direct a supplementary question to the parliamentary assistant. I can quite understand why the assistant did not answer my previous question. Is the minister aware that Island City Greenhouses Limited, a Brockville company

Inquiries of the Ministry whose tender was only $25.50 higher than the tender of Bergstrom Bros., have finished landscaping this spring more lawns and yards than are contained in the Churchill park project?



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister comment on the report in last night's Ottawa Journal, attributed to the highest authority, that the government is planning to increase old age pensions and other federal social security payments? If it is the government's intention to do this, is it not an admission that an increase is needed? If so, why not do it at this session?
Bight Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): There is no foundation for the report that the government is planning to do it either at this session or at the next session.

On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister, supplementary to the question and answer of a few minutes ago? Before the government closes the door to a possible increase in the old age pension, will the Prime Minister consider the needs of our senior citizens and also their hope that even this government will do something to meet those needs without further delay?


Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):: The government considers all these matters and the many other matters that put a strain on the financial resources of all governments at all levels in these days.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask one supplementary question in connection with that. Will the Prime Minister not take into consideration the fact, in connection with the pensions payable to members of the civil service, the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police whose pensions were fixed some time ago, that adjustments have been made under similar circumstances in the United Kingdom and in the United States and that consideration here would seem to be overdue in regard to people who are suffering very greatly as a result of the level being fixed at a time when the dollar was worth much more than it is today?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Consideration has been given to that problem many

times and will continue to be given to the problem. Accurate information as to what has been done elsewhere has been obtained and will continue to be obtained and studied.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since I was unable to give him notice, perhaps he will take it as notice now. Will he comment on the recent developments with regard to the loans to the Egyptian government and inform the house whether Canada's representative on the world bank will receive instructions to press for the continuation of world bank participation?


Walter Edward Harris: I will take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister had his attention drawn to a severe outburst of spruce budworm in the national park at Ingonish? If so, can he inform the house as to any steps that have been taken to deal with this infestation?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Buchanan) drew my attention to this fact two days ago and I obtained a report from the forest biology division of the Department of Agriculture to the effect that there was no real, sudden outburst. There might have been some infestation in Cape Breton Highlands national park. It was nothing that was extraordinary. Anyway, our people there are looking into the matter at the present time.


George Alexander Drew: Then may I take it from the answer of the minister that this subject is actually being examined and that if action is deemed advisable proper steps will be taken?


Jean Lesage: Definitely.



UNITED KINGDOM-NEGOTIATIONS FOR PURCHASE OF URANIUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Those other countries are the other members of NATO and the western powers with whom we are associated in doing our best to maintain peace in the world. We do not think it would be appropriate for Canada to take the responsibility of making a decision that it would be proper to do something to which the other western countries do not seem disposed to take the responsibility of agreeing to contribute.']
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A radio report this morning indicated that representatives of the United Kingdom government would probably be coming to Canada next month to negotiate the purchase of quite large quantities of uranium. Can the minister give the house any report concerning these negotiations?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiation has been under way for some time. I was not aware that a party is coming from the United Kingdom but I am not at all surprised. We anticipate that a contract will be signed and after the contract is signed I shall be glad to advise the house of its provisions.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can secure from the Canadian representative in Moscow something in the way of a transcript of the remarks attributed to Mr. Irvine which were most eulogistic of the democratic system in the U.S.S.R.? Can the minister secure something in the way of a record of the remarks that were made in that regard?


An hon. Member:: Who is Mr. Irvine?


Mr. Coldwell:: I would ask the minister to supply me with a copy as well.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if there has been printed in Moscow a transcript of what Mr. Irvine is reported to have said we will be glad to try to secure it.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Who is he?


An hon. Member:: Is he the president of the C.C.F. party?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement that Canada is making a free gift of 75 Sabre jets 67509-395J
Inquiries of the Ministry to Germany, will the Prime Minister now give consideration to at least selling 24 Sabre jets to the friendly country of Israel?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, that matter has been and still is under serious consideration and the transfer under mutual aid to Germany of Sabre jets will have no effect whatsoever on the decision to be reached in respect to the other matter.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister state why the policy he has now outlined is to give these aircraft to an ex-enemy and not even sell them to a friendly nation?


Mr. SI. Laurent (Quebec East):: Because of the fact that the country to whom this mutual aid has been extended is a member of NATO and it is part of the usual transfers which Canada has been making to its NATO partners under that agreement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister give some general outline of the mystery connected with this matter in so far as the expression he used the other day, that Canada would join with other countries in deciding whether or not these aircraft should be supplied, is concerned? Who are those other countries which are to co-operate with Canada in this regard?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Those other countries are the other members of NATO and the western powers with whom we are associated in doing our best to maintain peace in the world. We do not think it would be appropriate for Canada to take the responsibility of making a decision that it would be proper to do something to which the other western countries do not seem disposed to take the responsibility of agreeing to contribute.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether in view of the difficulty in obtaining pipe for the trans-Canada pipe line the minister would consider approaching Frank McMahon with a request that he make available some of his supplies of pipe to Trans-Canada? Is the minister prepared to answer my question?

Inquiries of the Ministry
Righl Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I assume my hon. friend is intending to be humorous and he was rather funny. I do not think his question calls for an answer from me.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day;


William McLean Hamilton: As a
question supplementary to the one I asked a few minutes ago of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is the minister aware that a major source of supply of pipe for Mr. McMahon was in Great Britain, where a steel strike is not now in progress?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am well aware of that fact. I am also well aware of the fact that Mr. Frank McMahon is just as much in need of pipe as is Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. I am also aware that his pipe is 30-inch inside diameter, whereas the requirement for Trans-Canada is 34-inch inside diameter. I am therefore of the opinion that we can get no help from that particular quarter.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct two questions to the Minister of National Revenue, notice of which I have sent him but probably so recently as to render it not possible for him to answer immediately and he may have to take these questions as notices. Will the minister tell the house how much the maintenance of the Lethbridge income tax office has cost his department during each of the years
1950,	1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956 to date? Will he tell the house how many income tax cases the Lethbridge income tax office has dealt with during each of the years 1950,
1951,	1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956 to date?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I received these questions just as I was coming into the chamber and I shall have to take them as notice to be answered next week.



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP TO AIR POLLUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister in a position to make any report on the investigation being made by his department into the possible

relationship between air pollution and lung cancer and can be say whether those studies include an investigation into the part played by diesel fuel in possible air pollution?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that on matters of health and welfare the hon. gentleman is now directing his question to the responsible minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the Prime Minister not a responsible minister?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that I was glad that in matters of health and welfare the hon. gentleman was directing his question to the responsible minister. I do not take back in any way what I said in that particular. With regard to the question which my hon. friend has asked I may say, as he probably knows, that under the national health program funds are provided to the cancer institute of Canada which is the body that determines what research in the field of cancer shall be undertaken with federal funds. This matter is part of the research cancer program under study.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government that the departments of post office and veterans affairs shall continue, as a permanent state of affairs, to be headed by one minister, or is one of these portfolios being held over until Mr. Gordon has finished his report and can enter the cabinet?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is no portfolio being held over until Mr. Gordon has finished his report. As for the other part of the hon. gentleman's question, the government's decision in the matter will be announced as soon as it is reached.

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 shill 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.


The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening, the discussion was taking place under Canadian army (regular) and general. Have we concluded our discussion on this item?


Mr. Campney:: Last evening the hon.
member for Royal asked for some information in respect of two matters, which I shall be glad to put on Hansard. His first series of questions was with respect to Camp Gage-town. Our expenses at Gagetown to date for construction and for the acquisition of some 425 square miles of land are in round figures $60 million, of which about $12 million was for land. There were 1,228 individual claims involving settlement for land and eight of those are still to be settled. As a matter of fact, I think most of the eight are in litigation. The construction program in the current year will be about $20 million. It is anticipated that the camp will be pretty well in full operation toward the end of next year, although I should like to point out that we are making substantial use of it this year as some 10,000 troops are concentrating there for operational training.
The hon. member for Royal also asked for some statistics with respect to the schools for army dependents in Europe. Last year in Europe we operated four schools, at Soest, Hemer, Werl and Antwerp. These schools were operated by 72 teachers and served 1,691 pupils. The total cost of operation, including rental of the schools, was $410,885.


Major James William Coldwell: Can the minister tell us what is the per capita cost of educating these children, including the provision of the schools?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot at the moment but I will be glad to get it.


William Alfred Robinson: Is that discussion completed? Canadian army, militia, including Canadian officers training corps.


Mrs. Fairclough:: I do not know whether I should have brought this up on the item just under discussion but I should like to ask the minister if any decision has been arrived at with regard to the check-off of amounts assigned for credit union purposes by civilian employees. I understand that an
Supply-National Defence application was made to the department some time ago on behalf of these employees. There are credit unions actively operating in the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt and at a great many air stations throughout Canada. Has the minister taken any steps to give permission to the pay officers in these places to deduct from the employees' pay and remit to the credit union such amounts as they have indicated?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have no recollection of having taken any action but I should like to check that to see whether any recommendation has come forward.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Apparently application
was made to the department early in the year, and in April the credit union association was told that a decision would be made shortly. In the meantime I have not heard any more about it. I understand that the governor in council has authorized regulations to permit officers and men to declare assignments of pay and allowances providing for equal monthly payments for the purposes and to the payees prescribed by the appropriate chief of staff and that at the present time these include the chartered banks and life insurance companies for the payment of policy premiums. The question is whether or not the department will authorize similar payments to credit unions of the employees' choice.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall be glad to look into it.


Mr. Herridge:: Is this the item that deals with the cost of staff colleges?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is really not this item. Perhaps, however, the hon. member would like to ask his question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would. I have here sessional paper No. 90-D which was tabled on June 21, 1956 in response to some questions asked by the member for Winnipeg North. I find that question No. 3 was:
How many graduates of the regular officers training plan entered the regular force of: (a) navy; (b) army; (c) air force, during 1954-55?
Then the same question is asked with respect to 1956, 1957 and 1958. I find the answer to that question is:
3-	(a)	(b)	(c)Navy	Army	Air Force1954	
20	45	341955	
28	67	434.	(a)	(b)	(c)Navy	Army	Air Force1956	
48	74	521957	
54	108	95
Supply-National Defence Then the hon. member asked this question:
5. What was the total cost of operation of the Canadian services colleges during: 1954, 1955 and what will be the estimated cost in 1956, 1957 and 1958?
I find there the answers as follows:
5. The estimated cost of operation of the Canadian services colleges during:
1954-	55	
$3,433,6731955-	56	
4,086,4581956-	57	
4,515,3361957- 58	
Not available
According to the number that have entered the forces from this training plan and according to the quick calculation I have made here, it appears that it is costing us over $30,000 to train each of these cadets to enter the navy, the army or the air force. Am I correct in my analysis of these figures?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the figure is approximately correct. I may say in addition, however, that the fact is that these colleges, especially C.M.R. and Royal Roads and R.M.C. as well are just getting into their stride and we expect the number to increase as they do so with very little additional cost.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister would agree though that $30,000 for training a cadet in any of the sections of the services seems to be a very excessive sum, and one which is in excess of what it cost to train veterans after the first world war. It is about four times as much.


Ralph Osborne Campney: All expenses are undoubtedly up. The cost of training officers in training colleges is up. The cost of training cadets is up. In fact, nearly all the expenditures we have to make are up. That is one of the difficulties we have in operating within our budget and in carrying out all the obligations we must carry out. That is not to say that we are much different from other organizations in the country. However, we have constantly increasing cost in respect of salaries and materials. Then, in addition, we have had to develop these schools; and have had to spend a good deal of money on them. The cost is high, I admit, but I think we can improve the figure and I certainly hope we can increase the output.


Mr. Pearkes:: A few years ago the department set up a committee under the chairmanship of retired Major-General Howard Kennedy in order to reorganize and to review the efficiency of the Canadian militia. The minister made only a brief reference to the militia in his opening remarks. Now that one year of training has passed since the implementation of the Kennedy report, I wonder whether the minister could not now give us a review as to the state of efficiency

of this important branch of the defence services, and particularly with regard to yie numbers to be going into camp this year. I was interested to hear that the militia was going to train more units this year in camp than they had trained in the past. I would like to know regarding their ability to carry out that training, not as far as personnel are concerned but regarding the standard of their equipment at the present time.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, speaking
generally, I am advised by my officials, and I have confirmed some of this advice at first hand by observation myself, the reorganization which followed the intensive examination throughout the country of the militia system by the committee to which the hon. member has referred has resulted in very considerable improvement in the quality of militia training. I understand the equipment which has been issued has also greatly improved. The camp training has certainly improved in quality and in numbers. If I recollect correctly, in 1954, 16,000 attended summer camp; in 1955, approximately 20,000. This year there are approximately 23,000. The strength is down slightly. I have not the figures before me at the moment but it is down very little. I am told that the number of active members in the militia is really up. In other words, there was some internal reorganization. The elimination of what might be termed nominal members of the militia will improve the quality, because the only members of the militia who will profit from the reorganization or from the training are those who are actively interested. I understand further, as regards the arrangements which were made with respect to pay, the arrangements to give assistance in public relations and the arrangements to take care of a good deal of the staff work locally, and generally all the other matters that were dealt with by the committee, while each of which in itself may not be important, their cumulative effect has been such that there is a better training standard, a better feeling and a much greater activity within the militia.
We are trying to improve their equipment as fast as we can, and generally speaking I would say that the appointment of this commission was well worth while. In regard to the numbers of people participating in militia training under present conditions today, we must remember that we are in a very active industrial period. There is a high level of employment, and notwithstanding the inducements that are offered and the benefits of the training, it requires some determination on the part of individuals to devote the time and the energy, which they do, to the carrying out of their duties as members of the militia.


George Randolph Pearkes: As a result of the recommendations of that committee, have certain militia units been allocated as third battalions to regular units? Is it the intention that those personnel of those third battalions should act as third line reinforcements to the regular units of those regular battalions of those regiments, or is it expected that those militia units affiliated with the regular regiment would be considered as operational units themselves, or are they purely units to reinforce regular battalions?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Several militia units are
affiliated with regular battalions of the R.C.R.'s, the Royal 22nd and the P.P.C.L.I. They are not regarded as fully operational units, but they would certainly be a source of support if necessity arose, because they work in very close association with the regular battalions.


George Randolph Pearkes: I notice in the total amount of the estimates here there is an increase of approximately $3 million. I notice that practically the whole of that amount is taken up in pay and allowances to personnel. I presume the pay and allowances of the militia have been increased in the same way as the pay and allowances of the regular forces have been increased?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, they have; they have been increased at the same rate and in the same way as the pay and allowances of the members of the regular forces, although none of the increases in rates of pay of the forces, either regular or militia, is reflected in these estimates because they took place long after these estimates were presented to the house.


George Randolph Pearkes: We may assume, then, that the increase of approximately $3 million in the pay and allowances is to enable more men to be trained this year?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is correct. Incidentally, I might mention that their pay relates very closely to the amount of training so that if they train more they get more pay.


Mr. Nicholson:: Last night the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich gave us a very interesting report, and he made a few suggestions that I think should be emphasized before we pass on to some other item. May I say in passing that when the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the Minister of Labour went to London recently I checked the Parliamentary Guide to And out, if I could, something about the gallantry for which the hon. members received one of the most prized awards in the commonwealth. I find that both are very modest. No mention whatever is made of the gallantry, but I am sure members on all sides of the house are
Supply-National Defence very proud to have some association with these distinguished holders of the Victoria Cross.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich mentioned, when he spoke earlier on the defence estimates, that it seemed to be extremely unlikely that either the west or the Soviet union will use thermonuclear weapons with the idea of carrying out strategic bombing either in the west or in the east. Both sides seem to have reached the realization that the use of that terrible weapon means the destruction of civilization.
In the next paragraph he said, as reported at page 6206 of Hansard:
A few years ago there was the feeling that the Russians might not use the thermonuclear weapons but might start a war in western Europe and use conventional arms. For that reason the commanders of NATO-this government, supported by this side of the house, agreed-were able to provide a strong deterrent of ground troops in western Europe.
I think conditions are changing. Not only does it appear that Russia is changing the emphasis from a war of arms to an economic war,-
Later in another paragraph he went on to say:
I feel that in the light of the changed circumstances It is imperative that this government review its defence policy. The emphasis is being changed from a war of arms to a war of trade. Whilst it is essential that we keep up defences in this country and in western Europe, I feel that we have to be quite certain that we are not overinsuring at the present time.
I think the suggestions made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich have not received sufficient consideration by the Minister of National Defence. In this morning's paper we read that the United States has withdrawn its offer to help Egypt to build the dam. It seems to me the western nations are not facing up to the real challenge that the U.S.S.R. is presenting to the world at the present time. In the mail this morning I received a pamphlet entitled, "Education and Professional Manpower in the U.S.S.R." I gather this has been sent to all hon. members. It is a reprint from "Chemistry in Canada", written by Dr. Garnet T. Page, general manager of the Chemical Institute of Canada. This presents some information that I think has not received sufficient consideration in Canada. There is a picture of the university in Moscow. It gives tables describing the courses for different fields of engineering in Russia, a typical Soviet curriculum in chemical engineering and chemistry, and then it gives tables for Canada, the United States and western Europe.
I have not had time to study these tables at all but it seems to me that since Russia is spending so much of her gross national

Supply-National Defence product in the field of training scientists and engineers we should take careful note of the words of Dr. Page. In one paragraph he says:
The Soviet educational system has been developed into a major arm for ideological and economic world conquest. Thousands of well-trained and politically indoctrinated engineers, scientists, teachers and technicians are being produced for export, to assist in developing the resources of countries outside the present Soviet orbit; and hundreds of thousands more are being prepared to meet domestic industrial needs.
When Mr. James S. Duncan, president of Massey-Harris, spoke to the Canadian Club a few weeks ago he pointed out this challenge. I have a copy of the press release in which he described the new university in Moscow which is situated on 1,100 acres of land on the banks of the Moskva river, and he describes the facilities. According to Mr. Duncan these are the most extravagant university buildings anywhere in the world. He goes on to point out that in 1954 Russia graduated almost 53,000 engineers compared to 23,000 in the United States. These students on graduation, he indicates, had put in 50 per cent more study hours than our students here. It seems to me that poses a challenge which we are not considering as we should.
The minister last night gave us the total amount it is costing us each year to maintain our forces in Germany and if you add on the total amount we spent for the planes that were recently given it seems to me that represents a very large investment. As Dr. Page points out, I think we are falling behind in Canada in the training of sufficient numbers of engineers and scientists and in making them available in our country and others that require the technical know-how we have available.
I read in the newspapers that last winter the Department of Labour called a meeting of all responsible agencies to look at this problem. I wonder if the minister could make any report to the committee as to what conclusions, if any, were reached by the advisory council or the interdepartmental committee that was established to consider whether or not we are graduating sufficient engineers and scientists in Canada to meet our own needs and to meet the challenge that Russia is presenting to the world today.
I would think that if the Minister of National Defence is able to have all the funds he needs, and without any question he has been able to do that, the suggestions made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich last night should be given the most careful scrutiny. If the best authorities are now coming to the conclusion that neither


the west nor the east is going to start a thermonuclear war and that the Canadians are not going to be required in Europe indefinitely, it seems to me more consideration should be given to seeing that Canada will not be handicapped in the years to come by having insufficient engineers and scientists to staff our high schools and universities.
Could the minister give us some report on the progress of the advisory council on professional manpower?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I did not interrupt the hon. member while he was speaking but hon. members should recall that the committee itself has agreed to the manner in which resolution 235 shall be discussed. We have agreed that the chairman shall call the headings and our discussion shall be limited to what is relevant under those headings. I do not see any way in which the hon. member's latter remarks could be called relevant to the militia of the Canadian army and I would therefore suggest that we confine ourselves to the manner in which the committee itself has regulated its work.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in the light of the most useful remarks made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich last night and in view of the comments I have made and the fact that this department does worry about the problem, if the minister prefers to answer later it is quite all right with me, but I think at some point he should be prepared to answer the question I raised.


William Alfred Robinson: May I point out that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich made his remarks while we were discussing the heading "Canadian army, regular and general".


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting to take part in this debate. I understood we were still on that item. There was a great deal of noise in the house this morning.


William Alfred Robinson: The discussion under the heading "Canadian army, regular and general" was completed by mutual consent some considerable time ago and several members directed questions to the minister under the heading we are now discussing, "Canadian army-militia, including Canadian officers training corps", before the hon. member for Mackenzie rose to his feet. Now, I did not interrupt him but I am convinced that hon. members would feel his remarks are not relevant under the heading we are now discussing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I certainly did not hear the proceedings. It has been very noisy in the chamber this morning. I have been waiting since last night to follow the

hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and I took the first opportunity that was presented to me but before we finish the item there will be an opportunity for me to repeat this and I am quite prepared to do that.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the Canadian army militia completed?


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: No, Mr. Chairman. I, too, was very pleased to hear some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich last evening. In one case he referred particularly to the excellent food the overseas brigade was receiving. It came to me as somewhat of a surprise to read an article in the Hamilton Spectator of July 12 written by a well respected writer, Mr. Kingsley Brown. This article deals with the conditions in connection with food so far as the militia camps are concerned.
I know, sir, that you do not like these things being read so I may have to follow the legal method of saying that I will adopt these words as my own, but I think at least a few paragraphs of this article might very well be read into the record. Here is what this writer says:
Down at Camp Niagara, where several thousand citizen-soldiers of the militia are taking their annual summer training, it was taking more than an orderly officer's bark to stem the flood of complaints we heard early this week about the food and the way it is served.
You know how the orderly officer goes around and inquires if there are any complaints and dares anybody to speak up. The article continues in this way:
Having spent several days living at camp Niagara we can say that the complaints were justified. Food was of a poor quality-we were served black potatoes that had obviously been frozen or diseased -the coffee-when it was available to those who turned up during the first hour of the mess period, was so cold it wasn't worth drinking If you did drink it, the effect was more emetic than stimulating.
Glassware and dishes weren't clean. They may have been dunked swiftly into water and then put out to dry, but they certainly weren't washed. Not those we sampled, at any rate.
The writer goes on in a very serious article and concludes in this way:
There is simply no excuse whatever for Canadian soldiers, at a home training camp in peacetime, being served in this fashion.
Canadian militiamen in training aren't looking for any fancy catering. They don't expect French chefs. They don't look for more than the normal camp mess furnishings.
But they have a right to expect good wholesome food, served up promptly in clean utensils. If the Canadian army is really interested in having its militiamen come back to camp next year, it will have to see that they get it.
That is an article which appeared in the Hamilton Spectator of July 12, 1956, written by Mr. Kingsley Brown. I agree with the rules which state that we should not quote
Supply-National Defence directly articles like this, but if there is no committee we must hammer and hammer away in order to get direct factual evidence in connection with conditions of this kind. I say that the opposition is left with no alternative but to bring forward the best evidence we can get.
This article by a respected writer is an indication of a condition which I think is no credit to the department. I submit it is something which demands an investigation and it certainly warrants a reply. As I said last night, I am pleased that this type of condition did not prevail overseas according to the reports we have, but apparently it does exist here. The important factor is that these men are part-time volunteers and many of them give these services at considerable inconvenience to themselves. If there is a real desire in the department to make use of the militia as a really active group within the defence set-up, then this type of condition should not exist. I ask that the minister consider some type of investigation so that there will be no necessity for articles of this sort appearing in our newspapers.


