1957-12-05

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Georges Villeneuve (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to protest against the T.V. program "Pays et Merveilles" carried last night over the C.B.C. network and which had as its guest the president of the Saguenay historical society.
In the course of that program, a certain controversial theory was brought up with regard to a so-called kingdom of the Saguenay. The guest in question held the view that this area and the Saguenay district are one and the same. I wish to go on record as protesting against this statement since it tends to describe as a single area several different areas including the Lake St. John district, where I live, which has never gone under any other name but that of Lake St. John.
On behalf of my fellow citizens in the area, which comprises the present constituencies of Lake St. John and Roberval, I wish to protest to the C.B.C. authorities against this sabotaging of a name for which I have the greatest regard, a feeling which I share with my electors and with all those who live in this fine Lake St. John area. We wish to defend the true meaning of a designation which has been consecrated by over one hundred years of history and which is widely known even beyond the borders of Canada. We refuse to let the area be called otherwise than by the name which it has always had ever since there have been people living there, that is the Lake St. John area.
(Text):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In this morning's Gazette there is a picture of a line-up of men before the old brewery mission in Montreal, which undoubtedly he has seen; and according to the superintendent of the mission this is due to the present unemployment situation. However, in all fairness to
the minister and to the superintendent I should add that he says the situation is not entirely due to unemployment but that there are other reasons for it.
I ask the minister in view of the picture, which I am informed is one of the first of its kind with respect to this mission in Montreal for a long, long time, what is being done by his department to put into effect the winter speed-up against unemployment in the city of Montreal.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, may I say first of all that I have not seen the Montreal Gazette this morning, and second that I have nothing further to add to what has already been said in this house with respect to the actions of this government in trying to help create employment for more people, and also our actions as expressed in the legislation which has now gone through this house to help alleviate the situation by the amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Then may I ask a supplementary question. The superintendent of the mission says that in order to carry on he must have another $40,000. Will the minister consider making that contribution from his department?


Michael Starr: The government has received no request from anyone for this aid, but if a request is received I can assure the hon. member that it will be given consideration.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-REPORTED CLOSING DOWN OF HOWE SOUND COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. James Sinclair (Coast-Capilano):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister aware that last night the management of Britannia mine notified the workers that the mine would close down in two weeks unless assistance was forthcoming and, if so, can he make any announcement on government plans to give this required assistance?


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I did receive word last night of a statement made by the mine manager in Vancouver to the effect to which the hon. gentleman has just referred.
1886	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
I am not of course in a position nor would I care to comment in any way on the statement made in Vancouver. I can say, however, that I checked with the officials of the company in New York this morning, and can inform the house that this conversation confirmed the telephone conversation which took place I think on Tuesday, and to which I referred yesterday. The effect of these talks is that there is still some possibility that an arrangement might be reached which would enable the mine to continue operations, but on a reduced scale. The decision with regard to the reduced scale of operations is one which has been communicated to me by the company; it is not one which we have suggested.
Therefore the situation with which we are confronted is to see whether arrangements can be arrived at which would enable operations to be carried on on a reduced scale, and what can be done with respect to those men who would not be taken care of by such reduced scale of operations. That was the situation reported to me by the company last Tuesday as a result of their review of the report from the expert consultant whom they sent in to the mine.



REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF LETTER FROM MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER-BURRARD TO PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct two questions to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor) has made public a five-page letter addressed to the Prime Minister outlining the very serious unemployment situation in British Columbia and suggesting remedies? If so, will the Prime Minister consent to make his answer also public, so the people of British Columbia will know what action his government proposes to take on the recommendations of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I have not received the letter and have not received a copy of it. When it is received and when I see it naturally it will be considered, because above everything else this government wants to consider every matter that ought to be brought to its attention, and particularly one affecting the welfare of the people as a whole.


James Sinclair: The Prime Minister may have forgotten my second question. It was, will the Prime Minister make his reply to that letter also public?


Mr. Speaker:: The second question has become hypothetical. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister says he has not received the letter I do not think a reply to the second question is necessary.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries a question. Will the minister advise the house if it is possible to add the names of fishermen engaged in the catching of scallops and lobsters to the list of deep sea fishermen receiving the fishing bounty?


Hon. J. A. Macl.ean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the question is no, but perhaps I might be permitted to give some explanation as to the reason for that answer. The bounty paid to fishermen in the four provinces-Quebec and the three maritime provinces-arose as the result of a treaty made in Washington in 1871 between the government of Britain on the one hand and the government of the United States on the other, under which each nation granted to the other certain rights for its fishermen to fish in each other's territorial waters-in the case of Canada in the territorial waters on the east coast, and in the case of the United States the territorial waters as far south as the 39th parallel.
It was considered that the concessions made on behalf of Canada were greater than those made by the United States, so the terms of the treaty provided that a commission should be set up to arrive at the difference in value. This was done. The commission sat in Halifax and made an award known as the Halifax award, under which the United States paid to Britain the sum of $5,500,000. This was handed over by Britain to Canada and Newfoundland. Of this sum I believe just over $1 million was paid to Newfoundland and almost $4,500,000 to Canada.
This amount was considered by the Canadian government to be owned by all Canadians, and it was placed in the consolidated fund; but as the result of objections from the Atlantic provinces a bill was passed-an act now known as the Deep Sea Fisheries Act

under which a bounty was paid to fishermen. But since the treaty has from the very beginning specifically excluded shad, salmon, shellfish, and fish caught in rivers or the estuaries of rivers, the whole basis on which the award is made specifically

excludes that type of fishery, so it is considered impossible to pay any bounty now with respect to shellfish or lobster fishing of any kind.



WEST COAST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneli (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like also to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister in a position to make a statement to the house on what the government intends to do about the request of west coast fishermen for a bounty on dogfish, or for a floor price to be established on dogfish livers and carcasses, in order to assist them during the coming winter season?


John Angus MacLean: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not at the moment in a position to do this, but the matter is under consideration. I will take the question as notice and answer when it is possible to do so.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmoufh-Clare):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the severe southwesterly storms which have done a great deal of damage to the lobster traps in the southwestern end of Nova Scotia, is his department taking any specific action to assist the fishermen who have suffered this severe loss?


John Angus MacLean: I might say this matter is under consideration in the department. I am not in a position to make a reply at the present time.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MISSION TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Peter Stefura (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Last night the minister stated he had received a report from the trade commissioner in Hong Kong. Could he now tell this house what officials our trade commission visited in China, and what was the result of that tour?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The report has been received. It is 50 pages in length, and I have not yet finished reading it. I am sorry I have not made more progress. I hope to finish it today,
Inquiries of the Ministry and perhaps if the hon. member would repeat his question tomorrow I will have the answer for him.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When I raised a question along the same lines some days ago I asked the minister to tell the house what officials of the communist government were visited by this trade mission. Is he now in a position to give this information?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If that is in the report, I have not reached it yet.



INSPECTION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA


Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, notice of which has been given. What notification, if any, is given by the federal government to the province of British Columbia to advise it when hay is to be imported, to make it possible for the British Columbia government to establish whether such hay is free from the presence of obnoxious weeds?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, no statement of intention is required with respect to intended imports of hay. Therefore no information on this point can be conveyed by this government to the government of British Columbia.
The Department of Agriculture maintains a hay grading service which is available to buyer or seller on application and the payment of the established fee. Inspection is not compulsory, and individuals are free to buy and sell either imported or home grown hay according to their own arrangements. Most provinces have weed control legislation and their own means of enforcement, which apply equally to imported and home produced material which may be regarded as likely to spread serious weed infestations.



REPORTED INCREASE IN EXPORTS TO CARIBBEAN AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of a news report appearing in the Western Producer commenting on a report from the Canadian trade commissioner in the Caribbean with respect to Canadian flour exports to that area. Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house whether the serious trend involving a drop in our exports of Canadian flour to that area has changed, as reported in this article? If so, has the trend changed because of the lowering of the export price of flour to that area, and must

Inquiries of the Ministry the Canadian producer stand the price reduction? Can the minister inform the house if the government will take into consideration the making of deficiency payments to the producers, so the farmers will not have to carry this additional load?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to determine whether a question is being asked or a speech made. If the hon. member will let me see these various newspaper reports and if I have an opportunity to read his speech in full, perhaps I will be able to give him a reply.