Mr. Philpott:: Mr. Chairman, surely we do not take any unsupported statement by a writer in the press as being the gospel truth. A lot of plain, downright nonsense appears in the press from coast to coast. I have contributed a good deal of nonsense myself in the 33 years I have been writing for the press, but I think my batting average may not be too bad.
The evidence presented by the hon. member for York West certainly does not tally with information I have had from people who have gone to the same type of camp. It may very well be that the cooks in Ontario are backward, dirty and messy people who do not clean up the cook room, and perhaps the cooks whom we have in British Columbia and Alberta camps are of a naturally higher order as one would expect in western Canada, but certainly the information the hon. member has given does not tally with the information we get in British Columbia with regard to militia and other types of army camps. I saw some of them last year. I see my old friend, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, who will remember what the conditions were like in some of the army camps during the first year of the first world war. The cooks in all types of army service camps today are just so much better than they were 33 years ago that no one is warranted in opening his mouth about them.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should have to sit and listen to that type of reply on behalf of

Supply-National Defence the Department of National Defence. As a matter of fact, the statement by the hon. member for Vancouver South is the best evidence we could have that we need a committee on national defence to investigate these things firsthand. I prefaced my remarks by saying that I was not sympathetic to the practice of reading information of this kind into the record, but it is the only weapon we have, it is the only method available of getting information across to this committee. I am surprised that the hon. member for Vancouver South should stoop to slandering a member of the profession to which he belongs.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I may say that the observations of the hon. member for York West aroused nostalgic memories of the days when I was a private in the rear ranks and of the food that we used to get at that time. I am surprised at the report he has read because I have had no complaints of any such conditions obtaining, either in the regular army or the militia camps.
I know from personal experience that the rations, the cooking and serving of food today are extremely good, whatever branch of the service is involved. I understand also that the same rations are issued to the militia when they are in camp as are issued to the regular army. I sampled the food in Korea and Europe and various other places and had to do some strenuous reducing as a result of that sampling.
There is one difficulty which is sometimes encountered in that the militia do not have the same access to thoroughly trained army cooks as does the regular army. This may be one occasion where that has happened and where the cooking staff has been below average. I shall look into it, because it is something I do not approve of and do not want to see continued.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The writer quoted by
the hon. member for York West is known to me. He is a highly reputable writer and I know he does not colour his article. If he reported in that way I take it that what he reported is true. The minister has said that as far as the militia is concerned they do not have the trained cooks they have in the army. Are these services not supplied by commercial caterers and, if so, what firm is doing the catering at Camp Niagara?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand the army
does use caterers on some occasions and in some camps. I do not know who is doing the catering in this particular camp but I shall look into it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If there is a caterer,
would the minister's statement still hold that

the rations available to the militia are the same as those available to the regular army? Would the caterers be instructed as to what they were to serve or would they use their own judgment?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The rations are issued by
the army. A caterer would be provided with the rations which would be the same as those issued to the regular force.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Then it would appear
to have been bad preparation?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would think so.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I assume that since the
item we are now on includes the C.O.T.C., my remarks were in order although previously I did make reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. The minister told us last year that it costs around $65,000 to train a pilot for the air force. This service is very attractive to a large group of young Canadians and I should like to know what consideration has been given to the problem which apparently is occurring in various parts of Canada in connection with an apparent shortage of trained scientists and engineers. The C.O.T.C. is in very close touch with problems in the universities. The minister's department is attracting a very large number of the ablest young people in the education field in Canada. Would he indicate what progress has been made in the discussions of this advisory committee regarding this problem?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sorry, but the committee to which the hon. member has referred is not associated with my department. We are naturally concerned with the number of scientific people available in Canada, in two ways: first, as engineers and technicians in the services; and, second, as pure scientists, if you will, and applied scientists in the defence research board. We get a fair share of these people, but as to the numbers who should be trained in Canada and how many are being trained in Canada-the second part of the hon. member's question-I am afraid I am not in a position to advise him, nor as to what general steps are being taken, what are regarded as possible or what the need is.
We are in touch with these matters at the two points I have mentioned. The defence research board is doing a good deal in this field to provide scholarships and to induce people to carry out work within its jurisdiction. We are educating a number through the officers' training plan and the various plans at universities, but that is only a small segment of a very large picture, and I do not think I am competent to make observations or draw conclusions on the larger picture.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Could the minister indicate what considerations are given as to whether there is a growing need for pilots, for example, in the light of the change in the world situation as described by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich? If we are not going to be engaged in the type of warfare experienced during the first and second world wars, it seems to me that at some point consideration should be given as to whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Health and Welfare should not be given a larger percentage of the personnel who are being trained in Canada. I understand that all the departments of government were called in to have a look at this problem last winter, and there should be some report at some time as to whether any shift in emphasis is going to be made.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the committee to which the hon. member referred and the research program to which he referred are under the jurisdiction or guidance of my colleague, the Minister of Labour. If I may be permitted, I shall make a few observations about the other part of his speech, the part in which he referred to the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich last night. We are, both as a government and as a department, very much concerned, of course, with the developments that are taking place today in the world, though it is probably too soon to evaluate them thoroughly. We have established our position, along with the other members of NATO, on the basis that the deterrent effect of our own capacity to reply in kind is the best defence we have and probably the best defence we can have. It is one thing for our possible opponents to launch an attack, either with thermonuclear weapons or without, as was indicated as a possibility by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, if they know there is no great defence against it or no great retaliatory capacity to meet it. If they do launch an attack, however, they know that they will get two for one or a very heavy counterattack. We must not forget that.
They are seeking now to shift the conflict into the commercial, economic and political fields, but I suggest that we should proceed very cautiously in accepting that. I also suggest that, as we have built our strength through NATO, we should consider any change in our attitude through NATO. Individually we may have different views to some extent within NATO, but I believe very strongly that the events of the past few years have amply demonstrated that we must keep NATO operating as one unit, whether it is in the field of defence or whether it is in the field of economics and associated activities. I think
Supply-National Defence that our strength will depend on the extent to which we are able to do that.
NATO is not static. It can change its emphasis and its approach if the facts warrant. I would conclude by saying: First, we should be very sure that the facts warrant any change; and, second, such change should be made only through NATO.


Mr.   Pailerson@: It was not my intention to enter the debate on the estimates of this particular department. My military experience is very limited. In fact, the only knowledge I have been able to glean in the matter was in my high school days when we took rifle drill with the old Lee Enfield rifles and were instructed in the niceties of bayonet warfare by a military sergeant-major whom most of us feared and some of us sincerely disliked. So I do not feel qualified to speak on this particular matter.
However, I should like to commend the minister for the expression of opinion to which we have just listened. Having listened to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich last night and to the hon. member for Mackenzie this morning, we appreciate of course their viewpoints, and we appreciate the splendid record of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich; but certainly I feel we ought to be very careful in the appraisal of the situation at the present time.
With regard to the suggestion that it may be time to withdraw troops from Germany, I realize that there may be something desirable in that, but certainly we ought to take a look at the other side of the picture. It may be true that the Soviet union is changing its strategy and moving into the field of economic and political warfare, but personally I am not convinced that they have given up the idea of military aggression and expansion. If they can divert our attention, get us to lower our guard and get us to neglect our defences, I should say that is exactly what they want us to do. Certainly if there is any suggestion that we let down on the military aspect of this proposition, I would say that we ought to approach that in a very cautious manner.
In an article in this morning's Globe and Mail, I believe, Chancellor Adenauer of West Germany expressed his views regarding the possibility of the withdrawal of the NATO forces from his country. He was very much perturbed over the situation. Certainly I should like to state again that, in any thought along this angle, this matter should certainly be studied very seriously lest we succumb to the temptation to take an easier route and thereby let down in our defence system.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure that no one in this house is more qualified to speak on

Supply-National Defence this subject with which we dealt last evening than the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. Indeed, I am of those who believe that the statement he made last evening has been rather more loosely interpreted than the actual wording of his remarks based on his recent experience. Certainly there is no one in the house who will be misled by the smiles that have taken the place for the moment of the snarls of communism, but no one can lose sight of the fact that some change or detour has been made by the U.S.S.R. in recent times. The question of defence still remains pre-eminent, and as I understood the hon. member's remarks last evening in no way did he take a contrary view. Nevertheless he did suggest that in the change that has taken place in the U.S.S.R. there is a challenge to free enterprise and private enterprise everywhere in the world on the part of the U.S.S.R. in its new trade policy.
In order that the people of this country will not be misled by communism our newspapers make a commanding and important contribution to the building of public sentiment. I should have liked to hear the hon. member for Mackenzie comment on the reported speech of Mr. William Irvine, a former member of this house, who, if reported correctly, made an irresponsible speech, a speech dangerous because of its nature, a speech in which in fulsome words he warmly commended the U.S.S.R. for its high grade democracy. I hope we shall have a copy of that speech, for it is one of those things that will be used by the U.S.S.R. as a propaganda means to indicate how wonderful things are under communism, however divergent that view may be from the actual facts.
Sir, I rise for the purpose of paying a particular tribute to the foreign language press of this country. Other than the 15 or so communist papers that are published, the remainder of the 140 foreign language papers are making a wonderful contribution in their stand against communism and also in meeting the kind of propaganda to which I have just made reference. I should like to ask the minister this question. What was the total amount expended last year on advertising by the Department of National Defence? I have a question on the order paper in that regard and I should like the minister to give me an answer thereto. It is question No. 551.
I believe that the non-English and nonFrench press of this country, other than the communist press, deserves a fair and more reasonable share of the national advertising than it has been receiving in the past. The


foreign language press has a reading public among the peoples of the various languages represented by that press and it deserves at least a reasonable and fair share of the national advertising done by the government of Canada. I do not mean lay way of a subsidy or honorarium, but it would give that press the means of continuing the work it is doing to meet the infiltration among foreign language groups in which communism is continually engaged.
I should like the minister to say first of all what was the total amount spent by his department on national advertising, recruiting advertising, during the last year, or in the last two years if he has the information, and how much has been paid to the foreign language press. Personally I feel that the foreign language press, the non-communist group, and I re-emphasize that, is doing a great and valuable service to Canada and also for the preservation of the democratic way of life. Relieving that, I feel that every consideration should be given not only by the Department of National Defence but by other departments of the government to preserving this press in the work it is doing, not by handouts or by assistance but simply by the allocation of a reasonable and fair share of national advertising.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sorry that I have not been able to answer in detail the question asked by the hon. member because it is taking a good deal of time to collect and check the information, but for the calendar year 1955 the total amount of the advertising for recruiting purposes which we placed in the press was $1,605,000 for the three services. I have not got the figure in front of me but my recollection is that the estimate-


John George Diefenbaker: Approximately the same the year before.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think so, and during the fiscal year in which we are now engaged I think we reduced the total by something like $400,000. I will try to expedite the other phase of the answer in which the hon. member is interested.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like to revert to the matter of messing as far as militia camps are concerned. My information with respect to Alberta, contrary to that of the member for Vancouver South, is that where caterers are employed there have been a considerable number of complaints. The army rations are extremely good and adequate, and if there are reasonably good cooks they can prepare extremely wholesome and good meals from those rations. However, I rather doubt whether the minister's information is correct that these caterers are all issued with army rations and

then go ahead and prepare the meals from them. If my information is correct, in some cases at least they receive a per diem allowance and then feed the men out of that. I think it is under those circumstances particularly that complaints and difficulties arise as far as messing at militia camps is concerned. In any event, it seems to me that where there have been complaints and difficulties with respect to feeding of men at militia camps the caterers who have been in charge where these complaints arise should not be re-employed.
I do not know upon what basis these contracts are entered into. I do not know whether or not the contract is given to them for the whole course of the camp and, no matter what kind of food they put out, they continue to have the messing contract. But if that is the case, it should be issued on the basis that if the food is not satisfactory they are finished and somebody else goes in. I wonder whether the minister can just tell us what the provisions are in that regard. As has been indicated by other members, in order to attract members of the militia to these camps, it is absolutely essential that the best possible meals that can be prepared and given to the men under camp conditions should be provided. These people are taking their holidays when they are at these camps. Certain it is that if they are not reasonably well fed they are not going to come back the next year.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I may say that I agree entirely with the hon. member for Calgary North. I am told that what I observed a few minutes ago is true, namely that we supply the rations from the army in each case to military camps and that they are the same as the regular rations. In many camps we have a catering contract. When we want a catering contract entered into we make a requisition on the Department of Defence Production who call for tenders in the usual way. Probably the per capita amount to which the hon. member has referred is the figure for service, supplying equipment and doing all the things which must be done to prepare and serve the food. In view of the observations that have been made here, the matter should be looked into. From my own experience I certainly agree that if you want men to go to camp, you must feed them well. That situation obtains in any camp, whether it be a lumber camp or any other camp where people do strenuous outdoor work. If you do not feed them well, you are going to have dissatisfaction. I shall certainly be glad to have this matter reviewed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is one other question I should like to ask in this connection. If the rations are in all cases supplied to these
Supply-National Defence caterers, is there any means to ensure that the rations are actually served to the people there in the camp and that this catering company does not take part of those rations oil in order to feed some civilian workers for whom they are also catering? That is something which is quite possible.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that in each camp there is a catering officer from our services whose job it is to see to it that just that thing does not happen.


John Horne Blackmore: Since the chairman, I think very wisely, has allowed us to revert to discussion of a former matter, and since the question of what the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich said last night has been given some consideration and perhaps has had placed upon it an interpretation which he had no intention of having placed upon it, I think it is only fitting that I draw to the attention of the house and of the people throughout the country this important statement which appeared on September 19, 1955. As others have already said, I think the great danger is that we shall begin to "take things too easy".
This is a statement by Nikita S. Khrushchev, secretary of the communist party in Russia, as reported in the New York Herald Tribune of September 19, 1955. I am quoting from a book entitled "An Idea to Win the World" by Peter Howard.	The only
authority I have is this book but I am quite confident that the book is correct. Here are the words:
Russia's smiles are sincere, but this doesn't change our conviction that Communism will triumph throughout the world.
We will win, but we will not have to go to war about it.
We told Dr. Adenauer very frankly that Western Germany was going the way of capitalist decay. The way of the future is the way of the German Democratic Republic (Communist East Germany). Eventually all Germany will see the right way.
They say in the West that something has changed since the Geneva conference. They say that the Soviet leaders smile, but that their actions do not match their smiles. But the smiles are sincere. They are not artificial. We wish to live in peace. But if anyone thinks that our smiles mean that we abandon the teachings of Marx and Lenin or abandon our Communist road, then they are fooling themselves. You might as well say that Easter always falls on Tuesday.
We are for co-existence. But we are also for the growth of Communism. The only reason we are for co-existence is that in actual fact we are confronted with the reality of two different systems. You capitalists go your way so long as you do not see that it is the way of the blind.
Victory for Socialism? We don't have to go to war to obtain this victory. Peaceful competition will be enough. We will see who is right. If you really think (addressing the capitalist world) that your system is not too old and rotten, if you believe that it is really possible to keep in
6234	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence the race, go ahead and try and compete. But the truth is on the side of our people. Our people do not depend on your love or your hate.
Now I should like to draw a matter to the attention of the people throughout the country and of those in the house who have not had this fact impressed upon them. If Khrushchev were speaking as a Russian in that speech and if he represented Russia, we might say, "Well, the Russian people will probably change their minds". But Khrushchev is not speaking as a Russian. He is speaking as a member of the communist conspiracy. There are not more than seven million or eight million of these people in Russia, I am told. However, they dominate the whole of Russia with its 200 million people, they dominate China and they will dominate every area that will come under their control.
Who are these people? They are peoples whose minds will not change. They are people who are not of our race. They are alien people. Someone asked me yesterday if I could give an idea of who they are. May I say that two years ago I clearly implied who they are. They are Turko-Mongo-lian Reds. There will be those who will laugh, but the laugh will be on the other side of their faces when they get a little bit more knowledge. So many people, because they do not happen to know the facts, assume that nobody else knows them. In all our dealings in Canada as a whole and in this house, let us just bear in mind the fact that we are not dealing with a people whose blood to any extent resembles ours at all but that we are dealing with a group of alien people who are definitely aiming to rule the world.


Elmore Philpott: I hope the hon. member makes it clear that he is not referring in any way to Turkey, because he knows very well that he has already given offence to Turkey in that regard.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not know that I have ever heard of the Turks calling themselves Turko-Mongolians or Turko-Mongolian Reds. Let us be realistic. The hon. member raised that matter last year. Two years ago I did not say "Turks". I said "Turko-Mongolian Reds". That is an absolutely different thing.


Elmore Philpott: As long as everybody understands that, I am content.


John Horne Blackmore: I hope everybody understands that now. I have put it just as clearly as words can make it here on the floor of the house. You find such groups as that of Chinese Turkestan. Turks are all over the place. But these are Turko-Mongolian Reds. That means, Mr. Chairman, that


they are descendants of Esau. I hope that is perfectly clear. I am not going to take the occasion to show that fact from Scripture, but it is just as clear as can be, to a person who knows the Bible.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Just before we go any further, I wonder whether I might make a suggestion to the committee. We all know that item 235 is an all-embracing one and that, if we get very technical, we can say that any discussion dealing with defence is in order on item 235. However, I think it was agreed by the committee, for its own convenience, that at a certain stage we would discuss the matter item by item. I also pointed out at the time that the item itself will subsequently be referred to the committee. As found at page 6190 of Hansard I said this:
If it is generally agreed-
-and I think I had tacit consent-
-by the committee I shall call each subheading in the details, and when the discussion on that has been exhausted we shall proceed to the next. After we have gone through all the details item 235 will then be submitted to the committee.
My purpose in interjecting these remarks is that if we are dealing with a specific heading such as the army militia or the sea cadets, I think the whole committee will find it simpler if we confine our remarks to that, and then if we have any general remarks at the end, the item must still be submitted to the committee before it can be carried.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there anything further under army militia?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the situation of the militia artillery regiments, and I wonder whether the minister can tell us what equipment those regiments have at the present time? I refer, of course, to medium regiments, field regiments, light ack-ack and heavy ack-ack.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot give the hon. member the information unit by unit or class by class. I shall endeavour to get that. I can give him a general statement as to some of the equipment the militia has.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am referring to the guns that these regiments are supplied with and the quantity of those guns.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, generally speaking, I understand we have available for the militia at the present time approximately 200 field artillery guns, including 35 105-millimetre howitzers. The remainder are mostly 25-pounders, and these are gradually being replaced now by 105-millimetre guns.

As to the breakdown between regiments, I am sorry I have not that available but I shall try to get it for the hon. member. We also have a considerable number of 90-millimetre ack-ack guns, probably 150.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I should like to know is how many guns on the average each medium regiment has in its possession for training purposes, how many 25-pounder guns each field regiment has and how many each light ack-ack regiment has of whatever guns it has at the present time-I presume they are Bofors-and how many of those 90-millimetre heavy ack-ack guns a heavy ack-ack regiment has.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand the issue of those guns depends on the general officer commanding, and is generally referable to the number of people training and the amount of training done. The present scale of 25-pounder entitlement is four to a regiment in one battery locations; six per regiment in three battery locations; eight for the regiment in four battery locations; and 10 for the regiment in five battery locations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then, in connection with field regiments, what is the situation so far as medium regiments are concerned.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I will have to get that for the hon. gentleman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Has not the minister the figures in regard to the heavy ack-ack and light ack-ack regiments?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, I have not that here but I can get it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that these figures should be available when this committee meets. There should be no difficulty so far as supplying the information is concerned. One of the difficulties in carrying on the artillery training in any sort of realistic manner has been the fact that the artillery regiments have not been supplied with a sufficient amount of equipment and a sufficient number of guns, and so forth. Before the war when we were equipped with the 25-pounder and the 4-5 howitzer guns, each battery had its full complement of guns and there was no difficulty, as far as the battery was concerned, about going out to the nearest piece of vacant ground and doing the deployment and going through the general artillery procedures, in other words, training, so that in the event of mobilization for war the unit could go ahead and operate. That situation has never prevailed since the second great war as far as the artillery is concerned. A battery has been supplied with two guns, or one gun, probably, and it just could not carry out its
Supply-National Defence training in any sort of reasonable, practical or realistic manner. I had hoped that this situation would be corrected. Apparently the 25-pounder is now being withdrawn and is to be replaced when they become available, from what the minister said yesterday, with 105-millimetre guns. In the meantime, I would be interested to know what the situation is if it should become necessary to mobilize any of these militia artillery regiments? Are there sufficient 25-pounder guns; are there sufficient 4-5 or 5-5 medium guns to enable those regiments, or really any number of them, to mobilize and go ahead with training at least with that equipment?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that generally speaking it is felt by the officials that the current mobilization plan could be met with respect to guns if mobilization were required.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Might I just pursue this a little further? We have shipped overseas to our NATO allies very large numbers of the 25-pounder guns which we held at the end of the second great war. How many of those 25-pounder guns do we still hold? In other words, what is our reserve of these field guns, which are the only ones we have so far as the militia is concerned?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the hon. member knows that we do not give out and have not given out the number of items of any particular part of current equipment. I think that has been generally accepted in the past; it has ever since I have been here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have the information on the number of those guns that we had at the end of the second great war. For a considerable time now the number has been gradually reduced, and the minister apparently thinks it is a breach of security to give out the numbers that are left. I think in this committee we should be given the number of those guns that we have in order to know whether those militia artillery regiments, in the event of mobilization, could be equipped with guns or could not. I have been rather alarmed for some considerable time. As a matter of fact, I pointed out in this committee that since the second world war we have been constantly reducing the amount of our army equipment by shipping it to our NATO allies and at the same time not replacing it with what was looked upon as more up to date equipment, and this has been particularly the case in so far as artillery equipment is concerned.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does that conclude discussion on army, militia? We shall proceed to the next item, Royal Canadian Army cadets.

Supply-National Defence


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring up a matter which I think should be brought to the minister's attention. There is in Hamilton at the Westdale collegiate a Major H. A. Inman, who may be known to the minister, who has for many years trained the cadets there in rifle shooting. He has had a remarkable amount of success with those boys, and in the last three years eight of the 12 cadets who have gone to Bisley have been trained by him. Last year some of his cadets shot on the senior Bisley team. He has had a long and notable record in training these young people to go over to the Bisley shoots. It has been suggested to me by some of the citizens of Hamilton, inasmuch as an officer goes with these cadet teams, that in considering the appointment of someone to go with the team another year the minister might very well take into consideration sending with the team this outstanding officer who has such a fine record in training these young men.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall we pass on to the next heading?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Depuiy Chairman: Northwest highway system.


Mr. Barnett:: A short time ago there was a report about a serious washout on the northwest highway caused by flooding, I understand. I wonder if the minister would give us a brief report on that situation and indicate to us perhaps in a specific manner the situation that did develop and what was done to cope with it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I know that each year we have a series of these surprise floods and washouts. I frankly was not aware that they had started yet; usually it is a little later than this time of the year. I am unable to report on the specific case to which the hon. member referred. I understand a report is being prepared for me but it has not arrived at my desk as yet.
We have 132 bridges on the highway and since 1946 the army has been replacing them with permanent structures. We estimate that 98 bridges will require replacement within the next 20 years. Two large ones are under construction now, the Slims river bridge which is 966 feet long and the Nisutlin bridge which is 1,750 feet long. Until we get permanent bridges we are likely to have these recurring washouts.
I understand that flash floods in the area of the northwest highway are about as bad as any that occur anywhere on the continent. It is only with great difficulty that the army engineers are able to keep the highway open
[The Deputy Chairman.]

practically all the time but every midsummer we do have these recurring washouts. As I said, I am sorry I do not have a report on the specific instance in question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I take it from the minister's remarks that the washouts that are reported are not more than what are normally expected during certain seasons of the year?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes. A couple of years ago I think we had a greater number than for some years before or since but I have had no report that there is likely to be an unusual amount of this sort of thing this year.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, because in certain quarters I have been regarded as the parliamentary assistant to the Liberal member for the Yukon and because it is impossible for him to be in his seat at the present time, I know he would like you to know that he feels the highway is being run in a very efficient manner and he is very well satisfied with it. As a matter of fact, I am not making this statement to get in good with the minister because I will probably have a brick for him later on.
The Depuiy Chairman: Does that conclude the northwest highway system?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Depuiy Chairman: Northwest Territories and Yukon radio system; shall we pass it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Depuiy Chairman: Royal Canadian Air Force-regular and general.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions under this heading. First of all, the minister in a passing reference the other day made the statement that active consideration of an increase in the flying pay for members of the R.C.A.F. aircrew is under consideration. I am wondering if at this time the minister could give us more information as to the nature of this increase in flying pay?
Some reference was made yesterday to the fact that the Canadian army is the highest paid army of any of the NATO forces. The strange anomaly in the military pay scheme of things has been the failure to bring flying pay into line with general post-war developments in aviation and with increases in the United States air force in particular as well as the R.A.F.
I hope that if the matter is under consideration we are thinking of the problem of our being close to the United States border. Our aircrew is serving under somewhat similar conditions and that situation is more

than likely to increase as we move toward the closer co-ordination that would be necessary under the continental air defence plan for North America. Is it possible at this stage for the minister to give us a further insight into the nature of that proposed increase?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, the subject matter of the hon. member's question has been under consideration for quite some time. We have made studies of the comparable figures in the United States air force and in the British air force and have weighed and considered factors which obtain in our own air force. We have practically completed the submission to the treasury board in respect of this matter. I do not want to be held in contempt by the treasury board which still has to deal with the matter by disclosing our proposed figures and also because of the fact that before the rates come into effect there may be changes, but I can assure the hon. member we are approaching the point of action after a long and intensive study in which all these factors have been very carefully weighed.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I have a related question here. I notice that on page 19 of the white paper in the last paragraph, paragraph 61, reference is made to the problem of retaining in the services certain categories of personnel and a hint is given that action is being taken to rectify this problem.
I wonder if the minister has under active consideration some means which would reduce the wastage in the services especially of professional men. My understanding is that qualified engineers in particular do not feel their financial situation is in any way comparable to their opposite numbers in civil life. This situation, of course, is aggravated by the fact owing to industrial development and other things there is a scramble in industry for qualified engineers and this automatically creates a very great problem for the services in retaining qualified men especially in this branch.
I would like to think that some definite step is being taken to meet this problem, even perhaps employing engineers as civilians with special rates of pay or else by introducing a scheme of professional pay which would give them a rate somewhat comparable to their opposite numbers in civil life.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could give some consideration to a grievance I have at Gimli in connection with the maintenance crew. They put in 44 hours a week. They work 44 hours or six days and then they have two days off. That is, they work 44 hours or they work 6 days and then
Supply-National Defence get two days off. If they have to work in any other part of the service they get holidays off. When this man works his 6 days, if Dominion day comes in that week it is not recognized, while another employer who has to work will get time and one-half.
The whole thing is quite complicated and I do not want to take up the time of the committee in explaining it, but if any of the minister's officials will get in touch with me I will be only too glad to give them details and perhaps I can do a more effective job that way than I can here in committee.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall be very glad to arrange for suitable officials to meet the hon. member, or I shall meet him myself. I am always glad to see him. We will see if we can get to the root of his trouble and determine what can be done about it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have one or two questions I would like to ask the minister in respect to the rates that are paid to civilian employees. There was some discussion under the general item as to rates paid to prevailing rate employees and whether they are in line with those currently being paid in various areas, but I thought I would defer my questions until we got to the air force because that happens to be the branch of the service with which I have had the most contact.
What is the principle that is followed to decide whether people in certain occupations shall be considered as classified employees or as prevailing rate employees? For instance, diesel foremen, diesel mechanics and diesel operators are in the prevailing rate category while stationary engineers and telephone operators are in the classified category. I would point out to the minister that there seems to be a monotonous regularity in the appearance of advertisements for stationary engineers and watchmen and caretakers in the stations on the westerly and northerly parts of Vancouver island. I do not know just how many of these advertisements have appeared in the course of the last month or so, but the reason for this may be that these people are in the classified category whereas the rates they would receive if they were in the prevailing rate category might be higher. While the government has been tardy at times in bringing up the prevailing rates to meet those paid in the area, it might be that the rates are still better than those paid to classified employees doing the same work. I should like to know how this line of demarcation is arrived at.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I understand the position on the civilian side, the prevailing rate scale is usually easy to determine. We try to keep up with the rates paid generally in

Supply-National Defence the area. But there are certain people who may be doing the same work.-this is a bit confusing

and yet their positions are handled through the civil service as permanent positions in the classified category.
I must confess that there have been a number of occasions when I have found it difficult to determine the line where one begins and the other leaves off. In connection with the prevailing rate category, the Department of Labour makes surveys of different areas and advises us what we should pay in those areas. If we are paying that rate, that is the end of it; if we are not paying that rate, we bring it up to the rate recommended. It may be that some of the movement of tradesmen to which the hon. member has referred is due to the fact that possibly we are a little behind the going rates in certain areas. They are always fluctuating and while we do not try to lead the parade, we do try to catch up and eventually we do.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Am I correct in assuming that as far as classified positions are concerned the same rate is applicable in all points in Canada?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is correct.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In the case of stationary engineers, the general rate paid in British Columbia might be a little higher than that paid in other parts of Canada and that might be one reason why there seems to be a recurring problem in connection with the employment of stationary engineers. I am using that as a concrete example as they seem to be always looking for this type of employee.


Ralph Osborne Campney: One reason why we are looking for stationary engineers is that we have been doing a great deal of construction work. Classified positions are supposed to pay the same salary anywhere in Canada but probably the rates are lower in some localities. There is another factor which confuses the issue further and that is still the number of grades in each classified position. Then there are supervisors who include in their work work of other categories as well. The schedules are very complicated and I certainly do not pretend to be an authority on them.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Elmore Philpott: I see the hon. member for Prince Albert in his seat. I have some remarks that may affect him, and I want to make them while he is still in the house. 
I think it was a great privilege for those of us who were on the trip last year overseas to the NATO parliamentary conference to be able to go on afterwards to our troops in Germany and particularly to visit our air division in southern France and southern Germany. I confess that just about this time last year I played hookey and neglected my duties here for about three weeks before that conference to travel in different parts of Europe, and I was very fortunate to be in western Europe at the time of the biggest sham battle, as we used to call them when I was younger, in the history of the world. That is the one that they call "Carte Blanche", in which the whole action was fought under as nearly realistic warlike conditions as it was possible to make them. It began with a simulated attack from east of the iron curtain, and the minute it began everything went into action right across the continent of Europe from Norway to the Mediterranean and the Black sea. The fighting was all carried out under service conditions.
As the hon. members for Calgary North and Prince Albert will remember, when we were privileged to visit our forces in Germany and southern France we had the great privilege of being briefed by the commanders of our first Canadian air division. I also had the great privilege of taking a good deal of time off and studying the actual reports of this carte blanche manoeuvre, and I think it was one of the most instructive things of modern times. I shall not trespass on the good will of the house today except to say that, from the official reports published, if it had been a real war and not just a pretending war, at the end of 48 hours no military formation of any kind by land, sea and air would have been able to carry on as an organized military entity.
But the part that particularly impressed me, as a Canadian M.P. visiting our first Canadian air division, apart from the natural attraction of having that wonderful visit with those very wonderful men, was to find the actual results of what took place in that carte blanche exercise. The actual statistics show that, whereas the Canadian air division competed with all other allied air divisions on a basis of equality, man for man and plane for plane our R.C.A.F. men and our R.C.A.F. units did 20 per cent better than any other NATO unit. When we asked the commanders and the staff officers responsible for that really wonderful performance what the reason was, they said with characteristic modesty that they thought that the Canadian was just as good as anybody else fighting on either side of that pretended battle line but they thought that the Canadian planes were a little better because they had found that

the Orenda engines stood up better under actual combat conditions and were so much easier to service that our men were able to get back in the air for 20 per cent more sorties than similar units of any other allied country.
As I see my old friend the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich there, I might say that I raised somewhat the same point as he raised yesterday of the possible future withdrawal from Europe of some of the forces that we had there.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I rise on a question of privilege? I never mentioned withdrawal, and you will not find that word once in the Hansard report of my speech.


Elmore Philpott: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. Perhaps I should say progressive reduction of the number of forces. In any event, whatever the word was or whatever the idea was, I remember discussing the same idea with one of the people who for my money is one of the finest military leaders in the whole world today, and that is General Norstad. I have met a great many generals, admirals, vice-admirals, air vice-marshals and what not, but I have never met any single individual that gave me a greater feeling of confidence than that NATO commander that we have right now.
I might say that I was tentatively suggesting to General Norstad that perhaps the time might come when we Canadians would have to move some of our people home and station them up in northern Canada so that the Americans would not have to move in there. I did not find any enthusiasm on the part of General Norstad to that idea. He wants the Canadians right where they are today for many reasons but above all for reasons of morale.
So I say, without trespassing any more on the time of the house on that particular point, I think that every Canadian who visits our actual fighting forces overseas will come to exactly the same conclusion as did the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, that we are extremely well represented, indeed that we are getting excellent value for our money and that we never had a finer fighting force outside Canada to represent Canada than we have at this particular moment.
As the hon. member for Prince Albert is still here and as we are discussing the first item on the air force, I may say that a very live question in Canada these days is the disposal of surplus aircraft. Among other things we have the proposal to turn over to Western Germany a certain number of aircraft we are now using, and from time to time in this house this year we have had the
Supply-National Defence question of whether or not we ought to dispose of surplus aircraft to the state of Israel.
I must confess that, this morning and on recent days when the hon. member for Prince Albert rose and in tones of righteous indignation put the government on the spot for not more quickly making up its mind whether or not to sell these aircraft to Israel, I could hardly believe my own ears. I remember very well on January 31 when that very same gentleman, the hon. member for Prince Albert, in tones of even more fervent and righteous indignation moved the following resolution, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition:
In view of the present critical situation in the Middle East, this house expresses its strong disapproval of the government's policy of authorizing the shipment of munitions of war to countries in that area not within the NATO alliance: and also condemns the government for the lack of candour with which the matter has been dealt with in this house.
I have seen some very clever military manoeuvres in my time. I have seen some very good generals in action, including the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, who knew how to throw up a good smokescreen when he had to retreat, but I have never seen a cleverer smokescreen thrown up than by the hon. member for Prince Albert in trying to disguise the back somersault that the Conservative party is trying to accomplish with this business of aircraft for Israel.
I will say that my hon. friend from Vancouver East cannot in any way be criticized for this, because we all know he was absent from the house when this matter was discussed. I have been looking up the names of the people who voted for this absolute embargo on the selling of any planes to Israel, and among others who voted for that is the same gentleman who is now rising and in stentorian tones criticizing the government for being so slow. The following names are shown as voting for that:
Aitken (Miss), Argue, Barnett, Bell, Bennett (Miss), Blair, Brooks, Bryce, Bryson, Cameron (Nanaimo), Cardiff, Castleden, Charlton, Churchill, Coldwell, Diefenbaker.
-and so on down the line.


John George Diefenbaker: You will notice that the resolution had to do with the complete lack of candour on the part of the government.


Elmore Philpott: If you look at the list of members in this particular vote you will find a very significant thing. The astute old member for Vaneouver-Kingsway voted on the C.C.F. subamendment just previously, in favour of the C.C.F. He rose and hurried from the house before he had to vote on this Conservative amendment moved by the hon.

Supply-National Defence member for Prince Albert, which would have had the effect of depriving Israel of the right to defend herself in any possible war with the Arab states.
I happen to know a little about this remarkable conversion of the hon. member for Prince Albert. During my Easter holiday I, like himself, was on a sort of fireman's holiday, and both he and I were invited to make speeches in Edmonton during that Easter recess. It so happened that by accident he made his speech one day before I got there. So, when I got to Edmonton on my way back to Ottawa from Vancouver, what did I read? I read that the same hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Prince Albert, who had moved this very resolution in the house for an absolute embargo on the shipment of war planes to Israel, had, like Saul on the road to Damascus, been stricken by a great light when he got to Edmonton. When he got there he said that it might be a good idea if we supplied all sorts of planes to Israel so that they could have the means to defend themselves.
All I should like to point out is that what the hon. member for Prince Albert saw in the Easter recess we on this side of the house saw on the 31st of January and the first of February when he was trying to get an embargo imposed. Therefore my advice, for what it is worth, is that the government of Canada should no longer defer too much to the objections from the opposition and should pay no attention to the strong protestations from the Conservative opposition or from the majority but not all of the C.C.F. but should, without further delay and without waiting for the decision of any other country, do the very opposite of what the hon. member for Prince Albert said should be done, namely, sell Israel enough planes to make sure that she can protect herself against any possible attack.


Mr. Enfield:: Mr. Chairman, before we leave this item, I have one or two questions of a rather simple nature with regard to the air force, in which I am particularly interested. They are prompted by the statement of policy on page 3 of the white paper where it says that the defence of this continent rests with strong strategic bomber forces which can go into action immediately under any circumstances. With regard to strategic bomber forces, I should like it confirmed that our role is confined almost wholly to the provision of early warning of enemy attack through our participation and co-operation in the establishment of radar installations. In the last war we were able to mount quite a sizeable bomber force. My particular interest arises because I took part personally in that effort,

and it always struck me that the training of the personnel to man heavy aircraft is certainly a highly technical matter requiring very intensive training indeed.
Despite the fact that policy, as I have stated, seems to have set a limit on our role in the strategic bomber effort, I would ask whether we have any training program to familiarize pilots and other aircrew members with heavy aircraft such as the four-engine types that are commonly in use. I realize in asking that question that it may not be practical from our point of view to have a large force of such machines in use but at the same time I would also ask whether, if such is not the practice, we have a nucleus of highly trained people who are able to familiarize themselves with and keep up to date with advanced flying techniques in heavy aircraft, advanced techniques in navigation, which of course change constantly, and with advanced aircrew training techniques.
It seems to me that the provision of at least a nucleus of such people might be very beneficial indeed. I realize that we are concentrating our efforts on radar detection and, of course, fighter interception and the training of fighter pilots for the lighter aircraft, but I do not think this other branch of flying training should be completely ignored. I also raise this question because in paragraph 86 of the white paper we find that so far as training of pilots is concerned all of our training seems to be concentrated on aircraft such as the T-33 jet trainer, the Chipmunk, the Harvard, single engine aircraft. It seems to me that with some effort, perhaps not too great an effort or with too great an expenditure, we could provide some means to train a certain number of aircrew in other fields of activity.
I would be pleased if the minister would say whether he thinks such a program would be worth while, whether he believes it is necessary to have such a nucleus of trained men and whether, as a matter of fact, we do have any such training activity.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In reply to the hon. member for York-Scarborough I would say that as far as the heavy four-engine planes are concerned we have no operational planes in that category except, of course, in transport command and in maritime reconnaissance command. We do train and develop pilots to supply our needs in those two commands. I would also point out that we are part of a whole set-up comprising NATO in which each nation has its own particular part to play and we are not called upon to provide either strategic bombers or bomber fleets of four engine planes. Our role, as the hon. member has inferred, to the extent that we participate

is in the fighter field, other than the two commands I have mentioned. Therefore we have no bomber command pilot training unit or the nucleus of one.
The hon. member asked, possibly anticipating that answer, whether it would not be desirable to have some small group taking training in that direction who would also be able to train other personnel. The answer to that is that any training scheme for any type of plane is an expensive business and we could not afford to have a training unit or the nucleus of a training unit for bomber planes when we do not have bomber planes. It would just be too expensive a luxury.
I think it is better that we conform to the NATO idea and try to achieve the very best results we can in the fields where we are expected to operate. The last thing I would say regarding heavy bombers is that we do not, of course, have any thermonuclear weapons in this country, and that is the type of weapon for which the modern, heavy, four-engine bombers are designed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the
minister a question or two concerning a phase of air training in which it is my impression there has been some improvement. I refer to the fact that a year ago we were greatly disturbed over the large number of crashes that had taken place in connection with the training program, particularly crashes of T-33's. As I say, it is my impression, although I have no figures to support it, that the number of crashes this past year has not been anything like what it was the year before. I am sure we all take the position that any crash, even one, in which there is loss of life is very serious and most regrettable.
I wonder whether the minister has any comparable figures to tell us how many training crashes there were and what loss of life there was in the year preceding the last discussion of the estimates and how many crashes there have been in the last year up to the present time. In that connection I am interested in what is said in paragraphs 86 and 87 of this year's white paper. Perhaps the best way to indicate the part in which I am interested is to read a few sentences from these paragraphs. Paragraph 86 reads in part as follows:
86. As a result of the continuing appraisal of training methods required to keep pace with modern developments in modern aviation, the R.C.A.F. altered the pilot training program in 1955 to provide all pilots with initial jet training prior to reaching wings standard. Students now receive basic flying training on Chipmunk and Harvard piston-engined aircraft and advanced flying training on Silver Star (T-33) jet-engined aircraft before being awarded pilot wings.
Supply-National Defence
Then in the next paragraph there is this sentence:
87. Chipmunk aircraft were introduced at one basic flying training school as a pre-Harvard trainer to improve the sequence of training and to help reduce the number of student failures.
In addition to the questions I put to the minister and which he might answer by the giving of figures if he has them, I should like to ask whether it is a fair assumption to draw from paragraphs 86 and 87 that changes in the training program were made in order to try to cut down the number of student failures, as they are called or regrettably, as I think it might be referred to, the loss of life. He could also say whether any other reasons were found for the large number of crashes, whether they were mechanical reasons or whatever they may be. This is a matter that certainly was of great concern to us a year ago when more crashes were taking place. It is still of concern when any crashes are taking place. I am sure that any comments the minister might make would be listened to with interest.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have not the figures of the number of crashes but probably this figure will convey the information required. I know that the accident rate for T-33's has fallen about 25 per cent in the last year.
May I now deal with the question of the change in procedure and the utilization of the Chipmunk, and the reference which was made by the hon. member to the paragraphs in the white paper. This change in training routine has nothing to do with the accident rate. As a matter of fact it was introduced for one principal purpose and so far it has proved to be quite successful. It was introduced because, by utilizing the Chipmunk in the early stages the unsatisfactory type- that is the person who for some reason gives evidence in his training that he is not going to be able to make the grade as a jet pilot-can be eliminated much more quickly and with much more economy by the system now followed than by the old system. It is therefore a method of early determination of the type of people who will likely get to the stage where they can fly jets.
As to what has caused the diminution in the accident rate, the air force have been able to find no specific cause. It was not structural defect nor has it been narrowed down to any particular cause. After the accident rate became fairly high a year ago, as the hon. member has pointed out, an intense study was conducted of every phase of jet training with the T-33. An exhaustive study was made because the officials thought they might find some specific cause, but they were unsuccessful in that. No specific cause was

Supply-National Defence found. All the training technique was tightened up. Just what the factor was which caused the great improvement in results, nobody knows. But it is not due to the change of set-up in training.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It looks as though the attempt to tighten up the training program has had some bearing on the reduction of the accident rate.


Ralph Osborne Campney: We think so; yes. Then
besides that, I suppose I should say this. As time has gone on, a great deal more experience has been gained with the jet trainer, the T-33, and more has been learned about it. That knowledge has been put to good use in the method and procedures adopted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether investigation as to the possible causes of these accidents is still being carried on.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes. We now carry on
an intensive examination in respect of every accident, not only of the plane but of the circumstances, where the pilot has been killed in the accident. Every factor having to do with the flight of jets is examined into.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have one or two questions to ask on this same subject but on a somewhat different line. I wonder whether the minister could tell us how many crashes there were of CF-100 planes during this past year as compared with the number the year before? What has been the loss rate with respect to CF-lOO's? I refer to the loss of planes.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Again, I have not the actual figures with respect to crashes. However, I can give the improvement in' the accident rate with respect to the CF-100, comparing the two years. It is about one third better this year than it was last year. The improvement is even greater than with the T-33.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Has the minister not any
figures to show the number of CF-lOO's lost through crashes this past year? That figure must be there.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Chairman; we have not the figure. We have other figures but we have not that particular set. I have the actual number of crashes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder whether the minister would get that information and give it to the committee before consideration of the estimates is completed.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I will try to do so.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I was glad
to hear from the minister that the plan to return to the three-stage training for pilots is at last being implemented. I was one of


those who thought the attempt to streamline training and to have pilots moved directly from Harvards to the more advanced type was false economy. Now that we are moving back to the elementary trainer, I think I would agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that it would serve the purpose of improving the grasp of elementary flying principles on a type of aircraft much less difficult to handle than is the T-33 jet. I was also pleased to hear the minister, in reply to the hori. member for York-Scarbo-rough, emphasize the fact that Canada's important role in the NATO scheme of things and in continental defence is the provision of air defence squadrons. I agree with him that it would be almost impossible financially for us to participate in any worth-while way in the costly program of providing bombers for the strategic air command. But on this matter of air defence and fighter defence, it would appear that the CF-100 is going to bear the brunt of defence by the R.C.A.F. in the next three years, namely 1957, 1958 and 1959, or until such time as the CF-105 comes off the assembly lines.
We are hoping to have-at least information suggests that we might have-a prototype off the assembly line next year, and I imagine it will take a year or so to get the supersonic CF-105 into operation. But coming back to the CF-100, some statements were made in certain hearings in the United States of a rather critical nature, and I should like to have the minister's reassurance on this matter. For example, General Partridge, appearing before the subcommittee of the senate examining air force matters on April 30 and May 1 of this year, in part III, page 248 of the evidence, said this:
He said of the R.C.A.F.'s CF-100 jet interceptor, Canada's main defence weapon:
And this is a direct quotation:
"It is very good for their (Canadian) purposes in that it has long range. The only difficulty is that the aircraft is of postwar design and it is quite slow. It is as slow as the aircraft which we have in our inventory at the present time".
Now, I noted that attempts have been made to increase the operational capacity of the CF-100, and we are now into the Mark V, the CF-100 with extended wing tips. I am wondering whether there are any plans on hand further to modify the CF-100 to cope especially with the problems of speed, increase of speed, and the problems of increased altitude?
As a result of information that has come recently out of the Soviet, particularly since the visit of General Twining to the air show, it is now revealed that the new bomber types of the Russian air force are capable of much higher altitude than is our present CF-100.

I have heard rumours that there is to be a Mark VI version of the CF-100, and that they hope to attain increased altitude by adding small jet motors to the wing tips and also to increase the speed sufficiently to meet the additional challenge of any bomber threat from the U.S.S.R. Since it appears it will be three years before the CF-105 is operational, it seems to me that these modifications would be rather important. Can the minister give us any additional information on that score?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, the CF-100 is and has been under continuing development all its life and we have taken a number of steps year by year, and they are continuing, to give it more height and more speed. We do not think we have reached the limit of those steps yet, and the aircraft is constantly improving. When General Partridge said it was c^uite slow, I think that is a term that is relative to a lot of other things he had been saying. Quite slow in relation to what? Of course, it will be slow in relation to the prototypes of bombers that are presently beginning to be manufactured in Russia; it is slow in relation to the prototype of new fighters that are not yet operational. But, generally speaking, we feel that the CF-100 is still operational and very useful in every sense at the present time. I do not care to go into details, but we have done a good deal of development which has greatly enhanced its possibilities both in height and in speed and these developments are continuing.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Can the minister say whether a Mark VI version is contemplated?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, I do not know whether we should call it a Mark VI, or whether it should be designated as a Mark VI, because, "Mark" on an areoplane, as the hon. member knows, means quite a major revision of the plane. We are turning out planes, and all the planes as they are being turned out are incorporating the new developments that are taking place. Whether we should call it a Mark VI or not is open to question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It appears that the report I read still has to remain in the rumour stage but I think if it is contemplated that small jet engines be added to the wing tips it would be a change sufficient to qualify it for a further extension of the Mark. But I shall be satisfied with the reply.
I want to carry this discussion just a step farther. Yesterday the minister made reference to the guided missile program, and he was of the opinion that prospects of the international ballistic guided missile, I think the official title is, are so remote that it is still in the realm of fantasy.
Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, that goes a good deal farther than what I said.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Well, the development is so remote that we have not given much attention to the problem from the Canadian standpoint. A week or so ago we were discussing this same question on the estimates of defence production and at that time the minister suggested that I had been reading too many detective novels, Buck Rogers stories. The comment of the Minister of National Defence yesterday and the Minister of Defence Production a week or so ago suggests that Canada has not given too much attention to this problem. I quoted at that time some rather pertinent information from the Alsop brothers on this score appearing in the press, which suggests that the advent of this formidable weapon is not as far away as we might be led to believe. I think it was the Globe and Mail which just a few days ago headlined a story that the Americans were in a position to launch the equivalent of the intercontinental ballistic missile from ships at a range of some 1,500 miles. Now, a new story on General Twining's visit to Moscow is very interesting. He was exchanging information with Khrushchev, I think it was, and the Russian military authorities. In a fit of good humour, so the report says:
Mr. Khrushchev slapped his knee and roared, "Well, we want to see yours".
Twining had been asking to have further access to Russian air power and Mr. Khrushchev said:
Well, we want to see yours. Show us your planes and we'll show you our ballistic weapons.
This was as recent as June. The United States general replied:
You can read all about ours in our journals.
That is quite true. As I say, we go to the American journals if we want to get information as to what is happening in Canada, even.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Do not rely too much on it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I continue:
"That's old stuff", the communist boss retorted. "We can show you old stuff, too. The question is who has the better missiles, you or we . . . but we won't show them to you today. Today is too early. We'll do it at some future date. Meanwhile, you keep yours and we'll keep ours. Well show you what competition is".
Now, that suggests that there is considerable rapid development in this field to which, according to the statement of two ministers of the crown, Canada has not yet paid too much attention up to the present time. Aviation Week magazine for June 18, 1956, a United States publication, contains the following information:

Supply-National Defence
The United States is ahead on short range defensive missiles while the U.S.S.R. is ahead on long range ballistic missiles.
From all the evidence I have been able to glean through diligent reading and research it would appear that the advent of a formidable intercontinental weapon is not as far away as we in Canada expect at the moment.
We have given some attention to missiles and it would seem that back in 1950 Canada was thinking very seriously of this next stage in weapon development because in that year we launched our "Velvet Glove" program. That program was wound up last year at a cost of some $24 million according to the statement of the minister. It has since been scrapped in favour of the use of what would appear to be a more effective air to air guided missile, the United States "Sparrow".
The expenditure of the $24 million has been justified by the fact that it has provided us with approximately 400 people, research scientists and so forth, who have acquired valuable experience working on this important type of missile. However, I feel that an expenditure of the sum of $24 million, which is quite a substantial amount, had a much more serious purpose when the scheme was first launched than merely providing training for Canadian scientists. I suspect there has been some discussion in defence circles concerning the threat of the guided missile era of warfare and the steps that Canada will take to offset that threat.
I do not know to what extent I can expect the minister to comment on these remarks but I do hope greater interest is being taken in this subject than that indicated in his very general reference to events that are still a long way off in the future. Certainly the fact that we have invested $24 million in a project which eventually had to be scrapped indicates to me that quite serious thought is being given to this next stage in weapon development. I wonder if the minister could make some comments on these observations.