Edward George McCullough: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house whether exports of Canadian flour to the Caribbean area have dropped quite seriously?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have lost some of our export market for flour in the Caribbean area during the course of this year, largely due to increased shipments of United States flour into that area under a very substantial subsidy. Our exports of flour have declined.


Edward George McCullough: Can the minister inform the house what action has been taken by the Canadian government to correct this situation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We drew the situation to the attention of the United States authorities. Unless we are prepared to subsidize Canadian flour to the same extent that United States flour is subsidized, I am not sure what other action can be taken at the moment. The matter is under consideration. We hope we will be able to retain our long-established market for Canadian flour in that area. This may be only a temporary condition.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: How
does this conform to the understanding we believed was arrived at when the minister returned from Washington, that the program of the United States would not interfere with our established markets?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This had been going on for a considerable time before we visited Washington. I do not know whether any action was taken by the former administration with regard to the matter. The assurances given us at Washington had to do with barter deals for wheat in exchange for strategic materials involving our cash customers, the United Kingdom and various countries of Europe.


Edward George McCullough: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce state to the house that any policy the government finds it necessary to


adopt to meet this competition will not mean that the burden will have to be carried by the western producers?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think not, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Melville asked me two questions in regard to the amount of butter and the number of cases of eggs held by the agricultural prices support board. The answers are as follows.
The first question was: How much butter was held in store on December 1 in the years
1955,	1956 and 1957. Figures are not available for that precise date, but the figures I am giving are correct within one or two days in each case. On December 2, 1955, there was in store 92,333,442 pounds. On November 30,
1956,	there was in store 81,072,016 pounds. On November 29, 1957, there was in store 34,052,254 pounds.
The other question was: How many cases of eggs had the agricultural prices support board in store on December 1, 1955, 1956 and
1957, In all cases the answer is nil. None were in store on those dates. I might add that I can quite appreciate the hon. gentleman's interest and curiosity about the number of eggs in store on the last date, because he left me a legacy of about 360,000 cases of eggs, 30 dozen in a case. I am very pleased to be able to tell him that as a result of using the most energetic selling means possible we have managed to dispose of all those eggs.



PUBLICATION &quot;CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister now made inquiries to ascertain whether in fact in this house some days ago he referred to a document which was a secret document, and as a result of his inquiries can he say whether this secret document will now be made available to all members of this house?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the document referred to, which is entitled "Prices of Selected Agricultural Products", was put out by the economic division of the Department of Agriculture and is not a secret document. I must, however, apologize to the hon. member and

to the house for having been under the misapprehension that it was a document which was put into general circulation in the same way as numerous other documents concerning price information, which are given general circulation by the Department of Agriculture.
I find that this document was circulated only within the department, due to the fact that there are six or seven statistics in it secured from the bureau of statistics which the bureau of statistics itself did not publish. It was therefore considered inappropriate by the officials of the Department of Agriculture for them to publish figures which the bureau of statistics had not published, and it has not been made a public document.
However, having now discovered what is the situation in regard to this matter, I have given instructions that any figures of this sort-and there are only six or seven of them all told-shall be left out of this particular document, and the document from now on will be available to all members and anyone else interested in it, because I am only too anxious to make all the price information which we have and can secure available to members and other interested people.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, on December 3 in response to a question by the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources informed this house that the final report of the British Columbia Engineering Company Limited regarding the possibility of a diversion of the waters of the Columbia river to the Fraser river was received on January 9, 1957.
On December 4 the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet inquired whether the answer given related to a preliminary report of British Columbia Engineering. I undertook, as Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, to look into the matter and provide my hon. friend with a reply. I can now confirm the statement made by my colleague on December 3, namely that the final report of the British Columbia Engineering Company on a possible diversion from the Columbia to the Fraser river was received on January 9, 1957.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Montmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I would like to ask the minister if it is not a fact that the report that was received at that time
Inquiries of the Ministry from the British Columbia Engineering Company Limited was in its true sense a preliminary report and an initial draft? It may have since become final, but at that time it was a preliminary report, and I would like to ask when it was decided that this report was the final report.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's memory of this matter has perhaps grown a little blunt.


Jean Lesage: Oh, no.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the hon. gentleman is somewhat confused, judging from the information I have been able to secure from the department in regard to the various reports which were submitted. As a matter of fact I find that the preliminary report of the British Columbia Engineering Company Limited was submitted some time previous to this date and then their final report was submitted, as indicated by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, on January 9.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I will send a copy of the preliminary report to the minister.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: He has a better memory than you have.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I have just sent the Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a copy of the report we were discussing a few moments ago. It is dated January, 1957. Is he satisfied with my memory now? Is he satisfied that this is the initial draft of a preliminary report that was received in January, 1957?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not at all satisfied.


Jean Lesage: Well, you cannot read.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is a different report altogether. Apparently there have been two reports. The report to which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources referred and the one to which I referred in the statement I made a little while ago was the final report made to the hon. member, who was then minister of northern affairs and national resources, on January 9, 1957. This initial draft, as it is called, apparently was transmitted to him on January 8, 1957.


Jean Lesage: And received on the 9th.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and is a different report altogether. In other words he has been confused about the two reports, as he ordinarily is. Apparently he has both reports in his mind combined into one.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. members had better settle this matter outside the house.


Jean Lesage: No, Mr. Speaker. If I may be allowed just one word, I do not want to discuss the matter any more-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean Lesage: What I asked for was the report on the diversion of the waters of the Columbia river to the Fraser river. This is the preliminary report on that matter.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So there will be no doubt in anyone's mind that what I have said is correct and the hon. minister is confused-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: You are more confused.


An hon. Member:: You are on the wrong side of the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This report, Mr. Speaker, does not mention diversion at all. It is a preliminary report entitled "Proposals for the hydroelectric development of the Columbia river system in Canada".


Jean Lesage: In Canada, by diversion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The other report, and the report on which he asked a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, was a report on the diversion of the waters of the Columbia to the Fraser, and that was the report with regard to which he received an answer.


James Sinclair: wonder if I might ask a supplementary question of the Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who kindly sent this report across to me. I wonder whether he has read page 2 which starts off as follows: "Proposed diversion of the Columbia, into the Thompson and Fraser rivers".


Jean Lesage: There is nothing else but diversion mentioned in that report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is based on press reports in the Toronto Globe and Mail and also in the New York Times to the effect that there is a report from Chile that the security police of

Venezuela have broken the Canadian diplomatic code. Can the minister say whether that code has in fact been broken? If so, what has been done about it?


Hon. Sidney E. Smiih (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, all we know in the department at the moment is what we have gleaned from the press reports. On Friday we requested our ambassadors in Chile and Venezuela to report on the matter. We have not as yet received their reports. In order to get to the bottom of this matter we have taken other steps which I prefer not to disclose. We have taken other steps to ascertain what are the facts of the case.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. May I ask him whether the government is giving consideration at the present time to the return of the flag of Canadian National Steamships from Trinidad to Canada?
Hon.	George H. Hees (Minisler of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I have had no indication of any such intention by the management of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister not make a statement on the present position, in view of the fact that when he made his last statement in the house on November 11 he indicated that the purpose of the transfer from Canada to Trinidad was to enable a settlement of the strike to be reached? Since that has not been obtained within the last three and one half to four weeks, can the minister bring us up to date on what is happening in that respect?
Mi. Hees: Mr. Speaker, when I made my statement on that day the hon. member for Laurier will remember I said that the transfer of the flag was made in order to have the service restored, and I think I can add nothing more to what I said then about this case. When I answered the suggestion that the railways and shipping committee should be convened for the purpose of examining into the circumstances resulting in the transfer of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships vessels to Trinidad registry I said, as reported at page 1563 of Hansard:
The management of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships advise me that they are engaged at the present time in a thorough examination into all the implications of the restoration of the service.