John Angus MacLean: I just wanted to make a remark on the same subject, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the interpretation of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris of the minister's remarks might have been somewhat exaggerated but nevertheless I think the minister's estimate of the time before which guided missiles or short range ballistic missiles may come into use may be somewhat longer than the estimate given especially by authorities in the United States.
	I
I have here a report of the evidence given before the United States Senate subcommittee on the armed forces and the following appears:
The air force estimate of the guided missile was given by Major Robert P. Lukeman, of the war plans branch, strategic air command. Present Russian strength in jets and intercontinental bombers, he said, would be enhanced by "the two new conditions of war starting in 1958,-
That is just two years from now.
-the intercontinental ballistic missile, and the intermediate range ballistic missile ... I do feel that they do inject one aspect into aerial warfare that is new.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to leave the impression that we are not interested in the development of the intercontinental guided ballistic missile. Everyone who has anything to do with defence or with matters pertaining to that department in any country and all the civilians in those countries in fact must indeed be interested because it is a development of great moment.
I think the observation I made the other day was that from such information as I have been able to obtain I did not think operational intercontinental guided ballistic missiles would be available for quite some years.
I think one must keep quite a difference in one's mind between the prototype of an individual missile and an operational missile because, as the hon. member knows, there is a real difference in time lag between the two. I am told that the problems attending the long range guided missiles are in no way solved as yet. It takes a long time to develop a guided missile. I think the Nike was something like 10 or 12 years in development.
All I was wishing to emphasize was that I thought that it would be quite some years before operational intercontinental guided ballistic missiles would be available in operational quantity. I do not want to get into a technical discussion and I do not think I would be competent to do so in any event, but I understand that one of the greatest problems occurs when the missile comes down from above the atmosphere into the atmosphere. These are problems that are proving very difficult to solve.
I would also like to point out to my hon. friend that we do not regard the "Velvet Glove" as being either a dead loss or as being wound up. What I intimated the other day was that the "Velvet Glove" was the initial missile on which we have developed several hundred technical people and two or three plants which now have the know how and are in position, or will be, to commence the immediate manufacture of the "Sparrow"

which we have adopted for the present. Therefore it cannot be regarded as a dead loss. The fact is that when we reach the stage where we need an air to air guided missile we would not have been fulfilling our duty unless at that time-not several years ago but at that time-we had looked over the field and selected the one we thought would be the most useful as of then.
I think the experience we have had with the "Velvet Glove" is going to shorten the time element in providing the guided missile here in Canada which time otherwise would have been taken up with the development of a new missile.
The sum of $24 million represents a lot of money but I might point out to my hon. friend that the guided missile field is a very expensive field in which to operate either experimentally or operationally. The costs are very great indeed. Relatively, therefore, the sum he has mentioned in relation to the field is not as great as it might seem. We do not feel that the money spent on "Velvet Glove" has been wasted. Indeed, we feel we are now on the way to providing a missile for our planes that will be the equal of any in this field.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister if he is continuing with this research leading toward the development of guided missiles?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We are diverting to the "Sparrow" the work which was being carried on on the "Velvet Glove". I mention again what I said yesterday, that the Cold Lake range which we have developed and which was used in connection with the "Velvet Glove" will be used in connection with our experiments on the use of the "Sparrow". The two phases will proceed together. I think we have a pretty fair set-up to begin making air-to-air guided missiles and training our service people in their use.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That would be to carry on with the "Sparrow" already designed by the United States?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The United States is considerably in advance of us in the development of guided missiles and it would perhaps seem wiser for us to adopt a missile which they have produced than to attempt to design our own. It seems to me that that was the weakness in the "Velvet Glove" program.
I have another press dispatch from Washington which I think is quite reliable which appeared in the Globe and Mail of July 16. Referring to a guided missile having a range 67509-396
Supply-National Defence of 500 miles and which is apparently in use in the United States, it says:
They said 10 ships now are equipped to launch the 500-mile Regulus missile with atomic or hydrogen warhead. They said a longer range Regulus with a speed equal to or faster than sound has already been flight-tested.
The article states that they are going ahead with the development of the 1500-mile Jupiter. They are so far ahead of us in the design of these missiles that we cannot do more than accept their design.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister's remarks
would indicate that there is rather close coordination between the Canadian and United States efforts on this score. I was unable to obtain from the reading room the particular copy of Collier's but it contains an article by General Quesada, the retired leader of the ninth army air force during world war II. He indicates that there is a lack of coordination among the United States forces in connection with their guided missile program and points out the wasteful expenditures which have been made by the army, navy and air force through pursuing their own respective courses in the development of their own distinctive air-to-air guided missiles. I was wondering when there is that lack of co-ordination in the United States whether it has been confirmed that Canada will be permitted to manufacture the "Sparrow" under licence.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The intention is to manufacture one of the Sparrows under licence from the United States.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is that confirmed?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is confirmed and my colleague tells me the licences have been obtained.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I should like to have some reassurance from the minister in connection with the findings reported to have been made by a United States Senate subcommittee as follows:
The D.E.W.-line radar chain across the Canadian arctic is ineffective as at present planned; by the time it is adequate it will be obsolescent, and a few years later it will be useless.
I should like to think that the D.E.W. line will be useful for some years to come regardless of development, and that through modification it might be used for the direction of ground-to-air guided missiles or something of that sort. I should like some reassurance on this matter.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think perhaps I should refrain from getting into the area of assurances and reassurances. We hope and anticipate that the radar warning system which has been set up will be effective, not only

Supply-National Defence immediately but for a considerable time to come and that depending upon what developments take place in that field that it will be, subject to adaptation, in the future. But I am not bold enough to look into the future and certainly under the responsibility of my present position I cannot give assurances. I do not know the answers to many of the questions in this field which we are now discussing, and sometimes I think neither do some of the columnists who write such certain and definitive statements.
From such knowledge as I have, and it is not complete by any means-I prefer to take the advice of scientists and people who really have an appreciation of these things-I do not think I can go further than that. I do not want to be unfair to those who write these articles to which I have referred, but conjecture and speculation seem to be rampant. I do not suppose we can help that and probably we should not, but I do not think we should take as gospel truth all these things that are being printed or even that are stated before senate committees of the United States.


John Angus MacLean: In the details I find the item covering construction of buildings is increased from roughly $69 million to $99 million and I should like the minister to give an explanation of this large increase. Perhaps he could also indicate what progress is being made in the program of building permanent hangars in the various stations across the country of the cantilever, arch or any other type. I think this is of vital importance although such construction is extremely expensive. Perhaps the minister could indicate the cost of a typical cantilever type hangar.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Practically the whole of the increase in the construction of buildings and works is attributable to expenditures on the mid-Canada line, which last year were something in excess of $16 million and this year are estimated at something over $45 million. The cost of a cantilever hangar is close to $6 million. A number have been completed and hangar construction is progressing and continuing. I do not know at what percentage point we are in the whole program at the moment, but I should think we are over the top on the gross expenditure each year.


John Angus MacLean: I notice that in the item for procurement of aircraft there is a decrease of almost $100 million. Perhaps the minister could explain that. While he is getting the figures, I have a few related questions. I should like to know whether the maritime squadrons are fully re-equipped with Neptune

aircraft and, if not, when is it expected they will be? When is it estimated the first Bri-tannias will be available to the maritime command?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Perhaps I might answer the two last questions first. The re-equipping of the maritime squadrons with Neptunes is complete. It is expected that the first plane based on the Britannia will come off the production lines at about the end of next year. The major portion of the decrease in the item is in the fighter-interceptor aircraft category. Sabre production will be continued in 1956-57, but at a reduced rate from that of the previous year, as the foreseeable needs for this aircraft begin to be fulfilled. The production rate of the CF-100 will be maintained at about the present level, which has just been reduced, and will be somewhat below, of course, the program originally planned. The stretch-out of the CF-100 program is designed to maintain production of these aircraft at an economic level which will keep pace with what we hope will be the eventual production of the CF-105. It is the readjustment of these manufacturing processes that accounts for the reduction.


John Angus MacLean: Could the minister give some indication as to when it is expected the modifications will be completed on the two Comet aircraft owned by the air force that have been flown overseas for modification, and what is the estimated cost of these modifications that will make the Comets serviceable?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We expect that the Comets will be reconstructed and back in service in slightly over a year. I think one is now in England and the other one left for there this week. The cost of reconstruction is estimated at about $400,000 each.


John Angus MacLean: I have one other question regarding the supply of aircraft. My understanding is that four squadrons in Europe have been re-equipped with the CF-100. I believe I am correct in thinking that one squadron with each wing will be a CF-100 squadron. I should like to know whether it is tactical considerations that dictated this change and, if so, will the CF-100 be the permanent equipment for these long-range squadrons, if I might call them that, in each wing, or is it expected that they will be replaced by some other type of aircraft manufactured perhaps in some other country?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There are four squadrons of the air wing that will be equipped. They are not equipped now, but they will be equipped with CF-lOO's. It is expected that one of them will be equipped this year and three next year, and it is intended that one will

be attached to each wing, superseding a Sabre jet squadron in that wing. The reason for the introduction of the CF-100 into the air wing is the request by the military authorities of NATO.


Mr. Thomas:: On page 337 there is an item for construction of buildings and works, $99 million. I wonder whether the minister could give us a breakdown by provinces of those expenditures.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have the totals only:
Alberta	 $ 5,981,000
British Columbia	 2,314,000
Manitoba	 3,800,000
Newfoundland and Labrador _____________ 3,036,000
New Brunswick	 4,303,000
Nova Scotia	 2,043,000
Prince Edward Island	 1,177,000
Ontario	 9,279,000
Quebec	 11,921,000
Saskatchewan	 1,463,000
Yukon	 1,846,000
Europe	 2,837,000
The total is approximately $50 million.


Ray Thomas: I might point out to the
minister that the item is for $99 million, which leaves a discrepancy of over $40 million.


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is also $45 million for the mid-Canada line. I think that makes up the difference. The remainder, to bring the two figures together, is for rehabilitation and running maintenance. The figures I gave the hon. member are for new construction, totalling $50 million.


Ray Thomas: Underneath that there is an item for repairs and upkeep of buildings and works, including land, of $11,900,000.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is right; there is a vote for maintenance. The smaller items which I said should have gone into the other vote are in this vote. The maintenance items are in this vote.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there are three questions about which I should like to have a further explanation by the minister. The first has to do with the mid-Canada line. In the white paper at page 5 we find this reference to that line:
Construction of the mid-Canada line under Canadian direction and of the D.E.W. line under United States direction is proceeding according to schedule. Arrangements are now being worked out for civilian personnel to undertake the bulk of the maintenance and manning for both lines. The costs for building and manning the mid-Canada line are being met by Canada; the R.C.A.F. will be responsible for the operational aspects of the line.
Then on page 41 there is a further explanation reading as follows:
Construction of the mid-Canada supplementary warning line in the vicinity of the 55th parallel of latitude constitutes one of the most challenging and 67509-3964
Supply-National Defence complex projects ever undertaken for the armed forces as an all-Canadian project. The R.C.A.F. has the over-all responsibility for the project and the combined effort involves close co-operation by a number of government departments and agencies and many private companies and contractors in all parts of Canada. The resources of the trans-Canada telephone system are being utilized, this system having named the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to act for it as management contractor. A special division of the Bell Telephone Company was formed to undertake the building of the line.
Are we to understand from these explanations that this line is being built by the Bell Telephone Company? Furthermore, I should like to know who constitute the trans-Canada telephone system and whether the line is to be operated by the R.C.A.F., as indicated on page 5 of the white paper, or by some civilian agency and, if the latter, what agency is to operate it. I have one or two more questions about the mid-Canada line, but perhaps the minister could answer those.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think this particular question could perhaps be more effectively answered by my colleague. The basis of the situation, as I understand it, is that the Royal Canadian Air Force is responsible operationally for the line but the maintenance and the day to day carrying out of the physical activities will be done by civilians when the line is in operation.
The set-up for building the line is fairly complicated and could probably be explained better by my colleague the Minister of Defence Production when his estimates are under discussion, because the matter comes under that department. We prepare the specifications, and collaborate in the designing, but the actual requisitioning to procure the building of the line is done through the Department of Defence Production, and I would prefer not to get involved in the interrelationships of the people with whom that department is dealing in the various phases of constructing the line and putting it into operation.


Howard Charles Green: It is evident that the R.C.A.F. has charge of the whole project. Is the line to be operated by R.C.A.F. personnel or by civilian personnel? We were told some months ago that the distant early warning line was to be operated by United States civilian personnel. The minister has intimated that the mid-Canada line is to be operated by the R.C.A.F. Surely he should know just exactly what the picture is to be, because it is one of his arms of the services that is in charge of the over-all project.


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is no difficulty about that. The position is that the Royal Canadian Air Force takes over the mid-Canada line and at all stations and places on the line

Supply-National Defence Where activities are going on the R.C.A.F. will be in charge and will have representatives present. But the actual carrying out of the day to day duties of the operation will be under civilians. There is a difference between the physical operation of the line and the responsibility for the line fulfilling its purpose. That responsibility remains with Royal Canadian Air Force personnel.


Howard Charles Green: Then the actual physical operation of the line will be by civilian personnel; is that right?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is intended now, yes.


Howard Charles Green: Are those civilian personnel to be found by the Bell Telephone Company?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think that phase of the matter had better be left to my colleague because he is much more conversant, as I say, with the relationships of the various parties inasmuch as the organizing has been done by his department. I know the responsibility of the Royal Canadian Air Force in the matter, but beyond that I am not too familiar with the division of authority, the securing of people and logistic support and all the different factors that enter into it. I have -a general idea of it but it is not my business. I know that my colleague has spent a good deal of time working on the matter, and I think these questions might better be addressed to him.


Howard Charles Green: The minister's own report contains this sentence, which I read:
A special division of the Bell Telephone Company .was formed to! undertake the building of the line.
It appears that the Bell Telephone Company is in charge of building the line. Is that Company also to operate the line? The Minister of Defence Production is here and no doubt the Minister of National Defence could ascertain from his colleague the proper answer to that question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You will have that opportunity presently.


Howard Charles Green: Well, we may not. In any event, the Minister of National Defence has the main responsibility for this project, and I submit that he should ascertain the answer and let us know.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not think I should be participating in this discussion, and I do not think the hon. member should be pressing me on it because I have given him the answer that the physical construction, the physical arrangements for operation, logistic support and so on are in the hands of another department. In my department we are only responsible for the planning of the line, co-operating and collaborating in
.
the construction of the line and the operation of the warning service when it is finished. I do not know whether the arrangements are completed yet for providing the civilian personnel. I do not know just exactly what stage the construction has reached.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When the proper officers are on the floor we will be able to answer these questions. My hon. friend must have some idea of how estimates are dealt with, surely.


Howard Charles Green: I do not want any advice from the Minister of Defence Production as to how my questions should be asked. He and I have both been in the house for nearly 21 years and I have no intention of taking any abuse from him today or any other day. We have crossed swords before-


Pierre Gauthier: Don't get sore.


Howard Charles Green: -and on certain occasions he can be very discourteous.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Keep your temper, my friend, keep your temper.


Howard Charles Green: I have my temper under perfect control, but the minister might as well know once again today, as he has been told on other occasions, that I do not propose to be insulted by him.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Don't threaten.


Howard Charles Green: I am asking the minister who has admitted he is responsible for the operation of the line, who in fact has just admitted it within the last minute. I want to know whether that operation is to be carried on by the Bell Telephone Company or, if not, what civilian agency is to do that work.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I understand it, the contract has not been let for the civilian side of the operation. I understand it is being negotiated now. That is why I cannot answer. I would be glad to answer anything I can that comes within my purview, but I do not think I should be required to try and answer questions on stages of this matter which are not my primary responsibility, because my answers would be more or less hearsay. I keep in touch in a general way, but if I am going to answer a question categorically I want to be specifically right. There are many phases to that particular side of the matter with which I am not familiar, and I would hesitate to make definite answers.


Howard Charles Green: With what company are these negotiations for the operation of the mid-Canada line being conducted at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You wouldn't know.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am told that they are being conducted with the Bell Telephone Company. I am not conducting them.


Howard Charles Green: I guess I can take it that the Bell Telephone Company is the company in the field. What about this mid-Canada line in so far as channels are concerned? Will there be more channels than are required for defence purposes? In other words, will there be channels that can be used for civilian purposes?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I take it that the hon. member is referring to the communications system.


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that it was not designed to do more than handle the activities of the warning system.


Howard Charles Green: Of the which?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Of the warning system. I understand that the channels that have been designed for it are just ample to meet that need.


Howard Charles Green: It may be inaccurate but I have been told that there will be sufficient channels, or whatever the technical word may be, in this warning line to enable it to be used for civilian purposes as well as for defence purposes. Is that correct?


Ralph Osborne Campney: If that is true I am not aware of it. I have not heard that. My understanding has always been that the design was to make a composite whole that was sufficient with communications to handle it and that it was a separate entity; I refer to the whole system. Of course it might be capable of expansion, but as originally designed, it is referable only to the whole system. I have not heard of any intention to have extra channels, if we may call them such, for civilian use. I cannot say any more than that.


Howard Charles Green: Can we take it that the system is not to be used for civilian purposes as well as for defence purposes?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As at present planned, that is my understanding.


Howard Charles Green: Then the next subject is the permanent joint defence board. Will the minister tell the committee who constitute the Canadian section of this permanent joint defence board and which of these men is the chairman?


Ralph Osborne Campney: General McNaughton is the chairman of the Canadian section; the three
Supply-National Defence vice chiefs of staff of the three services, namely army, navy and air force; the secretary who is from the Department of External Affairs and there is one other representative from the Department of External Affairs.


Howard Charles Green: Who was the last one?


Ralph Osborne Campney: A representative of the external affairs department; and defence production, I believe, send a member when required, when matters under consideration are such as affect that department.


Howard Charles Green: Then in fact the permanent joint defence board, in so far as Canada is concerned, is comprised of General McNaughton as chairman, the three deputy chiefs of staff and a representative of the Department of External Affairs. Is that right?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, plus another official of the Department of External Affairs as secretary.


Howard Charles Green: How often does that permanent joint defence board meet?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It meets quarterly, regularly, and at any other time it may be called to meet.


Howard Charles Green: I raised this question when I spoke on June 21 and the minister replied on July 18, his remarks being found at page 6121 of Hansard. He had this to say:
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.
When that board was set up in 1940, my understanding was that its primary function was to make recommendations on policy. But according to the minister's statement, at the present time the board has absolutely nothing to do with policy or with recommending policy but merely helps to work out the details of policy once that policy has been decided by some other authority. Is that correct?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I presume the board can make recommendations to the government if it chooses to do so. However, it cannot decide any matter. It can make recommendations to the governments concerned. But usually most of its work consists of taking projects or developments that have been agreed upon and working out the mechanics as between the two countries, as to how the work will be done, and generally taking such steps as are necessary to put an agreed plan into effect.

Supply-National Defence


Howard Charles Green: Why could that not be done a good deal more effectively by the defence department itself, or by the officials of the defence department aided, if necessary, by officials of the external affairs department and of the Department of Defence Production? Once policy has been decided, why is it necessary to drag in this outside board to help carry out the details?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is a joint board of the two countries, and they are not dragged in at all. They are given a very appreciable amount Of work to do. The agenda of this board is always quite heavy. The board meets for several days at each meeting. The fact is that it is a joint board-I have given only the names of the Canadian section, and there is a corresponding United States section-and it is more or less a clearing house. A great deal of work must be cleared through the Department of External Affairs by the board; and the Secretary of State for External Affairs and some services are sometimes involved in the matters in hand and others are not. The board can work with the service in each country that is involved.
I think probably the best commentary I could make is that the board has now been jn existence for something like 16 years-15 anyway-and it has proved its usefulness. It has proved especially that it had great usefulness in the period of the cold war. It affords a very ready and available instrument to carry into effect joint decisions by the two countries, to take cognizance of the problems involved and to formulate methods of meeting those problems.
In practice, just as a matter of fact I can say that in my time, which has not been too Jong, it has proved to be very helpful and very useful and a very ready means of getting things done. Otherwise each problem might involve a different group of people and you would have numerous committees all over the place. This board is in the nature of a clearing house to deal with decisions which have been taken.


Howard Charles Green: Why should the chairman not be a member of the minister's own department. I ask that question because quite a serious charge was made on this question, as the minister knows, by General Simonds. The general had this to say:
.. The existence of the permanent joint board on defence adds further confusion to the direction of our military affairs. This organization came into being during the period of world war II when Canada was a belligerent and the United States was still neutral, and at that time was a useful instrument for obtaining some co-ordination of measures for North American defence. Now it simply acts as a barrier to closer liaison between the Canadian and U.S. chiefs of staff, and is redundant in so far as its military activities are concerned.
IMr. Campney.]
Then he went on to say:
But the chairman has a more ready access to senior cabinet ministers than have the chiefs of staff. Whatever the terms of reference may be, many of the expressed views of ministers bear the unmistakable imprint of the influence of an intellect more remarkable for its bias toward pseudoscience and gadgetry, than for its record of sound military judgment.
Why is it that the chairman of the Canadian section of this joint permanent defence board is not an official of the Department of National Defence? It would seem that by making an arrangement of that type the weaknesses claimed by General Simonds would be removed.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, I do not know why a member of the Department of National Defence was not made chairman. I was not involved in administrative proceedings at that time. I can make only two observations. One is that having worked with the board for two years, I would not have thought of having a chairman from my department for the reason that the board deals with so many departments and has so many responsibilities and detailed activities that are not completely within the purview of my department. It seems to me that the founding fathers who set up this board did a very proper thing when they picked an independent chairman. The same thing has applied in the United States. Their section of the board is built the same as ours and the chiefs of staff have their representatives on the board the same as ours. I think when the first board was instituted Mayor LaGuardia of New York was appointed by the President of the United States to head their section.
I cannot agree with the comment the hon. gentleman has made. My experience only covers two years, but I have seen no indication of any of the circumstances he has outlined in my relations with the board. I have heard no criticism of the board before this from anyone, including other chiefs of staff who were on the board. Therefore I just have to take my own point of view, which is that I think the board is useful. It does excellent work and it fills a real need. In my experience it has not, as far as I know, slowed up any consideration of matters as between the two countries. On the contrary, it has expedited matters. Nor has it interfered with the existing rights of the chiefs of staff of the two countries concerned. The chiefs of staff here and the chiefs of staff of the United States can go back and forth and converse or meet with their opposite numbers at will. That goes on all the time. There is no let or hindrance about it that I know of.
This board deals with a wider field, including some defence matters in which they

are interested. The reason that the three vice chiefs of staff are there representing their chiefs in each nation is to have continuity and a continual appreciation on the part of both countries of all the problems that are being worked out by the board. As I say, I have found the board very helpful and very useful, and I have not seen any necessity to criticize it nor, so far as I know, has anybody else except General Simonds. Probably that is quite all right, because in all these things we have critics and supporters and so on, but I have not had any criticism at all conveyed to me.


Howard Charles Green: May I take it from the minister's remarks today, then, that when he stated on the 18th that this board's functions were purely advisory on matters other than policy, he was not strictly accurate. In other words they do advise on policy?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, I suppose so if you want to narrow it down to matters which may become policy, but it has no executive authority to determine any policy. I suppose the board can advise on anything. It can give practical advice, but it carries out duties that are given to it when the governments decide.


Howard Charles Green: Was it this board that advised the distant early warning line and the mid-Canada line?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The policy was decided by discussions between the two governments. The joint defence board was brought in on matters of negotiation and discussion and to clear up certain points, but the decisions, as usual, were taken by the two governments, not by the board.


Howard Charles Green: Who made the recommendation? Was it this permanent joint defence board or not?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is going back again a little before my time, but I understand the matter was dealt with at the government level, and that the board was given instructions to proceed on certain lines. Its advice was asked on the matter and it passed on it, and so on, but it was on the recommendation of the two governments concerned.


Howard Charles Green: Then the recommendation did not come from the joint permanent defence board?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, that is not my understanding.


Howard Charles Green: My final subject is a matter of administration of the air force. Apparently provision is made for the payment of a gratuity under certain conditions to officers who have served in the air force, but there is the restriction that if they are discharged or released on medical grounds, then they
Supply-National Defence do not get the full amount of the gratuity. They have deducted from that whatever is taken out of the regular pay for pension, what is called deferred pay. Thus if a man's gratuity amounts to $1,500 and he has deferred pay accumulated, which of course is being accumulated to go toward his pension when he retires, if he drops out for medical reasons he does not get the full $1,500 but only $1,500 less the amount of his own deferred pay. That is done, I am told, under Q.R. (air) article 206.23 (6) (a). It seems to me unfair that he should not get the full gratuity as well as the amount that has been deducted to apply to his future pension. Can the minister have that situation checked?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand the situation is that when a man enrols for a short-service commission he contracts to serve for a certain period of time, which I think is five years. If he completes his service in accordance with the contract he gets his gratuity. If during that time he is pensionable and becomes ill by reason of his service, he receives a pension. If he does not complete his term he receives only the amount he has paid in himself toward a gratuity but not the portion that would be put up by the government. In other words, he has failed to complete his contract and while he does not lose by that so far as his own contributions are concerned, because he gets those back, he does not get the added sum that would be put up by the government to complete his gratuity.