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. George C. Marler (Si. Anloine-Wesl- by competing private stations? If so, what mount): May I ask a supplementary ques- does his department intend to do about it? tion. When the transfer of the vessels to
Trinidad registry was effected was there an Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National understanding between the government of Revenue): To the best of my knowledge I Canada and the authorities in Trinidad that have received no such letter. It may have at the request of the Canadian government come in yesterday, when I was not down at these ships would be returned to Canadian the other office. If I receive such a letter registry, in the same way that is provided for wiR>
as always, refer it to the Canadian under what is generally referred to as the Broadcasting Corporation, which will take transfer plan with the United Kingdom? such action on the matter as it sees fit.


Mr. Hees:: Yes, that is my understanding.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. Can he give birth to any further information on this question?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Marler:: May I ask a further supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. In reply to my question with regard to the transfer of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships vessels to Trinidad registry he indicated that an understanding had been reached by which these vessels could be recalled to Canadian registry. Would the minister be good enough to tell us with whom those arrangements were made, whether it was by means of an exchange of notes or in what other manner?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the maritime commission spoke to me about this matter, and I have advised the management of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships of what the chairman of the maritime commission told me.


George Carlyle Marler: Will the minister perhaps make a more comprehensive statement giving us the facts, rather than merely reporting his conversation with the chairman of the maritime commission?


George Harris Hees: I will check into this matter, Mr. Speaker.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Wesfminsler):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I sent him a copy of the news clipping upon which the question is based. Has the minister received representations, by letter or otherwise, protesting that the rate charged for one minute spot advertisements by radio station CBM, a C.B.C. Montreal station, is far below that charged 96698-120



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me a question reported at page 1825 of Hansard, with regard to a press story about non-payment of accounts for rental accommodation of refugees in Calgary. I now have available a preliminary report on the situation.
I am advised by our Calgary office that they do not have any outstanding rental accounts in which the church named in the article is involved, nor has this church approached the Calgary office for payment.
With regard to the family which was mentioned in the article as having suffered, I am advised that this family have made numerous requests for assistance. The head of the family is presently employed, earning $45 a week. Because of the numerous requests a member of the Catholic counselling service was asked to investigate. He reported, in effect, that the financial difficulties of this family are somewhat of their own making. They have been purchasing items such as a television set and a record player, and they also own a second hand Austin car. It was recommended by the investigator that they be given no further assistance from our department.
There was only one rental account for this family in March of this year, and it was brought about because they were living with another family and broke up their living quarters because of family problems. When this family sought new quarters we were asked to pay for their rental. However, no bill for this has ever been received. I think the hon. member will probably agree that under the circumstances reported there is not any very urgent necessity for us to intervene in connection with that particular family.
With regard to the other 20 accounts outstanding which are mentioned in the article, a full report is expected from the assistant district superintendent in Winnipeg.

Inquiries of the Ministry
SHIPPING	VETERANS AFFAIRS



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER    EFFECT OF LONGER SEASON ON MARITIME PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the longer season for shipping on the St. Lawrence river, which is supported by the minister, be harmful or otherwise to the ports of Saint John and Halifax?


George Harris Hees: I would think the hon. member, being a maritime member, would perhaps be in a better position to answer that question than I am.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I did not intend to answer the question myself, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to have an answer from the Minister of Transport if possible.


George Harris Hees: I cannot see that it would.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Since the filing of additional supplementary estimates by this government was made in October of this year, which is a matter of record, will the minister now tell us why an item for construction of the new post office in Windsor as contemplated by the previous government was not included?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minisier of Public Works):: I think the supplementary estimates were filed before this question arose. Perhaps it would be more to the point if the hon. member for Essex West could tell us why his own government did not do something about it earlier.


James Sinclair: Do you want help?


Donald Ferguson Brown: Since I have been invited to make a statement on this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: I must rule the question out of order. I invite the hon. member to resume his seat. This is not a matter which is his responsibility, and it is irregular to ask questions of the members of the house unless it is a matter of their own responsibility.


James Sinclair: It is evasion of responsibility.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Then may I ask the minister to withdraw his invitation?
	I



STATEMENT ON ADMISSION OF NEEDY EXSERVICEMEN TO DEPARTMENTAL HOSPITALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I should like to reply to a question which was asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). His question was:
Has the minister received letters from veterans, including one named Brooks, complaining of the fact that while immigrants and in some cases United States personnel are admitted to Shaughnessy hospital, certain veterans are denied admission?
Can the minister assure the house that no needy veterans requiring treatment will be denied admission to departmental hospitals?
The answer to the first part of the question is that I have received a letter from Mr. David Brooks requesting that the means test be removed from the operation of section 13 of the veterans treatment regulations. I have not received letters from veterans complaining about being denied admission to Shaughnessy hospital.
The answer to the second part of the question is that I can assure the house that no veteran who is eligible under any section of the veterans treatment regulations and who does require treatment is ever denied admission to departmental hospitals.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: have a supplementary question. Would the minister inform the house why it is that those who are not eligible for admission are referred by his own officials to the provincial authorities to be taken care of?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not know of any such cases. The hon. member has spoken about those who had not the means. I might say that under the veterans treatment regulations as they are at present, any eligible veteran whose income is below $960-and that is an adjusted income; exemptions are made for wife and children which are taken off the true income and he is admitted under the adjusted income-he can have free hospitalization. For adjusted annual incomes from $960 to $1,000 the maximum charge is $20 for twelve months; he does not have to pay any more. From $1,000 to $1,100 it is $33.
I am not going to read the complete list. I point this out to show that the charge is adjusted according to the income of the veteran, and our information is that these veterans with low incomes are not denied hospitalization. We have received no complaints in this connection except from the hon. member.

Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



CANADIAN PACIFIC AIRLINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if he has anything to report in regard to the application of Canadian Pacific Airlines for an air service from here to the west coast?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick George Hahn: rise on a question of privilege, arising out of discussions between the Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Harkness) and the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage).
As I understand it, there seems to be some difficulty in determining the nature of a particular report referred to, and the Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has denied this house the privilege of seeing such report, while the hon. member has been relying upon his memory, as I follow the situation. However, someone else has a copy of that report. My question of privilege is this. Should not this house, if there is such a copy in the hands of another member other than a member of the government, be privileged to have the report tabled at this time?


Douglas Scott Harkness: think perhaps I should say something in regard to the matter. The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet received this report in his capacity as a minister of the crown.


Jean Lesage: It is a copy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The report belongs to the government of Canada, and I think there is a grave question as to whether or not he should have retained possession of this report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know how many other reports, received by him as a minister of the crown, have been retained in his possession.


Jean Lesage: It is a copy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. minister in his last remarks is going beyond what would be permitted.
96698-120i


Mr. Speaker:: If he has a motion to make based on the retention of the report I would entertain it now, but otherwise-


James Sinclair: At
this point, Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a word or two. The minister just sent across to me that copy; therefore the report can no longer be secret, since he has made it available to another member of this house.


Mr. Fleming:: That is not the point.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is absolutely incorrect, Mr. Speaker. This report was sent over to me by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet; I looked at it and identified what particular report it was, and then called a messenger. I gave it to the messenger and said, "Take this back to Mr. Lesage".


James Sinclair: Take it back again, then.


Frederick George Hahn: To pursue further my question of privilege, which seems to have got lost in the shuffle some place, there appear to be two documents in this place at the present time and I think the house has the right to see at least one of them, namely the one which the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet has placed in the possession of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not consider that a question of privilege. The hon. member will appreciate that it is not the right of the house to see these documents which have been the subject of discussion in this house. It seems to me to be a case of identity or of mistaken identity. I have asked the house not to pursue the matter further, and I think hon. members, if there are still any differences between them, might confer outside and then bring the matter back if they see fit.


Frederick George Hahn: Possibly my question of privilege has been misunderstood. As it is, there is a document in this house which is being bandied back and forth between the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet and the Minister of Agriculture. Other hon. members in the house, including myself, would like to see this document, which is apparently one which the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has on file. I ask that it be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: That is quite a different matter. If it were tabled it would be a matter of privilege for the house to see it. But it has not been tabled, and I am sure there is no such right as the hon. member is endeavouring to assert. He is asking the question now whether the document will be tabled, though he has not directed it to any minister-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Frederick George Hahn: I would ask the Minister of Agriculture, who has seen the document, whether, if the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has this document, he would see to it that it is tabled.


Major James William Coldwell: Is it not a fact that when a minister refers to a document in the house he must table it?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is mistaken about that. I think he might be asked to table it, and perhaps the minister would have no ground for refusing to table it unless it were a document involving security or something of a confidential nature. But the question has now been asked of the Minister of Agriculture whether he will table this document.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources dealt with this question when it came up on December 3, and he stated at that time that the final report, of which this particular document was only the initial or preliminary draft, had been received only on December 2; that it required considerable study before any decision was made with regard to tabling it or doing anything else along that line and, naturally, as the final report concerning this particular matter has just come in, there would be no good purpose served by tabling this document. I do not think it would be in the public interest to table a document which was a preliminary report and incomplete.
I will only say further, in connection with this particular document, that I did not introduce it into the house. It was introduced by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet. I did not quote from it and, therefore, I do not think the point made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has anything to do with the matter.
As a matter of fact, now that this document has been sent over to me, I think before I return it to the hon. member I will have to have the matter considered by my colleagues, because I consider that this is the property of the government of Canada and should never have been in the hon. member's hands at all.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, this is a copy of a report which I received in my capacity as minister of northern affairs and national resources.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You should have left it there.


Jean Lesage: This is a copy of a report on which I had to take action, and I did. Therefore I kept a copy, and it seems to me that as a former member of the cabinet I am


entitled to keep a copy of a document which would justify the action I had to take in my capacity as minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are on the spot.


An hon. Member:: The government is on the spot.


Frederick George Hahn: Apparently the document is one which should be in the hands of the government. In the circumstances I would ask that it be tabled, in view of the fact that some hon. members have had access to it and we have been denied that privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has already asked that the document be tabled, and he has had his answer. I consider that matter closed.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister taken advantage of the federal-provincial conference to discuss with the premier of Quebec as to which government is responsible for protection walls along the Ottawa and Gatineau rivers?


Howard Charles Green: I was not representing the federal government at the dominion-provincial conference, and I had no conversation with the premier of Quebec at all.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the minister to discuss the matter with the Quebec authorities who claim it is a federal responsibility?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I explained the situation to the hon. member the other day. I told him that the federal government was willing to co-operate but that it would have to be a three-way transaction between the provinces, essentially, and the federal government.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Then may I ask a further supplementary question. The answer was given about the bridge, but this is the protection walls along the Ottawa river and the Gatineau river. Would you like me to repeat my question? Is it the intention of the minister to discuss with the Quebec authorities the matter of the protection walls, because the Quebec authorities claim it is a federal responsibility?	.


Howard Charles Green: The federal government accepts responsibility for walls or other protection work where damage is caused by navigation. I have also explained that to the hon. member on several occasions. It is not our responsibility to discuss with the government of the province of Quebec or with any other government work which is not our responsibility.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Then may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Would the minister submit the question to the supreme court to have a ruling as to which government has the responsibility for destruction caused by navigable waters, even not very much navigated?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker.



POSTAL UNION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, on November 25, as reported in Hansard at page 1473, I asked the following question:
When the international postal convention took place in this house last summer, did the authorities responsible for the organization of the simultaneous translation system hire translators from Canada only, or also from elsewhere for translation from French to English and from English to French? How much did the temporary system cost the government?
Would the minister tell me when it will be possible to answer my question and, when he is ready to do so, will he also tell me how many Canadian translators were hired and how many translators other than Canadians were used?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: In the first instance, hon. members looking up the reference will find that the question was raised in the course of a debate on a simultaneous translation system, a debate in the course of which I had already made a statement before the question was asked, and in which therefore I could not speak again. If the government adopted the attitude that it was going to answer on the orders of the day all questions raised in debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say that if that is the quotation which the hon. member put to the minister it is out of order to resume now the discussion of a matter which has been disposed of by this house. Was the hon. member reading from the debate on this matter as reported in Hansard?


Joseph Gérard Yves Leduc: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I would ask the hon. member to drop it.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not having sent him notice, but I am sure he will not require time to prepare an answer. Is it true that guards have been detailed to patrol the gates leading to the Prime Minister's residence in Ottawa and, if so, is this part of the Prime Minister's solution to the current rise in unemployment?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, being facetious, requires no answer. There has, however, been a change to this extent, that instead of having one organization looking after the home, as was the case during the days of the present Leader of the Opposition, there are today two police officers made available for duty throughout the day and at appropriate hours. It is simply a matter of a change of arrangement to suit convenience.


Pierre Gauthier: Are you scared?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member is the last person who should ask that question.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the Prime
Minister if they are city police or Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


John George Diefenbaker: Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They have been available at all times at Government House, across the way. As a matter of fact, the change was made for convenience.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester made an inquiry as to when he might expect a certain return to be made. I regret the delay in tabling the correspondence and other documents called for by address No. 17 which was passed by the house as an order for return on November 8.
This return requested by the hon. member covers correspondence between federal departments and agencies and the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and their respective power commissions. A good deal of material is involved in the return, and it has been necessary to check

Inquiries of the Ministry the files of a number of federal departments and agencies. This process is almost finished, and it is expected that within two or three days the Secretary of State will have on hand a complete set of material for tabling. It will then be necessary, however, for the Secretary of State to obtain clearance from the two provincial governments concerned before tabling can take place. Everything possible will be done to bring forward the return at the earliest date.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Have we reached that particular time in the session, to which the minister referred on October 22, when we might expect an announcement from the Minister of Finance regarding the deductibility of all medical expenses for income tax purposes, along the lines supported by the Minister of Finance in the more halcyon days when he was on the opposition side of the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think I must refer my hon. friend to what I said in the house on Tuesday last.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does that answer mean we may expect a statement on this matter tomorrow?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That answer means that
what the Minister of Finance said in the house on Tuesday still stands, and what he said about taking up matters pertaining to the financial policies of the government will be open for consideration when the estimates of the Department of Finance are submitted to the committee of supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is tomorrow?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, that is not tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister's tone be the same then as now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but isn't this Thursday? May I ask a supplementary question. I was flying during the night and I had forgotten what day it is. Is it not true that the house leader indicated that the estimates of the Department of Finance would be before us on Friday?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall take the liberty of directing the attention of my hon. friend to what the leader of the house said last night at ten o'clock, which appears in Hansard.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I have not given him notice, and he may wish to defer the answer until the next sitting. Is the minister now in a position to make a statement as to what policy, if any, has been decided upon with regard to the establishment of satellite television stations in areas which are not now reached by the national network?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I am not in a position to make a statement about the policy with respect to that matter, Mr. Speaker, but the matter will be dealt with when the supplementary estimates of the department are before the house.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
240. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including costs incurred in the participation of the Canadian forces in the United Nations emergency force and 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 $130,000,000, 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 $3,338,164,131 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,521,731,982 will come due for payment in future years), $1,669,450,149.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Chairman, the last time hon. members had an opportunity to discuss defence matters in detail was in June and July of 1956, when the estimates of the Department of National Defence were before the house and approved. Since that time there have been a number of important changes