Howard Charles Green: But if he suffers a disability as the result of a flying accident why should-


Ralph Osborne Campney: Then he is pensioned.


Howard Charles Green: Pardon?


Ralph Osborne Campney: If he suffers a disability by reason of an accident within the scope of his employment he receives a pension.


Howard Charles Green: He would receive a disability pension?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: But why should that have anything to do with his gratuity? Why should that reduce his gratuity? We have always understood that a disability pension is intended to bring the man who has suffered a disability up to an even starting point with the man who has not been disabled.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is true, but the pension compensates for the fact that he has not been able to complete his contract because of what has happened. The fact is that it more than compensates him for the fact he has not completed his contract, and therefore he gets

Supply-National Defence back what he has put in but he does not get the additional gratuity.
I suppose we should look at the picture as a whole. He is paid his pension because he has not completed his contract for a valid reason, in this case an accident. The matter is fairly administered, as I see it. He cannot have the full gratuity unless he has completed his full contract, but he can always get back what he has paid in. If the hon. member has a specific case he would like me to look into I should be glad to do so, but I have stated the general rule as I understand it.


Howard Charles Green: Let us suppose an individual is unable to complete his full five-year term because he has been disabled in the service. Nobody would argue that he should receive a gratuity for the full five years; but if the injury took place after four years then surely he should get the full gratuity for the term he was in the air force, which would be four years, and also a refund of the money he has paid in toward his service pension which, as the minister knows, is entirely distinct from a disability pension.
I wonder if the minister would look into the situation further because I am afraid there is an unfairness, in that the disability pension is being linked up with the gratuity and I do not think that should be taken into consideration in arriving at the gratuity.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I will be glad to do so.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would give us a number of details showing the breakdown of responsibility as between his department and the Department of Defence Production in obtaining supplies and equipment for use particularly by the air force, because my subsequent observations will apply to that. The type of material I have in mind is piping, tubing, and all the other mechanical purchases which are made for supply purposes.
We know that the Department of Defence Production acts as purchasing agent for the minister's department in that respect, but I would like to know who has the responsibility for such things as auditing these parts and making sure that the material delivered is the same as that which has been requisitioned. Who has the responsibility for describing the material required and making sure it is the proper material and that it is given the proper coding? Who has the responsibility for ascertaining the quantities required, the point at which orders should be given and that type of thing?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, this is a subject on which I would not attempt to go into any great detail, but generally speaking


we as the Department of National Defence, subject to some small exceptions, are not permitted to purchase for our requirements. If the purchasing involves land for the construction of airports our agent is the Department of Transport. If the purchase is for commodities or construction or to meet other needs we have we make a requisition on the Department of Defence Production for what we want. The specifications for what we want are our responsibility. We have to lay down specifically and carefully the type of thing we want. We then send that with a requisition to the Department of Defence Production and they take such steps as they deem advisable-usually by tender or on a contract basis-to procure the thing we want at a proper price. That is their responsibility.
If it is something that has to be manufactured or built, our inspection staff follows the matter along until it is ready for delivery. We are responsible for having received everything we ask for because we have planned or specified it and have inspected it. We follow the process along and have to take the responsibility of seeing that we obtain what we have ordered and then we pay for it. That is a very simple outline but 1 think it is essentially a correct one.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, how about my final question regarding the point at which it is decided to reorder, the quantities that are ordered and the quantities required? Is that a decision of the Department of National Defence or the Department of Defence Production?


Ralph Osborne Campney: If I understood the hon. member correctly I think under the circumstances he mentioned it would be a service decision. In other words, if we said we wanted X number of something and could only get Y, we would have to decide whether we would take none or all. In other words the Department of Defence Production is our agent, and in matters of the kind just mentioned it would be our decision.


William McLean Hamilton: The
minister in his reply has not mentioned any audit or check on this purchasing procedure, but he has specifically accepted the responsibility of his own department for stating the specifications of commodities required, for establishing the quantities required and determining the point at which the order is to be placed; that is, when the stock is low enough to require an order.
In order to be helpful to the minister I would like to give him a few contracts that he might look at to see just how well his current procedures are working out. The difficulty here, I might say, is in some re-

spects that of assessing the responsibility as to where certain errors occur. If the minister will go back and look at a particular requisition which ended up as tender B-18/28/16, he will find included in that a requirement for a part which showed on the contract as No. H-2320-30. That was a bolt. The original order placed by the Department of Defence Production was for 1,995 at a cost of approximately $16 each. The interesting thing about this is that if that part had been properly quoted as VS-2320-30 it would have indicated that it was manufactured by a company in California, and that company retails this bolt at $2.02. As far as I know it could have been brought into Canada duty free.
The main point is that here is a case where the department appears to have paid several times what they should have paid for the same article. There was a slip-up somewhere in the ordering system, and I would assume also in the specifications sent out by the department.
Again on the same contract there is another item designated 2319-27, also a bolt. Again the initials "VS" were left off and the result was that this article was purchased in Canada at approximately $4 each rather than from the company which manufactures and sells it retail at 82 cents. I want to point out that in these particular instances the article had been imported into Canada by an intermediary and there was no question of placing an order in Canada as against placing it in the United States.
Another thing which should be watched more carefully is the checking of merchandise against specifications. There were certain specifications that called for new material, but in these cases which I shall mention I think the minister will find that surplus material was supplied while new material prices were charged. The contract numbers include B18-28-NA2; B18-28-NS1 and B18-28-NA1. I give the minister these numbers so he can follow up this matter if he is sincerely interested. It was suggested by the person who is conversant with this situation that if this material had been carefully inspected it would not have been accepted.
I have a few other cases here having to do with quantities. I have referred to numbers being left off in the specifications; I have referred to the need of checking material when it is received, and I should like to deal now with quantities. One contract demand I have in mind is No. 511,301, which became contract B18-38-196. This contract was given out back in 1953 and the department ordered
5,000	pieces of AN839-16, which was an 67509-397
Supply-National Defence elbow tube to tube. According to the latest information I have the great majority of these items are still in stock and they cost $25,000 three years ago. It has been suggested that this material actually was not required.
I have various bits of information of this type but I am not going to spend undue time exploring every last item. However, I think it shows two things; first, the need for the minister to investigate carefully his relations with the Department of Defence Production and the information he is supplying; and second, the need for a much more adequate audit system on parts and supplies than that which exists at the present time. All the items I have referred to have to do with the air force, which is why I have brought up the matter at this time.
It seems to me that various parts of the minister's department are not operating in the most efficient manner. There would appear to be a definite tendency to order unduly large quantities of many items in a haphazard fashion without any relation to previous use and consumption or to proposed use and consumption. There is as far as I can see, and the minister has given no indication today, no attempt to audit these items. The Department of Defence Production operate simply as a purchasing agent, and I gather they will purchase anything asked for by the minister. That department makes no attempt to check, so therefore the responsibility must lie with the minister. The ordering practices and the contract demands which have been met I believe represent many hundreds of thousands if not many millions of dollars worth of material which is simply being left in stock with no sign of immediate usage.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall be glad to look into the matters which the hon. gentleman has brought up. I am not familiar, and I know the hon. member would not expect me to be familiar, with the specific cases. We do have a pretty comprehensive check and audit. There is the service audit, the deputy minister's audit and the over-all audit of the Auditor General. I shall be glad to look into these particular cases and see what are the causes of the results which have been indicated.


John Borden Hamilton: The
minister referred to the deputy minister's audit and the audit by the Auditor General, which I assume have to do with dollars, but I should like to know if there is any audit of supplies.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The service audit and deputy minister's audit both deal with items as well as with dollars.

Supply-National Defence


Douglas Scott Harkness: Has the minister the number of CF-100 crashes for which I asked some time ago?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Of course the figures should be referable to the number of hours flown.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I also asked for the rate of crashes in comparison with the number of aircraft in service or the number of sorties, whichever happens to be available.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In the fiscal year 1954-55 there were 14,982 hours flown and 14 crashes. Of course not all of them were write-offs, but they were what you might term crashes. In 1955-56 there were 43,142 hours flown, or something over three times as many, and there were 20 crashes. I have not the other figures here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How many of these aircraft were lost as a result of these crashes?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The figure of the total losses were 9 in 1954-55 and 13 in 1955-56.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is one other matter which has rather surprised me in these estimates with regard to the civilian personnel. We note on page 336 that there are 1,970 messmen in the R.C.A.F. this year as compared with 1,949 last year. One might have thought this included cooks, but on the previous page there is shown some 700 cooks in addition. This seems an incredibly large number of messmen, particularly when you look at the army details and find that the army, with approximately the same number of personnel-as a matter of fact I think they had more during a good deal of the period under consideration-has 870 messmen. I wonder whether the minister can explain the necessity for such a very large number of messmen in the R.C.A.F., especially as compared with the number in the army. I also wonder what the duties of these messmen are that require such a large number. As a matter of fact there would appear to be almost one messman for every 20 people in the R.C.A.F.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that the increase arises from the restriction of hours at radar stations and the 24-hour operation of those stations. It has been necessary to augment staff in various cases. In addition, there have been a very substantial number of additional facilities opened during the past year.
As to what constitutes the duties of a messman, I should think they would be persons who do almost anything pertaining to the housekeeping for the mess, the kitchen work, the cleaning up and so on. I cannot authoritatively say just what the scope of their activities is, but as a matter of fact I

should think the increase of 21 must mean that in the over-all picture there have been also some reductions. I know that the new facilities that have been opened in the past year would on the previous scale require more than 21 more people, especially at the radar stations, where we have had to make considerable changes in addition.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My question was not so
much with regard to the small addition of 21 but as to why there were approximately 2,000 of them in any event. Why are so many messmen needed in the R.C.A.F., considerably more than twice as many, nearly two and a half times as many, as for the army with the same type of personnel?


Ralph Osborne Campney: For one thing I think it is probably attributable to the fact that we have a very great number of small units in the air force, more than we have in the regular army. Of course the more units there are to serve, the higher percentage of people required. There may be another factor. I am not sure whether the term "messmen" means the same thing in both services or whether in the air force it embraces other duties. I do not know that, but it is apparent that the air force has many more small units where messmen are required, and I am sure that would add to the total number.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Whilst the difference in
the number of units might explain some of this difference, I do not think it would by any means explain all of it. There are numbers of small units in the army as well as in the air force. I think the total number of units in the army, according to the list the minister gave, was 500 odd. Some of those must be very small units. It seems to me there is far too great a disparity. It is a matter the minister perhaps should look into. It looks like poor administration somehow.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall be glad to look into it.


John Borden Hamilton: I shall only take a few minutes, and it is more to get myself oriented for the debate that may come later in connection with defence pro-dution. The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace asked what type of liaison there was between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production. I am thinking of probably something much wider in policy than the items he was mentioning, in connection with the over-all procurement of aircraft and the natural worries that we have in keeping our aircraft plants in production.
Has the minister, along with the Minister of Defence Production and perhaps the Minister of Transport, considered at all the

advisability of sponsoring the production in Canada of a military transport plane? I have spoken about this in previous years, and I have indicated that all planes of this type in other countries have first of all been of military origin and then carried on as a civil type transport. It appears to be of vital necessity, if we are not going to have our aircraft plants in a boom or bust cycle, that we have some continuity in production. Now I shall tie the question right down to the remarks that were made by the minister in connection with the emphasis that he thought might be placed in the future on the carriage of airborne troops, as distinct from the paratroops on whom the emphasis has been heretofore. These were his words at page 5212 of Hansard:
For example, if aircraft such as the C-119 were used, apart altogether from the cost of ground facilities and air crew, but allowing for reserve aircraft, it would require 148 planes, at a cost of about $150 million, to provide a one-up lift for an army brigade without its heavy equipment.
Have there been any discussions between the minister and the Minister of Defence Production and perhaps the Minister of Transport as well as to the feasibility of using a requirement such as this to create a very strong and adequate civil reserve of aircraft?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The answer is no. In our department we are studying for our own purposes the question of the provision of transport, but to my knowledge there has not been any conference of the nature mentioned by the hon. member.


John Borden Hamilton: It seems to me that the least that should be done is to study the plan used in the United States. As I say, much civil transport has resulted there from the original production of a military type plane and the fact, as I understand it, that the civil aircraft authorities and the government have made leasing arrangements with civilian operators under which the planes that have been produced are being operated by the regular cargo carriers and are on a 48-hour recall basis. It is particularly noteworthy that they are on a recall basis with crews supplied. It seems to me that the minister is maybe hesitant here about $150 million to produce 148 transport planes, but at the same time he has indicated that we have spent $120 million odd on the pre-production costs for the CF-100. That is a plane which is very necessary but has no place in civilian use.
I am not going to blame the minister. I think perhaps some sort of liaison is required, and that possibly two or three of the gentlemen on the treasury benches should be called to a meeting. It probably would be called 67509-397J
Supply-National Defence by the Minister of Defence Production. I do believe that some serious thought should be given to this problem. I will only say, and I may have to repeat it tonight, that if such a plan is not put into effect we will have a constant repetition of what I have termed the boom and bust in aircraft production.
If we are having stretch-outs, as we are now, then I assume we can possibly say there is nothing to fill in to keep the production line going, to keep the engineers on the job and stay abreast of technical developments. If that is not the case, then possibly we have been slow in the development of the replacement aircraft, the CF-105, and I do not believe that because I think it has come along as fast as it could come along anywhere. Frankly, I think we may be a little optimistic when we talk about two or three years. It may be longer than that, but even at that it is keeping pace with developments in other countries.
If these two reasons are not the reasons for the stretch-out, and I think the first one can be corrected, then I can only assume that the minister cannot recruit enough pilots to put in his machines, that he can build them faster than he can get men to fly them. Last year I asked for a return along this line. I have not the figures before me, but I think we had something like 5,000 applicants for aircrew enlistment. Somewhere along the line we dropped 4,000 of them, whether by reason of physical disability or inability to meet flying standards after training had commenced. We ended up with about 1,000, and as I recall it that number was only enough to meet the replacement program.
If the two other reasons are not the real reasons here, and I think one of them can be corrected, then we should take a very serious look at the manpower question. The matter of personnel for aircrew in the air force may be only part of the problem. It may be that we have to look farther afield than that and assess manpower requirements in all branches of industry and the forces. But something should be done. Whether through liaison among those on the treasury benches or liaison as to the methods used to establish a regular production line in other countries, action is required in either case.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just before we conclude this discussion I have a brief question with regard to administration, concerning the problem of low flying aircraft at Stevenson field adjoining the city of St. James and the city of Winnipeg. Periodically complaints come in with regard to too many aircraft flying low over built-up areas. Periodically complaints are lodged and there is an abate-

Supply-National Defence ment of the noise and trouble, and then periodically it recurs. Just now in St. James and Winnipeg complaints are being made with regard to low flying aircraft.
There is a division of responsibility between the R.C.A.F. and the Department of Transport and the matter will have to be raised again, I suppose, on the other estimates, but I should like to ask the minister if the R.C.A.F. is conducting night flying from that field at low levels and if the regulations are not sufficient to prevent too much of that low level night flying. No one objects to the odd plane coming in at a low level. Wind and weather conditions compel that on occasion, but objections are raised when there is a great deal of low level flying over built-up areas. There is an element of danger there and if the flyers are student flyers people naturally get nervous. The noise is a troublesome thing.
I should like to compliment the night flyers on the success with which they complete their circuit with regularity and the accuracy with which they keep on course, because they go right over my house from eleven o'clock at night to 12.30 or from 11.30 to one o'clock. I would not object to it in Ottawa but my habits at home are much more regular and I find it a bit annoying. I appreciate the complaints raised by other citizens of St. James and Winnipeg with regard to low flying aircraft, particularly at night. What is the situation so far as the Royal Canadian Air Force is concerned?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is no necessity at night or at any other time at Stevenson field or any of our airports, except in connection with aproaches and landings, for the amount of low flying that seems to be indicated by the hon. member. All I can say is that in view of what he has just told me I will have the situation investigated. We have not had very many complaints from very many places, and if there is some peculiar situation at Stevenson field that should be rectified we will see that it is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I might mention that this came to my attention through articles in the Winnipeg Tribune of July 9 and the Winnipeg Free Press of July 4, indicating that the matter had been taken up with the city council. I presume that complaints will be registered with the authorities.


William McLean Hamilton: Can the minister tell us if his department is within its rights in abrogating the regulations governing civilian flying and having its planes pass over built-up areas at lower than the heights which the Department of Transport considers safe?
{Mr. Churchill.]


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am told that we invariably follow the transport regulations. Whether or not we are bound to, we do.


William McLean Hamilton: Earlier this week the minister, in dealing with a particular complaint which had been referred to me, wrote and said that two of his jet aircraft which had been practising for an air show at St. Hubert airport had been instructed to fly over St. Lambert, which is a city and a built-up area, at not less than 1,000 feet. To the best of my knowledge the minimum established by the air regulations over that area is 2,000 feet. It seems to me this particular case is one which directly contradicts what the minister has just said. From my own experience I think most of us would find that there are occasions-in some areas quite often-on which military aircraft go over built-up areas at an extremely low level, one substantially below that set by the air regulations. We all realize that on certain occasions there may be an urgent necessity for that procedure, but I think we should realize also that the department are flouting these regulations in the instructions they are issuing to their pilots.
I think it should also be brought to the attention of the minister that when they flout these regulations they cause a good deal of inconvenience to the people in those areas. The minister may be fortunate in that he does not have too many aircraft going over his own place of residence at low levels. I do not know just where he is located, but he would be concerned, I think, if he had this experience on a continuing basis, and if he were subjected to the fairly regular flow of complaints in this connection that come to me from areas in the Montreal district. They apparently can get very little satisfaction from their own local representative in this house, so they refer the matter to me. It seems to be a fairly constant situation. It would be a good idea if the minister could take some steps to rectify it.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Royal Canadian Air Force (reserve).


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Extensive reorganization is taking place in our air force auxiliary and reserve programs this year, according to the information supplied by the minister in the white paper. As has been typical of the activities in our air force reserve, I find it somewhat difficult to understand the logic in all the changes that are taking place. During

the past ten years in Canada, since the end of world war II, the air force reserve has had a rather chequered career and from time to time in this house we have had statements of a somewhat contradictory nature.
For example, as I have said before, at one time we were told that the reserve was the backbone of our defence program in this country and that eventually they would be supplied with CF-100 all-weather fighters. We raised some objection as to the feasibility of that scheme because of the nature of the training difficulties, and we recommended that the personnel might be more suitably employed on a less complex aircraft from a navigational standpoint, namely the F-86. In 1954 the then minister of national defence, in reply to suggestions of that kind, as reported at page 4991 of Hansard, of May 21, 1954 said this:
There is another reason, and that is that these Sabre fighters are really not well suited for the air defence of Canada. They have a relatively short range, they have only one pilot; they have not a complete set of navigational instruments, and if they went into the air and got into a dogfight in Canada they might have great difficulty in getting back to their airfield.
Notwithstanding that statement of two years ago we have received the information that six, I think it is, of our reserve squadrons are going to be equipped with F-86 Sabres for the defence of Canada. I would agree that this is a good move, as we suggested some two or three years ago, but certain aspects of the reorganization are difficult to understand. In the white paper, in reference to the Canadian army, the minister says there is to be emphasis on the air portability of our army. If that is to be the emphasis so far as the army is concerned, it would seem to me that the demand for reserve flying personnel will be larger than it has ever been hitherto.
That consideration gives rise to the querying of the disbanding of a fully operational squadron such as the 424 Hamilton squadron. I should like to ask the minister how it is anticipated that we are going to move toward the objective of air portability and mobility of the army if we continue to disband reserve air crew who are fully operational.
In the white paper there is also some reference to the necessity for developing a mobile striking force-and I think these are the words used-which would be able to deal rapidly with any enemy lodgments in Canada. It seems to me that here again is a function that could be adequately carried out by air force reserve people. The de Havilland Otter which is being used extensively by the United States air force for air portability purposes is capable of carrying 10 fully equipped
Industrial Relations
combat troops and, in cases of airborne operations as contrasted with air portable operations, it is possible to carry out paratroop dropping at speeds of between 60 miles per hour and 140 miles per hour. To summarize this point, in the face of these growing needs particularly in connection with air transport responsibilities, I find it difficult to understand the action on the part of the Department of National Defence in disbanding fully qualified air crew and fully operational reserve squadrons.
I might also refer to the possible use of reserve people in carrying out international army exercises. Some comment has been made today concerning the necessity for maintaining large numbers of Canadian troops in Europe. In this day of rapid air transportation there is no reason why we could not make the army reserve more attractive by carrying out international exercises by means of an enlarged R.C.A.F. transport command. The further difficulty was raised last evening as to how our personnel already in Europe might be evacuated in the event of necessity.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. It being five o'clock, shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day, if necessary?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a motion? I move:
That on Friday, July 20, 1956, and on every Friday thereafter until the end of this session, in addition to the sittings now provided for by the standing orders, the house shall also sit from eight to ten o'clock p.m.; and that on Saturday, July 28, 1956, and on every Saturday thereafter until the end of this session, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock a.m. and adjourn at six o'clock p.m., with the usual intermission from one to 2.30 o'clock p.m., and the order of business and procedure on Saturdays shall be the same as for Thursdays; and that the provisions of standing orders 2 (1) and 6 (3) be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie);: Private and public bills.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 441, to provide for pay for statutory holidays for employees and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays.	.

Industrial Relations
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when this bill was introduced and given first reading last Monday, it is a companion to Bill No. 211 which was under debate at the second reading stage on May 11 of this year. I believe that in the case of both of these bills, this is the first time their subject matter has been presented to the federal parliament in the form of actual bills. The proposals contained in these two bills have frequently been presented to parliament, but as I have already indicated, I believe for the first time they are before parliament in legislative form.
As hon. members will recall, the purpose of the other bill, Bill No. 211, is to make provision for at least two weeks' annual vacation with pay for all workers in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction. The purpose of this companion bill, Bill No. 441, is to make a parallel provision for these same workers, namely the provision of at least eight statutory holidays each year with pay.
Perhaps I might indicate at this point the actual holidays suggested in this bill. They are: New Year's day, Good Friday, Victoria day, Dominion day, Labour day, Thanksgiving day, Remembrance day and Christmas day. I would point out that these are holidays which are observed to a greater or lesser extent in all parts of Canada. There are, perhaps, other holidays which are celebrated in different parts of Canada. For example, in the western provinces, here in Ontario and in some other areas there is observed in August what is known in urban areas at any rate as civic holiday, and in the province of Quebec there are holidays like St. Jean Baptiste day, and others. That is indeed the reason that this bill provides for a minimum of eight statutory holidays; for it is part of my thinking that there are other liolidays in different areas which could be covered by provincial legislation.
To say a further word as to what is actually provided in this bill, may I point out that it requires that every employee under federal labour jurisdiction who is permitted-by virtue of working conditions or on any other basis-to be off work on the eight statutory holidays shall receive his regular pay in full for each of those eight statutory holidays. The bill also provides that if anyone is required to work on any of those statutory holidays-this is a recognition of the fact that there are certain services that have to be performed every day the year round, and therefore some people will have to work on gome of those days-he shall receive his regular pay plus overtime pay for the work he does, at what is known as double time.