of a military and strategic nature. As this is a new house in which there are a number of new members it might be helpful if I say something about our defence commitments as they presently exist in the light of these changes.
Before I do so, however, I would like to make reference to my predecessor in this office, the former hon. member for Vancouver Centre. The brief period during which I have been Minister of National Defence has given me an understanding of the problems he had to face. Despite the onerous duties which were his lot Mr. Campney never failed to treat inquiries from me with courtesy, a practice I shall hope to follow. While we were not always satisfied with the replies, he did endeavour to obtain answers to those inquiries as quickly as possible. In the house we may have had differences over the shape of Canada's defence policy, but we were in full agreement as to the need of such a policy. I understand that Mr. Campney has now returned to his law practice in Vancouver, and I am sure all of us here wish him well in his profession.
I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the senior service officers and the civilian heads of branches in the department. Since assuming office I have received the utmost co-operation and assistance from them all, and I know that without their help and support my job as minister would have been a great deal more difficult to carry out.
Our defence policy is, of course, to provide for the security of Canada. We believe the best way to achieve this aim is through membership in a collective defence organization such as NATO. While our contributions to this organization at present constitute our main defence commitments, we are fully aware of the importance of the United Nations and we will continue to assist the United Nations to attain its objectives in every possible way.
A large number of Canadian servicemen, over 900 in fact, form part of the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East, and we have supplied some 130 personnel of our armed services for the truce commission in Indo-China, the United Nations truce supervisory organization in Palestine and the truce team in Kashmir. Our membership in this NATO regional alliance is in no way contrary to the spirit of the United Nations organization. Article 51 of the charter reads in part:
Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defence.
Supply-National Defence
By forming this unique organization the NATO countries have assisted the United Nations in realizing its aim of preventing any further encroachments by aggressive nations. In an alliance such as NATO collective defence can be achieved along the most economical lines by the partners contributing the kind of forces they can best produce and equip. In this way each partner is not required to have in existence all types and varieties of forces. We can do our share in the alliance by raising, equipping and training the type of force to which we are best suited and which can be supplied in the main from our own Canadian industry.
The primary military aim of NATO is to prevent war. The best way to achieve this aim is to make it clear to any potential enemy that war would be so disastrous that it must not be contemplated. In a future major conflict there will be neither victim nor vanquished, only death and destruction of such magnitude that civilization may well be ended. The essence of the NATO concept is, therefore, the idea of a deterrent. It is important that other countries know that we in NATO have the ability to retaliate immediately following any aggressive act.
The widely dispersed aircraft of the United States strategic air command, together with the V-bombers of the United Kingdom, on account of their great flexibility form a formidable retaliatory force. As General Norstad said recently, it is beyond practical limits to eliminate all our bases simultaneously notwithstanding the advent of the ballistic and other missiles.
In Canada our main contribution to this deterrent is to provide protection both for these retaliatory forces and for the industrial power of the North American continent. To this end we have established the early warning lines and air defence command.
I might say a word about Canada's commitments to NATO in terms of men and material. We have 12 squadrons of interceptor aircraft in Europe, eight of which are equipped with Sabres and four with CF-lOO's. These squadrons are formed into four wings and are located at Zweibrucken and Soellin-gen in Germany and Marville and Grosten-quin in France with divisional headquarters at Metz. Some 5,800 airmen are employed in flying and servicing these aircraft and in the performance of other duties necessary for the maintenance of the efficiency of the division. These young airmen are on duty every hour of every day 365 days in the year.
Also stationed in Germany at Soest, Hemer and Werl is the Canadian infantry brigade group made up of over 5,000 men, supported

Supply-National Defence by an armoured regiment equipped with Centurion tanks. The role of this group is to assist in the protection of western Europe by delaying any advance that might be made by enemy ground forces. By having these defensive forces in the field we compel a would-be aggressor to concentrate sufficient forces to overcome our shield, and by building up such a concentration to reveal his aggressive intentions.
Our naval contribution to NATO is not inconsiderable. Forty fighting ships and 50 maritime aircraft are earmarked for the maritime forces of the supreme allied commander, Atlantic. Hon. members will know that since 1951 we have also made available to our allies equipment valued at over $1 billion through the mutual aid program and have undertaken the training of over 5,000 pilots and navigators from member nations of the organization. Only last week ceremonies took place at Sydney, Nova Scotia, at which five Bangor-type coastal escorts were handed over to our NATO ally, Turkey. These will be followed early next year by a further five Bangors and by four bay-class minesweepers. These, then, are some of our direct commitments to NATO.
The North American continent is an integral part of the NATO area, and we are assisting very considerably in its defence. The, early warning system, built up over the years, is operated to enable our interceptor aircraft to take the necessary action against the intrusion of manned bomber aircraft. Such bomber aircraft are in operation now, and we believe that such manned aircraft will be in operation for several more years. It is felt that even when the ballistic and other guided missiles come into operation they will complement rather than replace manned bombers and interceptors for some time to come.
I might say that intensive studies are being undertaken by Canadian scientists, working in close collaboration with our allies, to develop defences against such future missiles. At the same time, however, we must be prepared to deal with offensive weapons now in operation, and it is against such weapons that our defences on the North American continent have been built up. Of the three radar lines which work as a unit, Canada operates the "Pinetree" line jointly with the United States. The mid-Canada line was built and is operated wholly by Canada. The D.E.W. line was constructed and is operated by the United States. Backing up these radar lines are nine squadrons of CF-100 aircraft which are on the alert 24 hours every day.

The air defence systems of this continent have recently been completely integrated by the establishment of a joint headquarters at Colorado Springs, with a United States commander and a Canadian deputy. Of course the effectiveness of such integration has already been demonstrated in Europe, where our forces are under the operational control of General Norstad, the supreme allied commander in Europe; and in the Atlantic where in war our ships and maritime aircraft, earmarked for the NATO naval force, would come under the supreme allied commander, Atlantic, who also has fully integrated headquarters in which Canadian officers are serving. In order to improve the capabilities of the air defence forces of Canada and the United States to support the collective security of NATO and thereby provide a greater deterrent to war, the air defence of North America is now considered as a single problem.
The importance to the NATO alliance of the United States strategic air command, nuclear retaliatory forces, and the industrial capacity of Canada and the United States makes it imperative that the most effective and efficient defence system be provided. Prior to the formation of the North American air defence command there was the closest possible co-operation and liaison between the air defence forces of Canada and the United States. The various agreements reached between the services and approved by the two governments provide for cross-border intercepts whereby the forces of one country can intercept the enemy in the territory of the other. The conditions under which intercepts could take place were clearly defined by the governments of both countries, and consequently United States aircraft operating over Canadian territory are governed by Canadian rules of engagement.
In planning their air defence systems our two countries attempted to achieve the closest possible degree of uniformity. This, however, was not always possible and often unilateral decisions, particularly in long-range planning, resulted in less effective air defence forces and equipment. The realization that duplication in planning and harmful unilateral decisions were sometimes taking place led to a study of ways and means to improve the air defence system.
The Canadian and United States chiefs of staff directed that a study of the problem be undertaken by the joint military study group, comprising senior officials of the three services and scientific agencies of both countries. This group recommended that a more effective air defence system would be achieved by integrating operational control of all air defence

forces under one joint headquarters. Subsequently the governments of Canada and the United States approved this recommendation in principle, and an integrated headquarters called North American air defence command was formed. This joint Canada-United States headquarters, known as NORAD, has been organized on principles that were devised and which operated satisfactorily during world war II for joint and combined commands.
Its responsibilities are as follows. First, in peacetime, it is developing plans and procedures that would be used in war. These plans and procedures are to be agreed to in peacetime and will be ready for immediate use in an emergency. They will be reviewed, amended or improved by the chiefs of staff of both countries, and government approval will be sought before any plans are implemented. It will be responsible for the general pattern of training and the general supervision of practice exercises in order to ensure the readiness of the forces and facilities in time of emergency.
Second, in time of war it will be responsible for the direction of the air defence operations in accordance with the plans and procedures which have been agreed upon in peacetime. As the agreed plans and procedures have been worked out in peacetime, there will be little that the NORAD commanders will be able to do in the first few hours of war except to reinforce the most threatened areas with whatever additional fighter aircraft and missiles become available after the battle is opened. These in the main will be United States forces, as Canada does not maintain immediately ready reserves.
The officer appointed to fill the position of commander in chief, North American air defence, was made responsible to the governments of both countries for the air defence of North America, and to report directly to the United States joint chiefs of staff and the Canadian chiefs of staff committee. All plans for the deployment and employment of air defence forces must be approved by the chiefs of staff and, when necessary, Ijy the governments of both countries.
The terms of reference which outline the responsibilities of the commander in chief of NORAD and the organization required to exercise operational control are under study at the present time and will be approved before a formal agreement between the two governments is finalized. Until the agreement is formalized, NORAD is operating on an interim arrangement whereby a small staff of R.C.A.F. officers headed by Air Marshal Slemon are working on the preparation of the 96698-121
Supply-National Defence terms of reference and the organization required for NORAD. The air officer commanding the R.C.A.F. air defence command at St. Hubert will continue to control all air defence operations over Canada.
The control of air defence over Canada depends in the first place on a requirement that all aircraft flying in Canadian air space must file a flight plan. The air defence authorities keep track of these flight plans, and by this method they are able to plot the movements of all aircraft flights in and out of and over Canada.
If the flight of an aircraft which does not coincide with a filed flight plan is picked up by any of the radar systems an investigation is immediately undertaken. If there are several aircraft this would, of course, be a serious matter and checks are immediately made with the United States strategic air force and other agencies operating large numbers of aircraft. The air defence system would automatically increase its state of readiness.
As soon as an unknown aircraft came within the range of our interceptor aircraft, investigation would be made in the air by these interceptors to ascertain the nature of the unknown aircraft. While this was going on Canadian and United States military authorities would be in contact so that the appropriate joint action could be taken if necessary. The air defence commanders would seek confirmation that these aircraft were in fact unscheduled flights. Other authorities would be giving consideration to the type of action to be taken by other forces and agencies. This would include, among other things, alerting the civil defence organization and ordering ships to sea.
I would point out to hon. members that the whole of this procedure is carried out in a matter of minutes. While these decisions are being taken the previously approved course of action by the air defence forces is under way. This is based on the rules of engagement which were approved by the government in December, 1951, and which define the powers and responsibilities of the air defence commander.
His powers are as follows. First, he may authorize the interception of aircraft in order to establish identification if other methods of obtaining identification have failed. Second, if the aircraft is identified as hostile by its appearance or because it perpetrates a hostile act or if its patent behaviour is sufficiently suspicious to justify a belief that it has hostile intentions, the air defence commander may authorize its engagement by fighters or other means. Third, if the aircraft