Another provision, Mr. Speaker, is that nothing in the bill shall affect any provision, so far as statutory holidays with pay are concerned, in any legislation, contract of employment, or custom that is better than is set out in this bill. In other words, salaried employees or persons in a managerial capacity who already have, by arrangement or by custom or by contract, statutory holidays without any loss of pay, do not suffer any loss of whatever provision they now have by virtue of this bill, and that is spelled out in one of the clauses. On the other hand, the bill also has a clear-cut provision that its minimum requirement shall supersede any provision that is less favourable to employees than those set out in this bill.
There are various other detailed provisions worked out in Bill No. 441. I will not take the time of the house to go into them now, for they are the kind of details that could be discussed either in committee of the whole on the bill or in the industrial relations committee, to which I would hope that this bill might be referred for study after second reading. However, I invite hon. members to study the detailed provisions of Bill No. 441, as indeed I invited them to study the details of Bill No. 211, so they will realize that there is before them not just a general or pious resolution but a concrete piece of legislative machinery to make possible the immediate putting into effect of the principle of statutory holidays with pay for all employees who come under the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament.
As hon. members realize, it is not a great period of time since for the average industrial worker there was no such thing as pay for any day on which he did not work, either in terms of an annual vacation or in terms of a statutory holiday. None of us, in taking part in debates in this house, like to be at all personal, but I am sure my experience is like that of many other members here, namely that I can think of persons whom I have known who were industrial workers, persons close indeed to me, who through the whole of their lives never knew what it was to have a vacation with pay or to get paid for statutory holidays on which they did not work.
It is good to know that we are moving on and that slowly but surely the pattern is changing. In the old days industrial workers got time off, all right; they got statutory holidays because the shop was shut down, but there was no pay for them for those days. They also had vacations, but either they took them at a loss of pay or they were because of unemployment, and one would not exactly call such periods vacations.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, we have moved on and the pattern is beginning to take shape,

namely that industrial workers-indeed, all workers in a community such as ours-should as a matter of right have both the vacations with pay covered in the other bill and the statutory holidays with pay provided in this bill, second reading of which I am now presenting to the house.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, for a considerable period of time there was something of a division which I think was not good for our society, in that salaried people seemed to get statutory holidays without any loss of pay. In other words, people who were on monthly or annual salary did not suffer because certain days were declared to be public or statutory holidays. On the other hand wage earners, industrial workers and those on hourly rates of pay have had quite a struggle trying to achieve recognition of the fact that they, too, should be paid their regular pay for statutory holidays.
I remind hon. members that the request for legislation to provide these two items-annual vacations with pay, at least two weeks in that case, and also at least eight statutory holidays with pay-is part of the program of the new Canadian Labour Congress. As a matter of fact the new Canadian Labour Congress in that respect is simply carrying forward what were the requests of the constituent organizations which came together to make up that congress. It seems to me we now have a chance in this House of Commons to recognize this new era in Canadian labour history, an era marked by the birth of the Canadian Labour Congress, by dealing favourably with this bill and with the other one which taken together lay before parliament a major item of policy in the platform of the new congress.
I hope hon. members will give serious consideration to the representations that have been made in this connection by organized labour, and that they will recognize that it is hardly fair, in view of the fact that we as a parliament are responsible for some of the statutory holidays being observed-for example, Victoria day and Dominion day as well as some others, are holidays by virtue of federal statutes-for us to require that these holidays be observed and not take cognizance of the fact that the result is that some people in the observance of those holidays do not lose their pay and others do. Surely the way to get around that unfairness is to pass what might be called ancillary legislation such as is contained in these two bills and make it clear that the holidays which we require to be observed-indeed, all of them as set out in this bill-shall be days when all those who contribute to the economy of this country, whether they be salaried
Industrial Relations
workers or wage earners on hourly rates of pay, shall have those holidays without loss of pay.
Mr. Speaker, it has been an argument I have used with respect to some other pieces of legislation in the labour field which we in this group have presented from time to time that the provinces were already giving us a lead and that the federal government was falling behind. That is the case with respect to some of the other matters we have placed before parliament at this session. So far as this item is concerned, the fact is that the provinces are rather slow in coming forward with appropriate legislation. I suggest that perhaps for once, instead of the federal government having to be prodded to get in step and having to be prodded to put on its statute books legislation akin to that which is on the statute books of most of the provinces, in this case the federal government might take the lead.
In other words, I am admitting that the picture in the provinces is not as progressive in this field of statutory holidays as labour generally and we in this party feel it should be. I find on reference to a document prepared by the Department of Labour entitled "Provincial Labour Standards", published under the authority of the Minister of Labour in December, 1955, that there are six provinces in which there is some legislation regarding statutory or public holidays.
Those six provinces, to take them in geographical order from east to west, are Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. However, in two of those provinces the only effect of the legislation regarding statutory or public holidays is that a certain number of holidays shall be observed. I might say with respect to these various provinces that have some legislation in this field that they vary as to the number of holidays declared to be public or statutory holidays. In some cases it is seven and in some it is eight, and various other figures are established in different provinces.
However, of the six provinces that have some kind of legislation respecting statutory or public holidays, there are four that make provision for what rates of pay employees are to receive if they are required to work on any of the statutory holidays set out in that provincial legislation. Those four, and again I take them in geographical order starting in the east, are Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Hon. members will note that I have now had to leave out Newfoundland and British Columbia, both of which were in the previous list of six which I gave. Those are the two whose

Industrial Relations
legislation merely prescribes that the holidays shall be observed. However, in the case of these four-Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-there are varying provisions as to the rates of pay that employees shall receive if they are required to work on statutory holidays.
It would be a confusing picture indeed if I tried to spell it all out, but I might just indicate that the rate varies from straight time to time and a half and perhaps more in some cases. There are also provisions in some instances for compensatory time off rather than extra pay. Some provinces make a distinction between one group of workers and another, and in some instances better protection is given to women than to others so far as statutory holidays are concerned. However, those four provinces go at least as far as to make some provision as to the rate of pay to be given to workers if they are required to work on statutory holidays.
There is only one province in the whole of Canada which takes the further step and requires that all workers shall receive pay for statutory holidays even though they do not work. I trust hon. members get the distinction. The three provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia make no provision for pay for statutory holidays if you do not work. They provide what you get if you do work, but Saskatchewan is the one province which is unique in this field because it has taken a further step and makes all three provisions; first, that there shall be observed certain statutory holidays; second, that those who work on those statutory holidays shall receive pay at an overtime rate; and third, that all employees, even those who do not work, shall receive pay at their regular rate for statutory holidays.


Frank A. Enfield: This legislation would have no effect on the field normally covered by provincial statutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not at all. I thought I made it clear at the start that this bill, like other bills in this field, relates only to employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction. I am sure the hon. member will realize from the discussions we have had on other labour bills that every time we discuss labour conditions the question arises as to whether we are behind or in front of the provinces in that field. I have suggested that in some of the other fields the federal government is behind the provinces, and I am suggesting that in this field we are behind them as well. I am not saying that nothing has been done by the provinces, but very little has been done and it would not be very hard for the federal parliament to get out in front and give a lead.

It is my thought, and I am sure it is also the thought of some hon. members on the government side of the house, that if a lead were given in this matter by the federal parliament in connection with those employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction it might prompt some of the provinces to come along and do likewise.
There have been such instances. As a matter of fact the first jurisdiction in this country to pass legislation protecting the pension rights of workers against loss due to strikes was this federal parliament, which passed legislation in that field in 1948, after it had been asked for by some of us for many years. It was not very long after that step had been taken by the parliament of Canada in 1948 that that particular item of legislation was copied by a number of the provinces and pension rights are now pretty generally protected against loss due to strike or lockout, right across Canada. Similarly it is my conviction that if the federal parliament were to take a lead with respect to statutory holidays with pay it would set a goal at which the provinces might aim. I would hope that progress would be made in that field with a minimum of delay.
Before the hon. member for York-Scarbo-rough interjected his question I was coming to the conclusion of that part of my remarks in which 1 was trying to indicate the picture in the provinces, namely that something has been done but that much remains to be done in all provinces except one, namely the province of Saskatchewan, where eight holidays, the same eight that are spelled out in this bill, are declared to be statutory holidays and where it is declared also that those who do not work on those days shall receive their regular pay and that those who are required to work shall receive pay at overtime rates.
In addition to the interesting information which I gleaned from pages 8 and 9 of this departmental document entitled "Provincial Labour Studies", I also gleaned certain information from some interesting tables which the economics and research branch of the Department of Labour supplied to me. I am grateful to the minister's department for the receipt of this material. As a matter of fact I think I might take a moment to say that the people in the minister's department do a particularly good job in terms of collecting statistics and making them available. This may be a bit of a digression, but I want to say also that those who edit the Labour Gazette do a very good job of keeping people who are interested in labour matters informed on what is going on in the labour field. I suppose after having said that, a report of this debate should appear in the

next issue of the Labour Gazette, but that was not my purpose in putting in that word of compliment.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to a couple of the tables which appear in this collection of material I received relative to working conditions. One is table No. 29, which indicates the number of paid statutory holidays enjoyed by office employees in manufacturing establishments across Canada. What interested me is that the largest single group receiving statutory holidays, receive eight of them a year. Indeed, 61-1 per cent of office employees in manufacturing establishments, receive that nany paid statutory holidays a year.
It is difficult to get corresponding figures for hourly-paid workers, hence my reference to the position enjoyed by office workers. I suggest that it indicates something as to a goal which it might be desirable to achieve. The number who receive seven paid statutory holidays is 10-7 per cent, and those who receive nine or more is just about 20 per cent. In other words, the great bulk of that group of office workers who receive pay for statutory holidays, receive it for eight such holidays. It is on that basis that I suggest we are justified in asking this parliament to approve the principle of eight paid statutory holidays for all employees who come under the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament.
This same set of tables which I obtained from the minister's department deals with the question of rates of pay given to hourly-paid industrial workers when they do receive extra pay for working on statutory holidays. Hon. members will understand that when reference is made to hourly-paid workers who get extra pay for working on statutory holidays, we are talking not about something which they get by virtue of legislation but of something which they get by virtue in most cases of collective agreements. That would apply except for the provisions in the labour legislation in Saskatchewan. There is no other province in Canada in which the right to paid statutory holidays is protected by legislation.
Nevertheless, by virtue of collective agreements some paid statutory holidays are enjoyed by workers. One of the struggles in which the trade union movement is engaged all the time is to obtain that provision for more workers, and to get for those who enjoy that provision an increasing number of paid statutory holidays. In some agreements the number starts at four or five and gradually the number gets to six, seven or eight. But I am also interested in the question of the premium rates paid to those who
Industrial Relations
work on statutory holidays in manufacturing establishments, bearing in mind that most of these have been established by virtue of collective agreements between management and trade unions.
I find that according to table 23 in this group of tables I have in my hand, 9-4 per cent of those for whom there is a specified rate as to what they will get for working statutory holidays get time and a half as the premium rate. I find that 32-9 per cent get double time for working on statutory holidays, and that 39-1 per cent get more than double time. The table I have before me does not specify how much more, but in view of the fact that 32-9 per cent get double time and 39 [DOT] 1 per cent get more than double time, it seems to me that we are more than justified in asking in this bill that the rate of pay to those who are required to work on statutory holidays be their regular pay plus a premium rate of double time.
There are those, of course, who will probably produce in this debate the same argument that is produced every time we introduce legislation regarding labour matters, namely would it not be a good idea to leave this to collective bargaining? We have had that with regard to the check-off. We used to have it years ago when some of us were fighting for that other provision to which I referred, the protection of pension rights against loss due to strikes. We had it in the debate on Bill No. 211 a few weeks ago, and I suppose we shall get it again today. Frankly, I sometimes am surprised that members who put forward that kind of argument accept any labour legislation of any kind. After all, the logical conclusion of that sort of argument is to leave everything to collective bargaining, to leave everything to the struggle between management and labour.
Hon. members are fully aware of the importance of collective bargaining in labour relations and that importance is recognized by all parties in this house. But we have also recognized that step by step and stage by stage the point is reached where some things have to be protected, where pegs have to be established so the rights won by labour will not slip below those pegs.
Labour itself, the trade union movement, which defends the principle of collective bargaining and which is opposed to compulsory arbitration, nevertheless is continually seeking from the legislatures of the country and from this federal parliament legislation protecting certain of those hard-won rights. It is on that basis that labour has sought from parliament in years gone by laws to protect the right to organize and laws to

Industrial Relations
protect the practice of collective bargaining. It is on that basis that labour has sought measures such as I now lay before this house, namely annual vacations with pay and statutory holidays with pay for all workers in this country.
I hope the day is not far off when the argument that we must leave these things to .collective bargaining, which is another way of saying with respect to this sort of thing that we leave it to the struggle between the worker and the boss, will not be heard but rather that we will recognize that there are certain social rights that should be enjoyed by all the people of Canada. Though we ,do not have it by legislation in this country, .except in the one province of Saskatchewan, there are many Canadians today who because they are salaried employees, because they are monthly rate employees, because of collective agreements or for other reasons, enjoy statutory holidays with pay. There are statutory holidays. The provinces declare [DOT]that some of them should be observed and this parliament declares that certain others should be observed. Yet we leave a great many of our people without the benefit of knowing that when they enjoy those statutory holidays their pay for those days will continue.
I say again that this is an important year in Canadian labour history, with the birth of the new Canadian Labour Congress. I should hope that the parliament of Canada, even *before this session ends, might yet do something significant, something substantial, something that will recognize the birth of that new congress, something more than just words in the fine speeches that were made to the delegates when the congress was formed in Toronto in April. I suggest that one of these substantial, worth-while gestures that this parliament could make would be to pass these two bills. I mention them together because they are companion bills, the other one calling for two weeks' annual vacation with pay and this one calling for eight statutory holidays with pay for all workers in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has brought in for second reading the companion bill to Bill No. 211, and in presenting it to the house this afternoon he has presented with eloquence his appeal for those who come under the federal jurisdiction, that their conditions of work should be improved by act of this parliament. I know that it is always a very pleasant thing to sponsor something that one is sure a great many of the people directly concerned want to have done. Without a moment's hesitation I agree with him

that this and Bill No. 211 were among those matters that were discussed at the great Canadian Labour Congress held in Toronto a short time ago.
In spite of his remarks criticizing my habit of bringing up the virtue of collective bargaining on these matters, nevertheless I bring it up in this connection without making any apology for doing so. My comments must of necessity be along the same lines as those which I applied to Bill 211. This bill deals with a matter that is normally -and even more normally than what is asked for under Bill 211-a matter that is subject to collective bargaining. I stress again that the employees of industries which come under federal jurisdiction are in very truth highly organized unions. They are not of that weak and incapable nature that might be inferred from some of the words of my hon. friend, in that they require from time to time the bolstering of legislation by this parliament to uphold their hands. Their collective agreements have referred to items right across the board in the conditions of work and more particularly, as he has pointed out, in recent years to the items contained in this particular bill. For instance, there are the observance of certain statutory holidays, the pay that is to be given for those holidays and the premium pay for work that may be done if instructed to work on those holidays. In some industries, particularly the transportation or railway industries, the nature of the work calls for continuous operation of the service and rather specialized types of work scheduling have to be worked out. In order to do that, statutory holidays are dealt with in collective agreements	covering some	groups of
employees, and they are not a consideration of any great importance among other groups.
As examples of that I refer to the results of recent negotiations that have been going on. In the first example, statutory holidays were a very important factor in the collective bargaining during the last few months involving the 130,000 non-operating employees of the railways. On the other hand, in the dispute involving locomotive engineers statutory holidays were not a factor in the settlement arrived at, because in the view of the workers other things were more important than statutory holidays.
This indicates, I think, particularly in the transportation industries which come under federal jurisdiction, that there should be a flexibility to a degree not provided by this cover-all bill, in order to enable management and labour to work out a settlement. The bill makes no exception for any groups of workers whatsoever. The people who are

to come under it are listed in the usual fashion in the first part of the bill and include everybody coming within the jurisdiction of federal labour laws. I contend that the passing of the bill would do away with a necessary flexibility in working out their collective agreements.
When the two parties work out an agreement they look over all the working conditions that exist in the industry. One extra paid statutory holiday may be looked upon as as important or more important than a few cents in extra pay or vice versa, and for parliament to require by law a fixed number of holidays and the conditions of pay for those holidays would be to some extent an intervention in the collective bargaining process of a fairly serious nature in some industries.
In many parts of the world, of course, collective bargaining does not play the important part that it does in Canada. There the conditions of employment are laid down by the government in fairly rigid terms, but in Canada we hold the view that the role of labour legislation that deals with economic issues, as this bill does, is to provide for a basic standard. I contend, as was clear in the summary of statistics and reports given by my hon. friend, that Bill No. 441 goes quite some distance beyond a basic standard in this year 1956.
Some very important gains have been made in this field in recent years, but even with the gains that have been made the terms set out in the bill go beyond what labour law administrators in the provincial or federal jurisdiction consider to be a basic standard. There is some evidence that unorganized workers have shared in the gains and improvements that have been made in recent years. Out of about 380,000 employees coming under federal jurisdiction, some 90 per cent now receive some paid statutory holidays. As my hon. friend said, about 40 per cent of the workers receive eight or more statutory holidays and most of the remainder receive six or seven. Therefore, while my hon. friend may not be away out in the vanguard with regard to the total number of holidays, I do contend that with respect to the pay for such holidays, the overtime rate, with the exception of one province, the province of Saskatchewan, to which he referred no jurisdiction reaches the high point which my hon. friend has reached in the bill.
I should like to refer again to the transportation industry in this year 1956. I am going to take four examples of settlements. Three are in the transportation industry and one happens to be in the radio industry. Employees of radio station CKLW, Windsor,
Industrial Relations
achieved seven statutory holidays with pay through collective bargaining. With regard to the operating railway employees, the locomotive engineers to whom I referred a moment ago, the statutory holiday factor played no important part in the settlement of their dispute. In the case of the C.P.R. dining car employees' dispute, the employees had four statutory holidays prior to this year and they will have seven after this year under the new agreement. In the case of the non-operating railway employees' dispute, prior to 1956 they had gained five statutory holidays through collective bargaining. In the recent settlement they gained a sixth statutory holiday in 1956 and a seventh commencing in 1957. That settlement affected about 130,000 workers.
These four settlements of recent date indicate the great variety of desires on the part of workers in reaching their collective agreements, and the great variety of opinion that exists on the topic covered by the bill. If the provisions of the bill were made law and came into effect on the 1st day of September next, the industries to which I have referred and others to which I have not referred would have to adjust their hard-sought and hard worked-out agreements to conform to the terms of this new legislation, and it would certainly create a situation that I would not want to be a party to bringing about.
I made some reference to the situation as it exists in the provinces. I have no dispute whatsoever with the interpretation that has been placed upon the information by my hon. friend. He has given a fair summary of the situation, though I do contend that as far as this matter is concerned we should not be in the position of prodding the provinces. If we feel it is essential within our own jurisdiction, we should do it on that account only. We should not set ourselves up as advisers, and should not give ourselves the special task of prodding the provinces to do something they do not want to do.
Bill No. 441 provides that there are to be eight specified public holidays for which an employee is to receive his regular wages even if he does not work. The sponsor made that very clear. If he does work he is to receive his regular wages plus a sum equal to twice that amount. In other words he will receive triple wages for that particular statutory holiday if he works. In the light of what we know about collective agreement provisions and provincial legislation, it is clear that this is well beyond anything we have at the present time.
As to the principle of the bill, the question of whether or not legislation to deal

Industrial Relations
with the payment of wages on statutory holidays is necessary, I can tell my hon. friend that my department will continue to study that matter. The possible need for legislation such as the bill presents will be looked into. I welcome the fact that the hon. member has brought the matter before the house at the present time, but if it comes to a vote I shall not be able to support the bill for the reasons I have given.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), as I always do when we come to the discussion of topics of this nature. As he himself indicated, some of the arguments he advanced had a familiar ring.
I may say at once that, as far as 1 am concerned, I find myself heartily in support of the bill which has been introduced in the house by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. When we consider a bill of this kind or a bill which has been described as a companion to this one and on which we had discussion a short time ago, I feel that those of us who are members of the federal parliament of Canada have a responsibility to think a little bit about the kind or nature of society in which we are moving in Canada, the kind of society in which we hope our children and children's children will find themselves able to live.
I am not able to boast of a great number of years as far as my own span of life is concerned, but even in the relatively short period over which I am able to look back I think I can honestly say that I have seen quite a transformation in the attitude which a great many people in Canada take toward the kind of conditions under which the Canadian people should live and work. I agree that in the legislative field we cannot advance beyond certain reasonable minimums in the standards that are set by legislation; we cannot attempt to achieve the impossible by legislation. Nevertheless when one thinks of the tremendous change that has taken place in our ability to produce goods and services in the last 10, 15, 20 or 25 years, if one assesses the matter fairly I think one must come to the point of admitting that a proposal of the nature of that advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this bill is not beyond the realm of reasonableness.
The minister suggested that there were grounds on which we could concern ourselves with the setting of certain minimum standards. As far as I am concerned, I would be prepared to argue here or anywhere else that the proposals which are contained in

this bill do not go beyond the setting of reasonable minimum conditions which, in this day and age, all Canadian citizens should, by right, be able to enjoy.
It may be perfectly true, as the minister says, that this legislation in the federal field would affect only a relatively small percentage, those coming within federal labour jurisdiction. If that is the case, even in part, I would submit that fact in itself is an argument in favour of the passage of this bill. I would agree with him that it is not particularly the duty of this parliament to try to force the provinces into the position of being obliged to pass certain legislation. I am quite sure that was not what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had in mind when he made some reference to that aspect of the situation. We all recognize the fact that in their own jurisdictions the provinces are supreme. However, I would suggest that there is nothing to prevent us taking upon our own responsibility, in the field of social legislation, action which we consider to be for the welfare of the Canadian people as far as we have legislative concern for it, and to hope that our example may be considered worth copying.
It is not a matter of telling anybody what to do or of intimidation. It is merely a matter, under certain circumstances perhaps, of setting a desirable lead which may be followed by legislators in our provinces or in other parts of the world. I believe that legislation which has come into being in most of the democratic countries from time to time has been materially influenced by what has been done by other powers. I believe that we learn-and I think rightly so- from what the parliament of the United Kingdom does or from what the parliaments in the Scandinavian countries do or, generally speaking, from what is done in parliaments in countries where the people have a somewhat similar outlook to that prevailing in this country on matters of this kind.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that in the time that remains, I will not have the opportunity of saying all that I perhaps might like to say in this phase of the debate. I feel that the basic principles of the bill were set forth quite completely in the introductory speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. From a study of the subject matter of the bill itself and from what he has said in his speech I feel that the members of this house, after a little reflection, will perhaps come to realize that this is a measure which should receive the stamp of approval of this parliament at an early date.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.

Supply-National Defence


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I move the adjournment of the debate?
On motion of Mr. Barnett the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the business tinder discussion before five o'clock.