Supply-National Defence cannot be identified by any means whatever the air defence commander may, if circumstances warrant, authorize action to force the aircraft to land or engage it with fighters or other means.
These are the rules under which the R.C.A.F. air defence command has been operating since 1951, and it is these rules which will govern the activities of the air defence forces controlled by the commander in chief, North American air defence command. These rules are Canadian government policy; therefore the North American air defence command will be operating within approved government policy. Every country has established conditions and regulations similar to our rules of engagement under which aircraft can enter their air space. Such rules deal with aircraft which do not adhere to conditions of entry.
If military aircraft which are manifestly hostile in intent do enter Canadian territory without permission, an act of aggression has been committed against Canada and the use of force to deny these aircraft further passage over this country is an exercise of Canadian sovereignty and is not in itself an act which commits this country to war. Only the Canadian government can commit this country to war. Every precaution has been taken and will continue to be taken to ensure that the Canadian government is consulted before any act is undertaken which would commit this country to war.
The interception and destruction of enemy bombers over Canadian territory could not be construed as the initiation of aggression, because the presence of enemy bombers is in itself an act of aggression and consequently the air defence command is taking only protective measures. The interception and forcing down of aircraft which are invading our air space without permission, or destroying them when hostile intent is shown, is a national responsibility in the exercise of our sovereignty. Consequently the exercise of this authority under government approved procedures can safely be delegated to NORAD without fear that any defensive action taken would in itself initiate war. When the terms of reference and operating procedures for NORAD have been approved by both governments, the resulting exchange of notes will be tabled in this house.
I wish to consider now some other aspects of our defence planning and point out the part our regular and reserve forces are presently playing and will play in the future. To be effective the deterrent philosophy cannot depend on our retaliatory forces alone. It is as important that we should indicate to any would be aggressor that if necessary we


are prepared to fight on land, sea and in the air. If we do not indicate that we are prepared to fight should the deterrent fail, then this philosophy of the deterrent will also fail.
What kind of war must we be prepared to fight? With the introduction of nuclear weapons and the anticipated production of long-range ballistic missiles, it is obvious that the methods of waging any future war have clearly changed from those of world war II. Looking into the future is at best a risky business, but our military advisers must plan ahead, and it is their present opinion that a third world war would commence with a sudden ferocious thermonuclear attack of great intensity from several directions, by various means. Little or no warning could be expected; but this initial period, when the fight for survival would be paramount, is likely to decide the eventual outcome of the struggle. Therefore it is important at this stage that the forces required are trained, equipped and in position. There will be no time for mobilization or reinforcement because of the conditions expected to prevail in the first few days of a nuclear war.
It is considered that shipping and port facilities will not be available to dispatch large bodies of men and equipment to Europe in time to participate in the first phase of a war. Our dependence on forces in being therefore must be adhered to, and that is why we must continue to give top priority to our regular navy, army and air force. Only if we survive that initial stage of hostilities will it be possible to carry out additional military activities and, if necessary, raise and train additional forces.
With this in mind we must continually review our defence commitments and examine the means we have available to meet them within the limits of our economy. Defence costs now account for about one-third of the total federal budget, and there are those who may consider that reductions should be made. I will refer to those reductions later. By the elimination of overhead and duplication some money can be saved, but the fact remains that if we are to continue to play our part in the defence alliance we must see to it that our forces are equipped with modern weapons. These weapons, on account of their increasing complexity, are becoming more and more costly. I feel that in the world as it is today it would be folly to follow any other course than that we are now pursuing.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McPhillips):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Major James William Coldwell: Could he go on?


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Has the minister the consent of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Randolph Pearkes: The knowledge that the Russians have a considerable number of long-range submarines perhaps capable of launching missiles far from our shores at targets well inland emphasizes the importance of the anti-submarine role of our navy, and presents new and serious problems. Fixed wing aircraft, helicopters and ships all have a part to play in detecting and destroying these submarines. Squadrons of the Tracker-a naval anti-submarine aircraft-are based on our new aircraft carrier Bonaventure. Seven of our new destroyer escorts are in commission, and another seven of the improved Resti-gouche class are nearing completion. Authority has also recently been given for the construction of two more of these outstanding ships.
Because the initiative will always rest with the enemy, it will be necessary for the navy to be operationally ready before any war begins, and to be in a position to deal with any submarine which might attempt to get within range of our Canadian ports. In this anti-submarine role our navy receives and works in close collaboration with the R.C.A.F. maritime command. As the Canadian built Argus aircraft comes into operation in this command the effectiveness of our seaboard defences will increase, and we are looking to the day when our naval and air force authorities will be able to keep track of and deal with all sea traffic above and below water in the same way that the air force keeps track of every aircraft in the sky over North America now.
If the R.C.A.F. is to continue to carry out its task efficiently it will have to improve its equipment constantly to cope with new aircraft flying at higher altitudes and at ever increasing speeds. That is why we are continuing the development of the CF-105, and that is why steps are being taken to evolve improved methods of processing information obtained through our warning systems, a complicated and very expensive proposition.
It is obvious-and this is indicated by changes taking place in the composition of the armies of the United Kingdom and the United States-that in an atomic age the Canadian regular army must strive for increased mobility and additional firepower. The strength of the regular army today is just under 49,000. We have in Europe the 4th Canadian infantry brigade group, to which I have already referred. In Canada 96698-121J
Supply-National Defence we have sufficient units to form three additional brigade groups, and it is our intention during the coming year to group these units so there will be a balanced brigade in western Canada, another brigade in central Canada, and a third in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
Each of these brigade groups will be commanded by a brigadier with an operational brigade staff. Each group will concentrate for summer training in Wainwright camp, in Petawawa or the Camp Borden-Meaford area, and at Gagetown. One battalion of each of these three brigade groups will have a parachute element and will be air-portable. The development of the Cariboo cargo aircraft by the deHavilland Company is proceeding satisfactorily, and steps are being taken to increase further our air transport capabilities.
The divisional headquarters as now organized will be reduced to nil strength during the next few months. Some divisional units will be retained, and the equipment for the headquarters will be kept available. The technique of command and administration will continue to be practised by general officers and their staffs so that if, at any future time, two or more of the brigade groups are operating together, personnel and equipment will be available to organize and operate a tactical divisional headquarters.
The launching of earth satellites and the reported successful firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile emphasize the need for the nations of the free world to collaborate in matters of defence, and point up the urgency of the pooling of scientific knowledge. Officials of the defence research board have for many years maintained close liaison with their opposite numbers in the United Kingdom and the United States. These fruitful discussions are now being intensified.
A major research contribution in support of the defence against the ICBM can be made by Canada in the field of radio propagation, particularly with reference to the auroral zone. This is being undertaken jointly with the United States air force at the Prince Albert radar site which is now in the course of construction.
Other programs now being undertaken by the defence research board are aimed at problems in the missile field, particularly with respect to ballistic detection; at means for countering submarines; at many phases of electronics in defence and at operational research studies designed to indicate the most economical means for obtaining maximum effectiveness from present and proposed weapons systems.