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.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, when the
committee rose at five o'clock I was dealing with the present state of the air force auxiliary units and posing the question why, with all the increasing demands for air transport facilities, heightened by the new emphasis on an airborne army and the necessity for mobility of troops; and I think the last point I was raising was the situation relating to the presence of Canadian troops in Europe, who would be faced with the necessity of rapid evacuation if hostilities ever developed on the continent of Europe. We had some discussion about this last night, in which it was suggested that plans for the rapid evacuation of those Canadian service personnel and their dependents are still in the process of formulation, and we are diminishing our air transport facilities. No doubt any comprehensive plan would require the use of air force transport facilities.
Supply-National Defence
To bring these remarks to a conclusion in the form of some concrete questions, I should like to ask the minister why it is that with these increasing demands for air force transport we seem to be diminishing our transport facilities rather than enlarging them. This is the case with the auxiliary squadrons as well as with our regular transport squadrons, or it would seem to me to be so. On May 10 of this year I received an answer to a question about the number and kind of aircraft operated by transport command. Unfortunately I was not too specific with my questions and in reply to the following question-
What aircraft are operated by the H.C.A.F. transport command?
-I got merely a listing of the types of aircraft, such as Lancaster, North Star, C-119, and so forth. I am wondering whether the minister can complete the answer at this time by indicating the number of aircraft of each type that are operational with transport command at the present time? I think it would help to make the answer much more meaningful than it is in the present form.
Finally, returning to the main burden of my presentation at this time, I find it difficult, with the increasing need for transport facilities, to understand why the decision has been taken to disband a squadron as efficient as 424, which has expressed its desire to serve in any capacity. I understand in its representations it particularly mentioned that it would be happy as a transport squadron to supply light transport which would meet the need for a mobile striking force which could stand in an emergency as a unit of civil defence activity, or which could serve in any general role in a transport capacity.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Middlesex East in which he presented the case of 420 London squadron to the minister. That squadron is not being disbanded; it is being reorganized as a radar unit. Again I have had some contact with the personnel of that squadron; I know it is fully operational as a flying unit, and it is their wish that they remain operational in a flying capacity. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that with the rapidly increasing demands for transport facilities the reserve squadrons, instead of being decreased in flying duties at this time, might well be expanded.
One reason the minister gave in justifying the reorganization of those particular auxiliary units was economy. I hardly think that is a justifiable contention, because as I look at page 338 of the estimates and consider that for the past 10 years the reserve

Supply-Naticnial Defence squadrons have been regarded as the backbone of Canadian defence, I think we have been receiving that protection at extremely reasonable cost. Compare it, for example, with the expenditure of $24 million for experimental work on the guided missile we were discussing this afternoon, the "Velvet Glove". I look at the total expenditure for all the auxiliary squadrons last year and I see it was $4,500,000, and this year it is up slightly to $4,750,000. In the light of the total defence expenditure of almost $2 billion, I think that is a very economic way in which to maintain the necessary air force defensive strength of this country.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that the decisions we have taken with regard to the reserve air force, as I have already said, were taken after a great deal of study, a great deal of consideration and after consultation with the senior officers of all the squadrons whom we called in some time ago.
The reserve air force has given very fine service throughout its history. We have come to the point in defence where we have to look for economies and to consider the results obtained in relation to the moneys spent. One of the things that became evident as we made a study of this problem was that it was very expensive to operate air auxiliary squadrons in places where there were no other air force flying activities, and particularly in those places where there was no other flying activity, as in the case of Hamilton where, as I have already said in the house, it cost upwards of $1 million to provide an airfield for flying for the pilots and air crew of the auxiliary squadron on week ends.
Now, having come to that conclusion-and 1 do not want to go into all the details of the financial aspects-the question was how could we utilize the services of the persons in the auxiliary squadron most usefully, having regard to any other air force activities in the community and having regard to the territory from which they might draw and the number of people we might expect to continue active in their services? And here I would like to interject, because I do not think there should be any secret about it, that the Sabre jet is not being put into certain auxiliary air squadrons as a major item in the defence of the country. The objections which were quoted by my hon. friend still obtain; Sabres were given to six of the twelve squadrons because they were located in areas where the population was great enough to support squadron activities.
Now, the situation was different in respect of each of the several squadrons. Take the


Winnipeg squadron for example. Navigational training is a very important factor. A very expensive school is maintained at Winnipeg to train regular force air crew in navigation. It was felt therefore that the auxiliary squadron there could very usefully participate in training navigators.
As regards the Hamilton squadron, I have mentioned the fact that it was located at an airport which we had to operate solely for the purpose of maintaining week end flying for an auxiliary squadron. As far as London is concerned there was no air defence control and warning unit stationed there and I can assure the hon. member that the assistance of auxiliary personnel there in this role will be very important to the R.C.A.F. It was felt that having regard to the set-up with which the squadron in London could be associated, it could very usefully serve in the role of an aircraft warning and control.
In regard to Calgary, for various reasons it was felt that a small transport training squadron could be usefully located there in addition to other activities being carried on. They were all considered together and then each one was considered separately. These decisions which have been taken represent as I have already said, a good deal of study by the air force, who should be expected to know the most useful functions the auxiliaries can perform from now on, in the foreseeable future. It was with great reluctance that we made the changes we did make, but they were not made haphazardly and without consideration. As regards the general set-up, we will still have six auxiliary squadrons flying. The other six will assume other duties which to the air force seem useful and necessary.
The hon. member asked, with regard to the transport squadrons, the types of planes we have and the numbers of each type. I have them here by squadrons, with the number of aircraft listed. At No. 426 squadron, based at Dorval, there are 12 North Stars. At No. 412 squadron, based at Rockcliffe, there are nine Dakotas, three Expeditors, two North Stars, and one C-5. At No. 435 squadron, based at Edmonton, there are eight C-119's. At No. 4 transport, based at Trenton, there are three North Stars, three C-119's, three Dakotas and one Expeditor. At the R.C.A.F. station, Lachine, there are two Expeditors. At the R.C.A.F. station, Goose Bay, there is one Dakota and one Otter. At the R.C.A.F. station, Churchill, there is one Otter. At No. 436 squadron, Dorval, there are six C-119's. At 108 flight at Rockcliffe, which is a helicopter flight, there are 22 helicopters.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I want to thank the minister for that additional information but I cannot entirely agree with his conclusions concerning


the reassignment of duties of the particular squadrons we have mentioned. I think perhaps I can press the query by putting it this way. The white paper announces that we are moving toward air portability in our army; and just looking quickly at the list of transport aircraft available which the minister gave the committee just a moment ago it would seem there is going to be a great need for rapid expansion in our air transport facilities.
If this is to be done through regular squadron channels it seems to me it is going to be a very expensive proposition because, as already indicated by the total cost of our reserve operations last year, there is no comparison between the expenditure for the maintenance of reserve air force squadrons as compared with permanent force air squadrons. I quoted the total figure of $4| million which, in the light of today's astronomical expenditures, particularly for air defence, is a mere bagatelle. That, of course, is for the reserve only, and it is a mere trifle as compared with the whole defence expenditure.
Referring again to the reply I received to my question of May 10, I inquired as to the number of multi-engine aircraft that would be required to make a fully equipped infantry brigade air portable. The reply was it would depend on the type of aircraft used, of course, but an example could be given. If the C-119 aircraft were used the number required would be 148. As I look at the number of C-119's in service with the transport command at the present time they come to 17 or 18 aircraft, which means we would be short some 100 planes in meeting the requirements for air-lifting one infantry brigade.
I said at the beginning of my remarks concerning the functions of auxiliary squadrons that we have had constant changes of policy in regard to reserve squadron activities. In the first instance they were responsible for the total defence of Canada. We criticized that concept and now, as I said in my remarks of yesterday, I believe it seems that we are beginning to minimize the effectiveness of auxiliary squadrons.
I do not think Canada has sufficient funds to maintain an adequate air defence force on a full time permanent basis. The minister has announced that that is the essential function of Canada's role in the defence of North America; and if we are going to justify the expenditures for the three radar lines we must have adequate aircraft to back up the billion dollar expenditure. I think the total expenditure for the "Pinetree", mid-Canada and D.E.W. lines comes to about $1 billion.
Supply-National Defence That is money down the drain unless we have the personnel and the aircraft to back it up.
While I have defended the radar policy in this house to a limited extent, I know it has been under severe criticism from rather responsible and authoritative sources in Canada as well as in the United States. If we are going to minimize the function of the auxiliary squadrons by arbitrarily disbanding and reorganizing as we have in recent days, it is certainly not going to have a very stimulating and beneficial effect on morale.
We have sufficient difficulty as it is interesting young Canadians in devoting their time to the defence of the country on a permanent basis. I do not think it is in the best interests of the over-all defensive role that Canada is obliged to assume in the defence of North America to allow the pendulum to swing from one extreme where we are dependent on the auxiliary for our total defence to the other extreme. We were told many times that we were adequately defended because we had those ten auxiliary squadrons equipped with Mustangs. Now we are moving in the opposite direction. The minister has stated that there were consultations with the senior officers affected, but I understand that one of the complaints of both 424 and 420 squadrons-I have the information before me-is that the first intimation they had was the minister's announcement in the House of Commons, which came in the midst of their preparations for summer camp operational flying.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has made out a strong case with which the minister must deal. The minister said there had been consultations with senior officers, but it is interesting to hear that the officers actually connected with the auxiliary squadrons were not taken into conference at all. It reminds me very much of what took place two years ago in connection with the reorganization of the militia. At that time a team of senior officers crossed the continent and then presented a report with regard to the reorganization of the militia. I was in command of a militia unit in Winnipeg and the senior officers appeared in the city, but the first I knew that they were there was when they were leaving. It would appear that the air force people have been treated in exactly the same way.
We have been working for years to make our army a mobile force, and this will require air transport. Why not make use of the trained pilots in the reserve force for that purpose? I think the minister should give us more information about this.

Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, what are we talking about? We are really talking about two auxiliary air force squadrons, as there are only two squadrons which are being taken off flying.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Four or five hundred personnel.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member gave a figure of $4-75 million as being the cost of the auxiliary air force. That is only a portion of the cost, the pay of the civilians and the service personnel. These squadrons have to have a very substantial and expensive back-up from the regular air force. The figure of $4-75 million represents only a part of the total cost of the auxiliary air force. Then we must consider the cost versus the number of hours flown, which is the only real comparison; and by its very nature the number of hours flown by the auxiliary air force is quite small when compared with the hours flown by the regular force, because the auxiliary aircrew put in only week ends and short-term periods.
Then the hon. member suggested the auxiliary force should be used for air transport purposes in connection with the portability of our infantry which is now under study, and for the needs of the air force. Unquestionably transport work would have to be done by the regular force, because the auxiliary force is only what its name indicates. I hope no one will take my remarks as having any reflection on their ability, because they have done excellent work within the limits of their opportunities.
I do not think the problem is as widespread or as deep as is indicated. It is apparently important locally, as the hon. member has pointed out, but I do not think the provision of transport flying by the auxiliary could ever be the answer to the needs that may arise. And there are still ten of the twelve auxiliary squadrons flying.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister would indicate what is to happen to the young men who belonged to these squadrons, particularly to squadron 424 in Hamilton, who would like to continue their work in the air force reserve but who now have no facilities available? What is to happen to the units which formerly carried out gunnery practice at Mount Hope? Where are they to carry out that practice? Is it to be continued at Mount Hope despite the fact that the squadron is no longer to fly? What is to happen to the experienced pilots to the number of around 30-the minister can correct me if I am wrong-who were part of this reserve unit?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As far as Hamilton is concerned, there is in that area a control and warning unit similar to the one we established in London. This has been in existence for quite some time and is at about half strength. I would expect that the personnel of the flying squadron who wished to continue their association with the air force and who chose to do so could very well take up further training in this important field of air force operations. That was given consideration as a supplementary operation when we were discussing the other question. There is a lot of activity in the air force of great importance besides flying. I admit that flying is the spectacular element, but there is much technical work which provides excellent support to the other activities of the air force. I would hope that the personnel in Hamilton would bring this unit up to strength and thus be usefully and I hope with great interest employed on a voluntary basis.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: What happens to the units from outside Hamilton, which were in the habit of coming to the station at Mount Hope for gunnery practice?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that there is no gunnery range at Mount Hope. There is a gunnery range in lake Erie and planes may have stopped off at Mount Hope on the way to that range. There are various, other places, and there should be no problem to gunnery practice.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The information we had locally was that units from Toronto and other places came to Hamilton to carry out part of their training.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not know of any gunnery practice being carried on at Mount Hope.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As far as the economy plea of the minister is concerned, this appears to be a case of locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen; and I use the reference to horses in a broad sense, of course. I understand that in the past few years large sums of money were invested in the aerodrome at Mount Hope to make it operational for jet flying purposes. The information I have is that millions of dollars have been spent in the past four or five years in preparing the Mount Hope aerodrome for the operations of these squadrons.
It would seem that the idea of air portability is in the early planning stages, and the hope is that the job will be done by the permanent force squadrons. However, judging by the difficulty there is in maintaining recruiting, particularly ground personnel, for our existing permanent force
fMr. Churchill.!

squadrons it would appear that there is not even the remotest possibility of those squadrons being able to carry out these functions. If I were a prophet I would venture to say that when the plans are completed and the department decides to move ahead, it will necessitate some more crash planning and reactivating of auxiliary squadrons that have now been disbanded.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Am I to understand that the disbandment of 424 squadron has been deferred pending reconsideration of the whole picture?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, I would not want my hon. friend to take that inference. The decision has been taken and the decision stands as of now; but we have received representations, both myself from civilians in Hamilton and the air force from the reserve officers. The reserve officers have asked whether they might make certain other submissions, which are being made, I presume, shortly. Of course that request was granted, because if there were further submissions we would want to hear them, but there has been no change in the original decision.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to make just one more plea to the minister on this basis. The city of Hamilton has always been very proud of its military men in all branches of the services; its militia has been a source of great pride to Hamiltonians generally, and it has a good auxiliary naval force. It seems too bad that one arm of the services should be left out of active participation. I know it is a matter of great regret to Hamiltonians generally and those who were members of the 424 squadron in particular.
In all seriousness I ask the minister to give great consideration to this matter, because it is not a light thing to discourage so many persons who are actively engaged in military exercises of this sort, particularly when their activities have been a source of pride and a matter of interest for a quarter of a million people in that district.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not quite follow the minister in his remarks concerning air portability for the army, which he suggests is in the planning stage, and then his argument that the reserve air force, for reasons of economy and other reasons, must be reduced in size. He is having great difficulty in keeping his present air force up to strength. According to the Globe and Mail of July 6, 1956, the air force recruited 8,153 in the course of the year, for a net gain of 1,580. However, we are constantly hearing about the loss of air crew and changes in personnel. In the case of pilots, age rapidly plays its part, and they have to be retired.
Supply-National Defence
The minister says he is planning for transport by the permanent air force. Yet according to the figures in the answer provided to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris on May 10, 148 aircraft would be required to airlift an infantry brigade. How many men in the air force would be required to man and service 148 transport aircraft, and how is the minister going to provide those? Is he going to enlarge the permanent air force to that extent in the face of the present troubles he is having in keeping up the strength of the services? Surely the intervening period while this planning is going on would be the time for the utilization of the reserve air force. Experience would be gained by utilizing pilots and men in the reserve air force, and within a year or two perhaps a clear picture would be presented with regard to a major plan for air transport for the army.


William Alfred Robinson: Defence research and development.


Howard Charles Green: There has been some discussion concerning the missile project known as the "Velvet Glove". The minister said on July 18 that the total cost to date is just under $24 million. Can he tell the house whether that project has been concluded or whether there will still be further money to be spent in connection with it and, if so, how much?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There will be some further expenditures-we do not know exactly how much, but not a great amount-in phasing in the "Velvet Glove" project to the "Sparrow" project, which will be taking place as an operational exercise because we shall be making "Sparrow" in Canada. All the knowhow and research and so on is being directed from the "Velvet Glove" into the development of the "Sparrow". Where one will begin and the other leave off is still uncertain as to cost, so that there will be some further expenditures identifiable with the "Velvet Glove" project to bring it into phase with the other, but the major expenditures are all as a result of the "Velvet Glove".


Howard Charles Green: What would be the approximate figure?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It would be very difficult at this stage to give a definite figure with any certainty, but it is a matter of probably $2 million or $3 million. I am not stating that as a fact, because we have not the fact.


Howard Charles Green: What is the total amount to be spent on the guided missile program during the present fiscal year? The minister said on July 18 that the portion of the increase in the vote for the defence research board for this year to be spent on guided missiles

Supply-National Defence would be $6-8 million; but what is the total expenditure, including of course that additional expenditure?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We have estimated it now at something approximating $10 million to $11 million.


Howard Charles Green: That is including the $6 million?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Is that money all to be spent on the "Sparrow" type of guided missile?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That sum will all be expended either in connection with phasing in the "Velvet Glove", as I have mentioned, or in the development of the "Sparrow", related to that project.


Howard Charles Green: The "Sparrow" missile, as I understand it, is a United States production. Is that right?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: How much of this money is to be spent in purchasing these guided missiles from the United States?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not able to tell the hon. member at the moment just what will be purchased from the United States. The other phase will be the tooling up to make the missile here in Canada. These missiles, will be made in Canada under licence by my colleague from the owners of the rights in the United States. Before we get into production, and it will be some time before the plants are tooled up, we will be purchasing some. The exact number we will purchase has not been determined yet.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give us the approximate division of expenditures for guided missiles during this fiscal year as between money spent in Canada and money spent in the United States?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The best estimate we can make at the moment would be probably $1 million to $2 million in the United States and the rest in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: When the estimates of the department were under consideration on June 21 I dealt briefly with the question of making some arrangement whereby parliament would have some check on the money being spent by the defence research board. As I understand it, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, hitherto parliament has had absolutely no idea of how this money was being spent by the defence research board. There has never been a committee of any kind investigate the activities of the board, though they have been spending many millions of dollars. As it
I Mr. Green.]

now turns out, the $24 million spent on the "Velvet Glove" project went largely down the drain.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, I would not agree with that. We can differ on that.


Howard Charles Green: Certainly a good many million dollars went down the drain on the "Velvet Glove" project.


Ralph Osborne Campney: If you look at it from that point of view then I suppose that in the development of any guided missile program one can say that money goes down the drain, but this is an experimental business and I think in most of the great countries much greater sums of money have been expended on similar types of projects, sometimes without success.


Howard Charles Green: Well, it was an expenditure that did not pay off very well. Let us put it that way. Has the minister any suggestions as to a method by which parliament would be able to check the expenditures of the defence research board? As he knows, during the war there were committees on war expenditures in different sessions, and I think no harm was done to the country and no important secrets were divulged. That practice did give parliament some check on the large sums of money which were being spent. Has the minister any suggestions tonight as to ways in which parliament can be brought into this picture so there can be some check on the expenditures being made by the defence research board?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The details of the item are set up in exactly the same way as in other branches of the department, as the hon. member will see if he will look at page 339. As to the projects in which the defence research board is engaged, a considerable number of them are classified, though not all. I did try in the white paper this year, as I think the hon. member may have noticed, to describe much more fully the work and the projects of the defence research board in general terms than has been done heretofore.
With respect to whether there should be any different method of investigating these expenditures than the usual method that applies to the rest of the branches of the department, I do not know that I have any suggestion. I do not know whether any suggestion is required. It is part of our department. It is true that it deals largely with technical and scientific projects, a great number of which are classified, but I think the details as set out here and the comparative details-I have amplified them

with relation to the increases-show generally the operational picture of the defence research board.


Howard Charles Green: This year there has been a special committee of the house investigating the activities of the government in the field of non-military research. Of course that committee had no power to delve into expenditures for military research. Would the minister have any objection to a committee of some sort being set up during the next session with power to inquire into expenditures for military research? As the minister knows, these expenditures have doubled within the last three or four years. In 1954-55 the amount asked was $50,400,000. In each of the two preceding years it was only $42 million. This year we are being asked for over $79 million. Would the minister have any objection to the setting up of a committee of the type I have mentioned during the next session?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I presume this is a problem that is common to all countries engaged in defence research, and I certainly would not want to give an answer to the hon. member now. I would want to consider the situation and I would also want to discuss it with the head of the defence research board in relation to the activities of the board. I shall be glad to look into the matter, but I would not want to make any commitment at the moment.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, some time ago I directed some questions to the minister with regard to the security guards at the defence research board. At that time I believe he said he hoped that a more suitable classification would soon be established for the security guards which would remove some of the discrepancy involved in the situation in which they find themselves by reason of having been placed on a 48-hour week compared with a 42|-hour week formerly worked, and with no increase in remuneration to compensate for the additional time.
As I understand the situation, the matter of compensation is of considerably less importance to these men than the extra time spent on duty. I wonder whether the minister has any further information on this subject. Has any consideration been given to it, and just what is the outcome of the consideration?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I remember the hon. member's question very well and, as I said I would, I asked the defence research board to review the situation. The last report I had was a couple of weeks ago, and it was that the defence research board personnel
Supply-National Defence section and the civil service commission were engaged in a study to see what could be evolved in relation to the point. I have had no recommendation yet, so the matter is still under consideration.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I understand these men do not come under the civil service commission. The minister probably can tell me if that is right. It seems to me that the minister himself told me they did not come under the civil service commission. I believe some of the difficulty has arisen through an effort on the part of somebody somewhere to try to classify these men as watchmen.
I am sure the minister must know that the work they do is of a different nature from that of an ordinary watchman in any of the other public buildings wherever they may be situated.
This is a matter that has given rise to considerable dissatisfaction, and I must say that I do not blame these men. Their rate of pay is not very high. I believe that even now it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2,750 a year, and the last raise they received, at the time the increase was given to the whole civil service, was only a matter of some $150 a year. Yet they have had an increase in their working hours of about 11 per cent. As the minister knows, in the ordinary course of procedure in this house it is not possible to explore a situation like this and gain any positive answers to questions.
I would think the minister should now be able to assure the house that these men are going to be considered-and properly considered-and not just simply dumped overboard in an effort to even up an employment situation which may be troubling the defence research board. If these men properly fall in a class which should be classified as watchmen, there might be some excuse for it; but I understand they are taken off their regular duties and are assigned to special work on occasion by reason of the fact that they are classified as reliable officers-or maybe I could use the expression "extra reliable"-who have been assigned to that particular duty.
If the minister is not prepared to answer this question tonight and give some reasonable explanation, or to assure the house that these men will be considered, I think there must be some place where, during the course of this session, this matter can be brought up again, apart from just on the orders of the day where a simple question does not permit the sort of reply that would be a reasonable reply to the question asked.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I can assure the hon.
member that not only will the situation to which she refers be considered but that it is

Supply-National Defence being considered at the present time. However, I have not had any final recommendation. Until I have it is difficult to deal with the matter any further.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It has been really some time now, has it not? It has been a matter of a month or more than a month. It has been a matter of six or seven weeks since it was first brought up in this house. How much time does the minister need to consider a matter like this?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No; I want an answer.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not know how much time I need. I have put the matter in hand and I have asked for a recommendation. I have asked for a review by the board and the relevant experts of the commission who have yet to advise us on these matters. Whenever I get a recommendation I shall certainly be prepared to deal with the matter, but I cannot set the time limit as to when that recommendation will come forward. I shall do my best to expedite it, in view of the observations just made.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Will the minister advise the officers who are in charge of this matter that he does not want it placed at the bottom of the heap, to come up four or five years from now?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Will do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The last of these details under defence research and development is entitled "all other expenditures" and is in the amount of a little over $6| million, or upwards of twice what it was last year. An item of this sort I think can only be described as a sort of grab-bag item. I wonder if the minister can explain why it is necessary to have an item of that kind in the amount of $65 million for which the estimates do not indicate any real reason? Can he tell us what is the purpose of it?


Ralph Osborne Campney: This sum is for expenditures in connection with special and classified projects of both the army and the navy.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Alfred Robinson: Mutual aid.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Under mutual aid, at page 340, there are two questions I should like to ask in connection with transfers to NATO countries of equipment from service stock. The first is in connection with tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, $1,169,000. I wonder whether the minister can tell us what tanks or other armoured fighting vehicles those are and to what country they are going. Will he give us the same information with [Mr. Campney !
regard to aircraft and engines, which come to over $43 million? What aircraft and engines are these and to what country or countries are they being sent?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have not definite particulars about the tanks. I presume they are the older type, such as the Sherman. To answer the second part of the question, I may say that these items indicate what we propose to offer; they have not necessarily yet either been offered or accepted in all cases. The aircraft and engines include the 75 Sabre jets which are being allocated to Germany, together with about a $4 million carry-over to complete the spares which were allocated last year to Greece and Turkey.


John Borden Hamilton: At what value are the 75 Sabre jet aircraft put in this estimate?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The value is $39,092,500.


John Borden Hamilton: Is that the value of the aircraft as transferred? I know what heading it comes under, but is that the value of the aircraft as transferred?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that is the value after they are reconditioned.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does that complete the discussion on mutual aid?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Item 235 is now
before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Does this NATO air crew training come under mutual aid?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is at page 340, a little more than a third of the way down the page.


Howard Charles Green: That is the figure of $53,055,000?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Has the government given any consideration to extending the air training plan to include young men from the other nations of the commonwealth? According to the reports by the department there have been men from several different countries which belong to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, including Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey and the United Kingdom. But, as I understand it, there is no provision whatever for permitting young men from other parts of the commonwealth except the United Kingdom to take part in this program. Has any consideration been given to extending it so they can participate?
As the minister knows, one of the key factors in winning the last war was the

training here of young airmen from all over the commonwealth. It seems strange to me that Canada has never made any provision to permit these other parts of the commonwealth to take part in this scheme. It probably would not cost us anything, because the governments of the other commonwealth nations would have to pay their fair share. Why should this scheme not be extended to include the other nations such as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and for that matter also India, Pakistan and Ceylon?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As far as I know the idea put forward by the hon. member has never been considered since the end of the second world war. Certainly I have no knowledge of any requests from any of the commonwealth nations in the short time I have been minister. I presume that the reason is that they have their own facilities for training. At any rate, it has not been considered since I have been minister.


Howard Charles Green: Has Canada ever offered these training facilities to any of those other nations?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Not to my knowledge.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any way in which Canada is co-operating today in defence matters with nations of the commonwealth other than the United Kingdom?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We have liaison with all the commonwealth nations, I think, in all the services, and we do co-operate particularly in matters of defence research.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any active co-operation with the other nations of the commonwealth?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not know what the hon.
member means by "active co-operation". We all keep in touch with each other and with what each other is doing, but there is no financial assistance if that is what the hon. member has in mind, or working our defence forces in unison or in work of that nature, so far as I know.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any exchange of officers between the forces of the different commonwealth nations? The minister will remember that before the second war there was close co-operation in defence matters among all the nations of the commonwealth, and conferences were held at different times to promote that co-operation. If it had not been for that the war might very well have been lost. For practically a whole year the commonwealth stood alone.
It does seem to me a shame that 11 years after the war most of that co-operation has vanished. Would it not be possible for Canada to help restore it by extending the
Supply-National Defence provisions of this air training plan to make it possible for the airmen from the other nations of the commonwealth to get their training here?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not sure that any suggestions along that line would be well received, not because they would not be appreciated but because, as I have said, these countries all have their own air training schemes.
Reverting to the other observation made by the hon. member just a few minutes ago, we do have a good deal in the way of communication and visits. For example, I can think of two instances and there may be a good many more. I know in our army staff college there are some Indian officers. The army exchanges some officers with Australia. A good many things of that kind are going on all the time. We have visits from the senior officers of the other commonwealth nations, and we make return visits. There is a general liaison, but no specific relationships such as the hon. member has now suggested, namely an air training scheme. There is nothing of that nature.


Howard Charles Green: Would there be any serious handicap in the way of extending the air training plan to cover those other nations?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, that raises a lot of questions. I am not sure what is in the hon. member's mind, whether he means on basis of payment by those nations or whether he means it would be free. All these questions would have to be considered. So far as I know there has never been any suggestion about it since world war II. There is no question about the advantages accruing during the war. As I say, the period of my personal knowledge is two years, and there have been no developments of that nature during that time.


John George Diefenbaker: Before this discussion is completed would the minister tell the committee the basis upon which the determination is made relative to the share to be paid by each of the NATO nations for a given purpose in connection with mutual aid, for instance, and the recent gift by Canada to West Germany of some 75 aircraft? Will the minister explain what actually takes place in the NATO organization, how the determination is arrived at and how the designation of a particular country is made? That is something that has never been clearly placed before the committee at any time.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The amount of mutual aid and the nature of the commodities which make up mutual aid is entirely within the jurisdiction of the donor countries; in other words, we say we have certain elements of

Supply-National Defence our defence equipment we would be willing to give for mutual aid. The standing group which, as I said the other day, consists of a subcommittee, I think, of the military committee, on which there is a representative from the United States, one from the United Kingdom and one from France, has made known to it the equipment available. The subcommittee is supposed to canvass the situation and recommend who it thinks should receive this equipment, and usually that is carried out. We have the final decision, but the recommendation comes from that subcommittee. If the hon. member would care to look at page 19, paragraph 64 of the white paper for 1955-56 he will see what is set out there outlines the procedure.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear what the minister said.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I might read this into the record. Paragraph 64 of the white paper of 1955-56 sets out the following, which is a short summary of the procedure that is carried on:
To ensure that materials and equipment transferred by Canada as mutual aid do go to the nation or nations able to use it to the best advantage of NATO as a whole, offers are made initially through the standing group or the NATO secretariat. These bodies evaluate the relative needs of prospective recipient countries and make recommendations as to the most effective allocations. Canada normally accepts the recommendations of these NATO agencies and the equipment is then formally offered through diplomatic channels to the nations concerned. For their part, individual member countries, when indicating a requirement for specific items or groups of items, undertake certain financial obligations relating to costs such as those for transfer and, as applicable, for installation and maintenance.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly I did not make myself exactly clear. What is the basis for determination as to the total contribution to be made in this connection by each of the countries? Is it determined on a per capita basis, or how is it determined? How does this NATO organization determine that Canada, as one of the member nations, should make a contribution, or could make a contribution, of 75 aircraft to West Germany? Why would Canada be placed in the position of a country able to make their contribution, rather than any of the members of the NATO organization? That is what I want to know.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Well, the decision as to offering 75 Sabre jets is a decision within the jurisdiction of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it suggested to Canada that Canada might do that?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No; we look over our situation and, in the light of our needs, the changes in our position and so on, we decide


that we have certain material that we could dispose of and which might be useful to other NATO nations, and we make that known to NATO. That is the first time the NATO standing group or secretariat comes into the picture at all. They advise us what they think we should do with the material. We ordinarily take their recommendation and carry it out. Through diplomatic channels we find out whether the nation recommended is willing to receive the material, but the decision as to what constitutes our mutual aid is ours solely and completely.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, the minister has announced that 75 Sabre jets are being supplied to the West German air force. I wonder if he could tell the committee whether any suggestion has been made that the airmen who will fly these jet aircraft will come under the NATO training scheme and be trained in Canada?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The question of the training for the pilots of these Sabre jets is now under study and no decision has yet been reached with respect to it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Does the West German air force have its own training facilities?


Ralph Osborne Campney: They are just being constituted now.


Howard Charles Green: The minister must know
whether the West German pilots are to be trained-


Ralph Osborne Campney: Why must I know? I do not know.


Howard Charles Green: Pardon?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Why must I know?


Howard Charles Green: Goodness gracious, surely the minister must know. West Germany is a partner in NATO and surely the problem has been discussed; if it has not been discussed it should be.


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is being discussed now.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any suggestion that West German pilots will be trained in Canada?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is no decision as yet.


Howard Charles Green: Are we going to be put in the position that Canada will be training West German pilots when she will not train pilots from other parts of the commonwealth? Is there any danger of that happening?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot answer that categorically, but I have already pointed out that we are cutting down our training for NATO and not building it up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

236. Grants to military associations, institutes and others, as detailed in the estimates, $249,175.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Item No. 236 seems to cover all the general services and special grants to military associations and organizations. There are two associations closely connected with the air force that are not mentioned under this item, and I am wondering if the minister could inform the committee what is the status of the air force association and the air force benevolent fund association in the regular air force set-up? They are housed in Beaver barracks. There would seem to be some connection with the air force organization, but nowhere in the estimates of the Department of National Defence do I see any reference to the activities of the air force benevolent fund association.
I noticed that the hon. member for Queens tried to get some information concerning the activities of the air force benevolent fund on the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The minister concerned informed him, as recorded at page 5900 of Hansard, that this particular benevolent fund along with the navy benevolent fund had no connection with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I receive regularly the report of the army benevolent fund and I find it extremely useful information, because from time to time I have ex-servicemen in my constituency who require the assistance of this particular fund. I have not been able to get any inside information, nor have I been able to obtain a report on the activities of the equivalent air force benevolent fund. Has the minister any information on this subject?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have in my hand the thirteenth annual report for last year of the air force benevolent fund, which I think is replete with information which my hon. friend might like to have. The organization has no official connection with the air force. It is an incorporated group which under its charter has powers to handle certain funds which have been built up over the years, as the hon. member knows. We have no jurisdiction with respect to it, so far as I know; in fact I am sure we have not.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Could the minister indicate whether any services are provided for the benevolent fund or does it operate purely as an autonomous body?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We do work in co-operation with them, I understand, and furnish them with information about cases and so on, but we have no official responsibility for the handling of their funds or the allocating of their loans or gifts. They have a board which deals with that.
Supply-Defence Production


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Who pays the rent for them at Beaver barracks? Does the air force provide that service?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We do small things like that. We give them space here and there and we co-operate with them because we feel they are doing very useful work. I believe we do give them some space at Beaver barracks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: That completes the Department of National Defence. We come now to the Department of Defence Production, item 85, to be found on page 16 with the details commencing on page 168.



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
85. Departmental administration and payments to Canadian Commercial Corporation and other corporate agencies for services provided in connection with defence purchasing and production, $6,145,727.
John Borden Hamilton: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, when I retreated from the position of quarterback in the last debate I did not realize I was going to be the fullback in this debate commencing at 20 minutes past nine.
I would like to say in the beginning that there seems to be considerable concern about the situation which confronts our aircraft industry in this country today. I think that concern involves not only the question of employment but it involves as well the question of the maintenance of adequate facilities. In times of emergencies it also involves the maintenance of qualified trained technical personnel to meet such emergencies.
In the discussion which took place in connection with the defence estimates I questioned the minister along certain lines, because I felt quite sure there would be some question raised at a later date as to whether my remarks referred to the Department of Defence Production or whether in fact they referred to defence or transport. I said at that time, and I still feel, that if we have to cross these lines this seems a logical place for such a discussion, because I think everyone in the house would look to the leadership of the Minister of Defence Production to bring about any liaison that is required to deal with problems of this kind.
First of all let me say this. I cannot accept the theory as I heard it expressed in one way or another by the minister that the government has no responsibility in connection with employment in defence industries. I have heard him say, for example, that A. V. Roe is a private company, that they manage their own affairs and he does not interfere.

Supply-Defence Production
It may be true that in many industries the government does not have to play any particular role, as there may be possibilities of diversification of one sort and another. That would apply even to industries within the aircraft industry. A manufacturer of electronic items in connection with control apparatus for the CF-100 may also be making hi-fi sets. But when you get down to the companies actually involved in the production of aircraft you find it is most difficult for them to diversify, to manufacture other things which will keep their production lines rolling.
This industry certainly has reached fairly important proportions in so far as our total production capacity is concerned. I think the minister said that at the present time the aircraft industry ranks ninth in value of production and third in employment. That is readily understandable when we realize the various projects being carried on at the present time.
There is the CF-105 being manufactured by A. V. Roe at Malton. There is the continuing production of the CF-100 with its various marks, the latest being mark VI. We have the CL-28, which is the Britannia maritime reconnaissance plane, a revised version of a British transport plane which is to go into production at Canadair. We have the CS2F anti-submarine aircraft being manufactured by de Havilland at Toronto. There is the development by Orenda of the PS-13 turbojet engine, which gives indications of having the most powerful thrust of any engine in the field today. There is the R18-220 engine to be used in the CS2F, which I understand is being manufactured under licence. As far as the engines for the CL-28 are concerned, they are being purchased. The minister stated that the quantity required was not large enough for us to become involved in manufacturing, that it was cheaper to buy.
One of the chief concerns today is the indication of a slow-down in the production line at A.V. Roe at Malton. I said this afternoon, and I think I may be permitted to repeat, that this could be caused probably by any one of three reasons. It may be that the CF-105 program is not advancing rapidly enough. After having inspected the facilities and seen the aircraft my personal feeling is that it will not come along just as fast as was expected, but it seems to be making very rapid progress. I would say that any slow-down there is not the result of any failure on the part of the company to go along with the development of this very radical plane.
That leaves a couple of more ideas why there may be a stretchout in this program.

It may be that there are not enough men being induced to join the air and ground crews of the air force. That is a very serious situation and is one with which the Minister of National Defence will have to grapple. According to the information given to the house there is every indication that this may be a serious problem in the future. It may be that one reason there are not enough men coming along to man these fighter planes is that we are not fitting them basically to fly the type of plane they would be called upon to fly in peacetime. They may be expecting to get full training in the armed forces to equip them to do that job.
I think there is real reason for concern over this slow-down. There is nothing to fill in during what might be called the bust period in connection with the wartime type of production. It seems to me that there is a responsibility upon the government to work out the solution of that problem in industry, especially when it is almost impossible for the industry to diversify their production lines.
What is the result of the failure of the government to accept responsibility for looking into this? What is the result of the lack of continuity on the production line? One thing we can be sure of, the taxpayer is the one who is going to pay. Notwithstanding the information we have had here, notwithstanding the indication that there are various types of contracts which may be entered into -I have heard them referred to as a cost-plus plan, a target price with incentive features and a negotiated price-there can be only one result, and that is that the taxpayer must pay more money for the individual item which is bought. I say that notwithstanding the types of contracts we have heard about, that will be the result. At page 14 of the report of the department we find the following:
A continuing increase in production efficiency resulted in decreased costs for the CF-100. Further development of this aircraft was undertaken during the year to obtain more powerful armament, greater altitude, and improved manoeuvrability. Series 11 and 14 Orenda jet engines for both the Sabre and CF-100 continued to be produced satisfactorily, but at a reduced rate reflecting the reduction in aircraft output.
Similarly we find this statement by the Minister of National Defence at page 6124 of Hansard of July 18:
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.
The minister went on to deal with the Sabre and his words there were as follows:
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.
There is one point that is missed. The A. V. Roe plant in Toronto is set up and equipped to produce 25 planes a month of the type we are talking about. When the production is cut down to 10, whether it is a negotiated price or a target price with incentive features, you are still going to pay more money for your plane. A formula has been worked out to cover the over-all picture which indicates that $1 must be spent on the actual production of the plane as against $1.35 for administration and general overhead. That is considered a good ratio if you are producing at your full production rate. But if you cut your production rate down from 25 to 10 then obviously you change the ratio in so far as your administrative expenses are concerned as compared with the actual money spent in producing the plane.
The Minister of National Defence said today that a plane of this type now costs about $700,000. It is conceivable that because of this cut-back in production we are paying a few hundred dollars more for a plane than if the production line were in full use. Of course there is the further problem of employment, and I think it is a very serious one. I have here a copy of the Globe and Mail of Friday, June 29, 1956, with the heading:
"Breach of Faith".
Union Criticizes Howe Over Malton Layoffs.
We might read this and we can see exactly what the situation is in connection with employment in a case of this kind. It says:
The federal government yesterday was charged with a breach of faith following an announcement that an estimated 500 workers will be laid off at Avro aircraft's Malton plant. The charge was contained in a telegram sent to defence production minister Howe, whose departmental request that the production rate of CF-100 jet interceptors be stretched out, resulted in the lay-offs. . . .
In January, 1955, the company laid off 1,100 workers, cutting the monthly production of CF-100's by 40 per cent. Three months later, another 1,000 workers were given notice of a gradual layoff.
It is no wonder there is a feeling that it may be impossible to maintain that type of production line to which the minister has referred as avoiding the troughs or periods of low activity.
There were attempts in connection with this particular company to produce other types of aircraft, and apparently they did not meet with the entire approval of the minister. I know that during the course of this debate reference was made to the production of the jet liner. I think the minister said that was a closed book and need not refer to that again, but it seemed to me that the indications from his answers were 67509-398
Supply-Defence Production that it was not so much the start of the Korean war that had resulted in the closing of this production line, which I think might have been the salvation from the standpoint of maintaining a clean-cut through-put in connection with that production line, but the fact that he had decided that the plane was not going to live up to expectations. As a matter of fact it might be wise to see what he said about it:
My hon. friend referred to our first attempt at building a jet liner. It is true we had the manufacturing capacity and we wished to keep a nucleus staff working at Malton. Therefore we undertook to produce a jet passenger plane. We brought it to the prototype stage; and while it is true it flew, there was everything wrong with it. It had to carry sand bags in the tail to fly properly.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Not according to reports.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I get my reports and the hon. member gets his. I have to trust mine and I am sure his are not accurate. Nevertheless, we spend the money allocated to us for specific projects, and we get reports which we believe are accurate. It so happened that the Comet was being developed at the time, and although the Comet did not come into production until two or three years later there was nothing encouraging about the results of that prototype at Avro on which we had spent $6-6 million.
I thought all along that there was an indication that we interrupted this particular production because of a crisis in the Korean war but, if I am to believe this type of evidence, it was because the minister had no faith in the aircraft itself. But I want to tell you this, that apparently the company did not feel that way, and the people who worked on the project did not feel that way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question? Why did the company not keep on with the jet liner? We did not stop it. We were paying 75 per cent of the cost as a joint venture, and we said we would not contribute our 75 per cent any more. We did not stop the company. It was their jet liner, and they could have carried on.


John Borden Hamilton: I should think the minister would know the answer to that very easily. He happens to have under his control, as one of the many features, Trans-Canada Air Lines. If he says he does not like the plane at Malton I am sure he is not going to like it anywhere else, and the company would have been very foolish under those circumstances to put any more funds into it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I thought they had customers for it all over the United States. That was your statement the other day.

Supply-Defence Production


John Borden Hamilton: It was not my
statement, but I should think that anyone producing here would have a basic loyalty to a Canadian product, and I think in this particular case that was lacking in the minister. The article in the Toronto Telegram of June 30, 1956, says:
Company Denies Charging Politics Grounded Plane
Avro aircraft officials still think their jet liner is a wonderful airplane. But defence production minister Howe today insisted that the prototype "was hopeless".
At the same time Avro vice president Fred T. Smye denied any Avro official had claimed there was political interference on the jet liner project, abandoned in 1950 to put the company's full production weight behind the CF-100 fighter.
"You would have to be out of your mind to say that," said Mr. Smye.
I suppose you would if you were dealing with this government every day of the week.
Mr. Howe said in a telephone interview that his inspectors had told him the prototype, Canada's first commercial-type jet aircraft, had not passed inspection and never would.
"That plane was hopeless," said the minister.
Mr. Howe told the House of Commons yesterday the "plane had to carry sand in the tail to fly."
Avro argued the sand was ballast in the wings to make up the weight of equipment not installed in the test model.
"Sand in the tail-sand in the wings," said Mr. Howe. "Inspectors told me they would never pass the plane. Besides, the whole thing is a dead duck so why bring it up."
Avro, aided by an $8 million government loan, built the prototype in 1949. However, there were no bidders for the first jet air liner built in North America.
Mr. Howe said lack of buyer interest and increased production of CF-100 jets for the Korean war were other factors which had killed the jetliner project.
Avro feels Mr. Howe should regard the plane more highly. "It is still a wonderful airplane." the company said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I interject that the abuse I am getting from my hon. friend and the Toronto press for stopping the building of an airplane in Toronto does not compare in any way with the abuse I got for carrying one on in the city of Montreal. I may say that in those days the Globe and Mail knew how to write bitter editorials and they certainly gave us the full dose. I fought the Conservative party all through an election for trying to blame the government for building an airplane, so I guess I can take with some equanimity any mild abuse my hon. friend can hand out for stopping the building of an airplane.


John Borden Hamilton: If I have abused the minister I will say that it is the first time I have done so.


Mr. Dickey:: No.


An hon. Member:: The minister is sensitive.


John Borden Hamilton: It may be that I have hit a sensitive area for the first time. It may be that I myself have a feeling of loyalty to a plant in an area with which I am closely identified, which has made me say the things I have, but I still think they are very important. Although I did not take part as a candidate in the campaign the minister mentioned, I think he is a little off base when he says that we argued over the efficiency or stability of an aircraft. I think the major issue at that time, and apparently people still do not see it, was the machinations of the Electric Boat Company and the sale of the plant in Montreal.


John Horace Dickey: Oh, no; it was the North Star aircraft.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You were too young to know what the debate was about. It was not about that at all.


John Borden Hamilton: That is what it was about, but you tried to make it appear that it was not about that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will read you some clippings. It was whether or not the North Star was safe.


John Borden Hamilton: 
An hon. Member:: Time.
67509-398i
Supply-Defence Production


John Borden Hamilton: It may be time but I will certainly have plenty of opportunity to continue. There are now 454 such planes. I am not going to tell you all about those planes. You can read the return for yourself. However, there were none manufactured in Canada. They were imported from Great Britain, Italy and chiefly from the United States. It might also be of interest to hon. members to know that there were only 39 that were new and 129 were used. That gives a fairly clear indication of the position of civil aircraft in Canada. It gives a fairly clear indication that there is and will continue to be an opportunity to utilize the production lines of our aircraft factories in building transports of the type we can make use of in the northern areas of this country.
Someone may say that 148 planes are not very many. I can tell you that in the Avro brief before the Gordon commission it was stated that they could successfully develop and build on an economic basis and compete anywhere if they had an order for 100 planes. I am not going to read that to you tonight, sir-


Mr. Hosking:: Your time is up.


John Borden Hamilton: We have a new timekeeper.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Your time has never started.


John Borden Hamilton: He has the
voice of a major league umpire and about as many brains. The Avro brief before the Gordon commission has this to say about civil possibilities:
Military aviation is a matter of survival. Civil aviation is primarily a matter of economics in its role in the growth of our economy and in keeping pace with other countries in commerce and industry. To maintain her position as a major trading nation and to continue the development of national resources Canada particularly will need commercial aircraft of the most advanced types m use anywhere. . . . Also there is one Canadian area in which aviation stands virtually alone-the north.
Further on the brief has this to say:
The great need in this northern push, even today, is an all-purpose aircraft designed to meet northern conditions-rigorous climate, long ranges, remote airports with short runways. In addition to its commercial role it would have a military function as a troop and supply transport. A transport of this kind would be ideal on the D.E.W. line and other radar line projects.
As for production costs the brief has this to say, and here is the comparison:
As for production costs, the CF-100 and the Orenda, which are as good if not better than anything available elsewhere, have been delivered at prices below what we would have had to pay elsewhere. The CF-100 costs substantially less than a comparable United States aircraft while the Orenda is several thousand dollars cheaper

Supply-Defence Production than its United States counterpart. This is on the basis of production of more than 400 CF-100's and over 3,000 Orendas.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I shall reply very briefly. It was stated that Canada had not built civilian aircraft. Canada is building civilian aircraft and a good many of them. The de Havilland company, with works within a few miles of Malton, are building civilian aircraft. They are getting civilian orders and they have not asked for any government help in designing these planes or, at least, very minor government help.
The hon. gentleman suggests that nobody can design a plane here unless the government supplies the money. I think that is something that is slightly out of tune with the practice in any country of the world that I know about. I do not know of any country where the designer of a civil plane goes to the government to get money to bring it into production. However, I will say this to the hon. gentleman, in spite of the lay-offs to which he refers. The lay-offs are purely a matter of protecting the great body of labour in the plant by stretching out the program to cover a gap between one type of production and another. There are over 10,000 people working in Avro at Malton. There are some
5,000	people working for de Havilland at Malton. I do not know what the number is at Canadair in Montreal but I should think it is about 8,000.
My hon. friend may be optimistic enough to think that force can be carried through the years and that we can keep that labour force building aircraft in normal times. I hope he is right. I am doing my best to hold the line steady and to produce the planes that seem to be required to meet the present-day situation. Anything I do is along that line. He says that I say I have no responsibility for aircraft. I do not go into a privately-owned plant and tell them how many men they need. However, I try to allocate such work as the government has in such a way that we can maintain reasonably steady employment. When we move out of a period of build-up of production of aircraft into a period when that build-up has been completed, I do not know of any way in which you can hold the maximum staff required for the build-up in order to carry on operations to meet normal requirements of a military type in this country. If the hon. member knows, I think perhaps he had better give me the pattern, because I thought we were doing quite a scientific job in meeting military demands, cutting down as the requirements are cut down and maintain-
ing reasonably steady employment in our aircraft plants.


John Borden Hamilton: As there are only about five minutes left, perhaps I might ask the minister if he really compares the development and manufacture here of aircraft of the Beaver or Otter type with the type of aircraft which we have seen imported here in quantities-it looks like a couple of hundred-over the period of the last year to year and a half? Does he know of any comparable aircraft of the type of which I am speaking which has been built in the United States without assistance from the government in its original development as a military aircraft?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do indeed; many of them. The DC-6 and the DC-7, Douglas planes, were built without military assistance. The hon. member talks about jet transport aircraft now being built. As a matter of fact T.C.A. has an order for four or five. That aircraft will cost between five and six million dollars. It is being built on civilian orders and without any government assistance whatever. I could go on and mention others such as the Lockheed Lone Star, which is a turbo-prop plane being built to fill civilian orders. As a matter of fact, in the case of the stratocruiser-that is the Boeing strato-cruiser-that was built as a civilian plane and was later taken over by the army and developed as a tanker to supply jet aircraft in the air. But there are more modern planes brought into production in the United States on civilian orders than there are adaptations of military planes.


John Borden Hamilton: The minister, of course, would admit that in about three of the five instances he gave the aircraft in question has been a subsequent development. When he talks about the DC-6, that is a line of aircraft which was developed, I think, during the last war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no.


John Borden Hamilton: It may be that they comprise the next step along the line, but certainly they got assistance in the first instance in order to get into production.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Monteith:: No. I should like to make a statement on this matter, but as it is practically ten o'clock I should simply like at this moment to ask a question about item 85. I notice that telephones and telegrams are down from $175,000 to $130,000. I am just wondering why.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The result of an economy drive put on in the department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the first one.


John Horace Dickey: The most recent of many.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We keep whittling away every year. Perhaps you have noticed that our estimates are being cut down every year. They have been cut down every year since 1953.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is wonderful. I am just noticing an item of a somewhat similar type, namely office stationery, supplies and equipment, which is up from $190,000 to $204,500. I am just wondering, if they are really economy-minded, why they should be cutting down so considerably with regard to telephones and telegrams and then increasing with respect to office stationery, supplies and equipment. Does that mean they are cutting down on telephones and telegrams and writing more letters? I think many government departments should do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the answer, yes; plus a slight increase in the cost of fine paper.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.
Supply-Defence Production


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I report the resolutions, report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we shall take second reading of the bill with respect to fiscal arrangements with the provinces and will continue on Tuesday, if necessary. However, any part of those two days that may be free will be taken up with consideration of the bill to amend the Indian Act, the bill to amend the Supreme Court Act, and the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway authority. On Wednesday we shall take interim supply, and then the estimates of defence production, northern affairs, health and welfare, C.B.C., and transport.


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

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

Mr. Balcom: Is there any indication that there will be curtailment in coal production in 1956 due to the lack of markets for maritime coal?
Answer by: Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):
No. As stated in Hansard on page 5739, it has been estimated that the existing subvention provisions would enable the Nova Scotia coal mines to find outlets for their production in the 12 months ending March 31, 1957.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Defence services-
235.	To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $143,000,000, under provision 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.
236.	Grants to military associations, institutes and others, as detailed in the estimates, $249,175.
237.	War museum, $25,440.
Pensions and other benefits-
238.	Civil pensions, as detailed in the estimates, $2,457.
239.	To authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British commonwealth air training plan who were killed, payment to their dependents of amounts equal to the amounts such dependents would have received under the Pension Act, as amended, had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of Canada, less the value of any benefits received by such dependents under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organizations, $3,890.
Defence Services Pension Act-
240.	Government contribution to the permanent services pension account, $46,351,821.
732.	To authorize loans to be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years in respect of housing projects constructed, pursuant to an agreement with the Minister of National Defence, for occupancy by members of the Canadian forces; such loans to be at interest rates and in accordance with such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, $5,000,000.
733.	To authorize, under such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, a capital assistance loan to the town of Oromocto, New Brunswick, to be covered by town debentures, for the purpose of assisting in the completion of the physical development of municipal works, $2,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 23, 1956


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

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Anderson (for Mr. Jutras).