Supply-National Defence
The submarine threat is considered to be a grave one, and work in conjunction with the United States navy and the royal navy on improved anti-submarine detection devices is in progress. Projects are being undertaken with the objective of extending detection ranges and increasing the speed at which searches for submarines can be carried out. Studies of nuclear propulsion for ships are to be undertaken in conjunction with the royal navy, and a Canadian team of scientists and naval officers will proceed to the United Kingdom for this purpose early next year.
Our reliance on forces in being, to which I have already referred, will of necessity require some changes in the role of our reserve forces. The role of the naval reserve will remain the reinforcement of the fleet in being in time of emergency. Reserve personnel will also replace regular personnel ashore and will also be required to bring our ships up to war complement. Steps are being taken to ensure that the members of the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve will be immediately available and adequately trained for these duties. This rationalization will result in some reduction in present strength, because we are placing emphasis on quality rather than quantity.
Over the years the R.C.A.F. auxiliary squadrons have been an important element in our defence establishment. The first R.C.A.F. squadron to serve overseas in the second world war was an auxiliary squadron. The first fighter squadron was made up of 110 squadron from Toronto and 112 squadron from Winnipeg. These; squadrons are celebrating their 25th anniversary this year. Apart from the squadrons which saw service overseas, the auxiliary air force provided a large number of the trained personnel required to supervise and direct the activities of our expanding wartime air force. Since the war the auxiliary has continued to play an important role in the defence organization, and has assumed new tasks as and when required.
The changing tempo and technology of war have dictated an alteration in the role and employment of flying squadrons of our auxiliary air force. A careful reassessment of their role when viewed in the light of longterm requirements leads to an adjustment of effort which will enable the squadrons to contribute to the relief of civil emergency requirements in peace or war.
It has already been announced that certain squadrons are being equipped with light transport aircraft, and thus the first move was made toward the ultimate requirements for squadrons to be employed in an emergency
[Mr. Pearkes.l
and rescue role. There will continue to be a gradual change in other flying squadrons in the direction of this ultimate aim. As a step toward this goal, early next year the light bomber squadrons at Saskatoon and Edmonton will convert to this new role.
Also constituting a large portion of the R.C.A.F. auxiliary activities are the aircraft control and warning units. These units continue to play an important part and represent a readily available reserve of trained personnel for the support of the radar control stations in Canada. In this they are making a significant contribution to the air defence of this country.
Finally, the auxiliary technical training units which train technical personnel in support of the flying squadrons and the aircraft control and warning units will be adjusted in size in response to the gradual change proposed for the operational units which they support.
In so far as the militia are concerned, they have a long and brilliant record of achievement. Originally organized for the protection of the homes and lives of the very earliest settlers in this country, the members of the militia during the 18th and 19th centuries on many occasions, alone or in conjunction with British regulars, would indeed drive out the invader and give security to this country.
In 1914 and again in 1939, when our regular forces were very few in number, it was upon the units of the militia that we built our divisions for service overseas. Those who went overseas were in fact defending their homes and families, just as their forebears had done a century or more before; the same duties done and the same tasks performed, but some thousands of miles away.
Almost 20 years have passed since the outbreak of the second world war. Since then we have adopted a policy of having a large and efficient regular army of some 49,000 officers and men compared with approximately 4,000 in 1939. For the first time in history a potential aggressor, armed with new and modern weapons, including long-range air carriers, can make this continent a target for direct attack.
If, in spite of all our efforts, we are drawn into a major conflict, one of the first and vital battles may well be for survival within our own boundaries. The situation will be quite different from that which existed in 1914 and in 1939, when we had many months to mobilize and complete the training of tens of thousands of militiamen.
We anticipate two types of battle in which ground forces will be engaged. One battle

will be the direct contact with enemy ground forces in Europe, and will be fought by forces in being and in position. The other battle will be in this country, to assist in restoring order out of the terrible chaos that may result from enemy attacks with long range nuclear weapons. It is in this latter important battle that the militia as well as the regular and the civil defence organization will be needed.
The members of the militia must continue, however, to receive military training and retain a military organization, because it is this training and organization that make the militia so valuable in aiding the civil authorities. Many military skills are just the skills that are needed in all great disasters; for example, medical assistance and first aid, communications, engineering and repairs, traffic control and other such services.
War does not always follow the pattern one expects. It is quite conceivable that a situation may exist in which it will be of great value to have a reserve of at least partially trained personnel in all arms, who would be available as reinforcements. To meet our primary task in the battle for survival, the units of the militia will be grouped together into some 45 or 50 mobile columns. These columns will be trained to take their place in this battle, and will carry out exercises with local authorities and civil defence organizations.
I am well aware of the importance of our militia forces, and I am personally acquainted with the service our militia has performed in the past. They are a great body of public spirited citizens, and I have no doubt that they will carry out the vital role that is expected of them in the future.
I am pleased to state that enlistment into the militia and the strength of the militia are higher today than at any time previously this year.
I should like to make a few brief remarks regarding the 1957-58 estimates which are being presented to the committee. Since these estimates, amounting to $1,722,844,000, were prepared, increases in the rates of civil salaries and military pay and allowances have been authorized and took effect from May 1, 1957. The increases in military pay and allowances are estimated to amount to $27,574,892 for the 11 months of the fiscal year 1957-58 to which they apply, and the increases in civil salaries to $6,600,000 during the same period. There has, therefore, on this account been an extra amount of approximately $34,000,000. In addition, the cost of the mid-Canada line construction is expected to exceed the original estimate by
Supply-National Defence some $7 million. A supplementary estimate to cover these additions is not being requested, because a thorough review has been undertaken to make savings in other areas at least equal to this increase.
As a result of this review a number of decisions have been taken which will reduce expenditures. Savings are being made in the operating costs of all three services. A decision has been taken to discontinue the bureau of current affairs. Immediately on my taking office a review of advertising expenditures for recruiting purposes was made, and a reduction of these expenditures by one third was ordered. The curtailment of travelling expenses has also been directed; and while savings in the current year will not be large, in due course a helpful reduction may be expected in this field.
A detailed review of the construction program has been made and it has been possible to defer a number of lower priority items. The equipment programs have also been re-examined and some savings have been possible, notably the cancellation of the mark VI version of the CF-100 aircraft. A review is also continuing of those responsibilities of the defence department which might, with economy, be assumed by civilian departments of the government. One concrete result of these studies has been the decision to transfer the ice-breaker Labrador from the R.C.N. to the Department of Transport. Hon. members will recall the excellent work which this vessel did during the exploration of the Arctic this year.
It is now clear that these various savings will adequately take care of the additions caused by the salary increases. It is hoped that continued efforts will accomplish further savings before the close of the fiscal year. This will be done without affecting in any way the operational efficiency of our forces in being. It will be achieved by a reappraisal of planned projects and a readjustment of their priority in the light of the changing concept of military warfare.
In closing, I would point out to hon. members that the present fiscal year is now two-thirds over, and that a large percentage of the 1957-58 estimates are already spent. This, of course, in no way curtails the right of hon. members to raise any point they wish to make on this important subject of defence. I would suggest, however, that any general remarks should be included in the general debate, and that when we reach the estimates in detail we should discuss the items as set forth in the blue book.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

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


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking on the estimates of the Department of National Defence this afternoon I would first like to make a few comments on the statement delivered by the minister before the recess at noon. The courtesy which he extended to his predecessor, Hon. Ralph Campney-and I am sure he would extend the same courtesy to Hon. Brooke Claxton- was truly in keeping with the remarks I made on November 14, 1957, as reported at page 1151 of Hansard, with respect to the attitude of the minister in carrying out his responsibilities. He has today made only kind references to his predecessors.
I was also pleased to hear his remarks about the co-operation he has received from and the confidence he places in the senior officers of the armed services of this country. This is quite contrary to some of the remarks made on former occasions by some of his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Agriculture, who is presently in the committee.
In his remarks today I do not think the Minister of National Defence tried in any way to indicate to the committee or to the country that NORAD is a part of NATO, with which matter I will deal a little later, but he did say that the air defence scheme of the North American continent has been approved both by the government of Canada and the government of the United States. There might be some doubt about that when we refer to the evidence at the meeting of the committee on external affairs on December 2.
I thought I observed one discrepancy, though I might have misunderstood the minister, when he stated that there will be little that the NORAD commanders will be able to do in the first few hours of war except to reinforce the most threatened areas with whatever additional fighter aircraft and missiles become available after the battle is opened. I think this is directly opposed to the remarks made by the minister in a press release some time before this house opened, when he described the push-button control of the defence of the North American continent.
I was interested to note how the rules of aircraft flying over Canada apply and the requirements about filing flight plans and so on. This seems to contradict the reply of the minister in which he said that the whole procedure is carried out in a matter of
[Mr. Pearkes.l
moments. I submit that after flashing signals to the headquarters at Colorado Springs there will be no opportunity to spend some hours in preparation.
I was somewhat amazed at one statement made by the minister for which I am sure he must have an explanation, to the effect that the divisional headquarters as presently organized will be reduced in strength during the next few months. I presume he does not intend to leave us in the position where we would not be prepared for retaliatory ground action after an attack. He mentioned that there will be some reduction in the R.C.A.F. auxiliary squadrons, and it would seem important to remember that for the small cost involved in maintaining R.C.A.F. auxiliary squadrons they serve as a good pool of trained personnel to keep available in case we wish to expand our use of retaliatory armed bombers.
In the statement he made this morning concerning the reduction of the ground forces it appeared that the minister disregarded the possibility of further local skirmishes or infiltration by an enemy into this country, and that he has not made adequate provision for preventing such happenings by having trained forces available in reserve. On such occasions it may very well be that the regular forces, which in the future will be composed of trained technicians, will have their hands full in dealing with matters of a more technical nature than would be required in the case of skirmishes or infiltration.
I listened with interest to the minister's explanation of the present role of the militia and the role it will adopt in future. I notice that he included in his explanation a comment to the effect that the militia would also take military training along with the civil defence training, which he stated on previous occasions would be emphasized. Under the schedule of training of the militia in the past it took two years to produce a trained soldier. I had an opportunity to review a directive concerning training as it will be conducted, and taking into account the same amount of training it will be spread over a period of five years. In other words it will take five years to produce a trained soldier for the reserve if the new directive for training is carried out. There is a turnover of men in the militia approximately every two years, and it occurred to me that under the new schedule of training there would be a very low percentage of trained personnel, as far as military training is concerned, if the new trend in the training of militia is to continue.
In the minister's statement I observed no mention of waste and extravagance in his

department, and I am sure he will agree with us that before he took over there had been a paring down to the basic essentials.
In relation to construction and the requirements of equipment the minister mentioned that there was a deferment. It seems to me that when there is a deferment we just put off from this year to next year those things we might have needed this year. The construction and requirements of equipment for this year are essential to the welfare of the country, and in particular it would assist the employment situation if such construction were allowed to progress during this winter.
I realize that my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence was for many years a great soldier; and today a great soldier, for several years the defence critic of the official opposition in this house, now finds himself in a new position. He is on the pinnacle where he must initiate a policy to defend Canada, one that would prepare us to retaliate and destroy an aggressor. The position, I am sure, must feel new to him, but he is not alone in this situation because our great partner to the south, the United States, also has a new secretary of defence with but nine weeks of experience on the job. This is all the more reason why particular care must be taken to formulate a defence policy in accordance with the present circumstances, events and eventualities.
We had expected that today Canada's new defence minister would have made a more detailed reappraisal of the defence of Canada, if we were to read and expect action from the speeches he has made in the past. I was disappointed the other day when a member of the C.C.F. party asked about a white paper and received a negative reply. It would seem to me that this would have been the appropriate time when, as the minister explained, there had not only been a change in personnel of the government but a great change in the weapons of war, for the minister to have made available a reappraisal and an assessment of the problem in a white paper.
He has made very little available as far as a report of his appraisal of the defence of Canada is concerned. We know that scientific developments and announcements within the last month do justify a reappraisal of our defences, a report to the nation on our defences, and an assurance from the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister that scientific research with respect to defence weapons is progressing.
I do not think it is essential that we must always, in this instance anyway, follow the footsteps of our neighbour to the south. There is an underlying uneasy feeling that the United States has become inferior in some
Supply-National Defence respects compared with Russia. If our government feels that certain items of defence are lagging owing to United States tardiness we must be prepared to take the lead as we did in the Suez question, or encourage the United States to speed up.
My hon. friend the Minister of National Defence, and his government, I must say are faced with some problems right now, and one of the biggest problems is the defence of this country. Even with the use of conventional, outmoded weapons, their first problem is manpower, but manpower now required in addition to the conventional troops who still may be required in the category of manpower which I have indicated. How is the minister recruiting and keeping civilian scientists and engineers? Are his service personnel becoming the skilled technicians, or in other words has he sufficient brain power, in the light of recent weapon advances, in his military establishments? I am sure the minister would want to report to us and assure us that we are not lagging in that department.
We are also dependent upon Canadian industry and the industry of other nations for the weapons of war. The minister should tell us what effort he has made to have industry in Canada continue to co-operate with our defence program as it did in world war II, when Right Hon. C. D. Howe headed the department of munitions and supply. I would not like to feel that our industry has been discouraged in morale and frustrated by the lack of a fiscal and trade policy.
It has been reported that there have been interservice rivalries, and that there has been some waste in defence funds and a slowdown in the development of new weapons. I am sure the minister should report to us to erase this inference. The minister would also want to assure us, since the militia has been more or less erased, that we shall have sufficient conventional troops to discourage a conventional attack or a mop-up after a conventional attack upon our country. We are entitled to know whether under the policy of the government he intends to scrap the development and production of manned planes in favour of an accelerated missile program.
The minister, in formulating his policy, must consider whether he wishes to put greater dependence on nuclear air power and reduction in conventional forces, to the point where his policy has led to an inflexible situation by which we could not meet a threat *of local limited war.
I notice that in his statement this morning the minister was more or less of the opinion that if we had an attack it would be an allout attack. It seems to me that there are two types of nuclear war, a total one and a limited one. Some think of a nuclear conflict only in

Supply-National Defence terms of mushroom clouds, total devastation over vast areas and an all-out nuclear war. This might never come about, because it might be disastrous to both sides.
The scientists today are concentrating on nuclear weapons which can pinpoint their effort without radiation; for instance, a weapon which could be pinpointed upon a troop or civilian concentration. These weapons could be used in a limited nuclear war, limited in scope, in arms and in area and waged by professional fighting men. This type of war could be triggered or push-buttoned if and when an aggressor should attack North America. This type of war would be a distinct possibility. Nuclear war would be short, including the detonation and mopping up. It would be over in days or possibly in weeks.
The new nuclear weapons and the H-bomb have provided this nation and other nations of the world that may be involved in a war with a great many avenues of thought and policy. There are those who say that if we find ourselves in war we should use our most effective weapons against our enemies. Today the most effective weapons which warring nations would have would be the H-bomb and nuclearweapons. If we can believe reports from the United States-whatever the truth is of the Russian claim to having successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile-they are ahead of the Russians. If this is so it is an immense advantage to Canada as well as to other NATO nations, but we must bear in mind the fact that there is a great possibility that nuclear war would be a limited one. There would then, as the minister told us this morning, be no time to mobilize and train troops and engineer and produce weapons, process and store the essentials of life, food, and so on. This is an important matter. If we are to win this type of war we must win it years ahead by preparedness.
The minister mentioned NORAD this morning. I should like to refer for a few moments to sessional paper No. 183, which contains the order in council dated July 31, 1957, along with a joint statement by the secretary of defence of the United States and the Minister of National Defence of Canada. I might say that I agree with the policy of the joint air defence of North America. Among other things, I was interested in the principles and procedures which are involved in the establishment of this particular defence. I think it needs a review and some scrutiny. I am assured that this is the only document that deals with the important matter of this particular phase of the defence of North America. Yesterday when I asked the Minister of National Defence whether there was any further order in council dealing with this matter

other than the one to which I have referred, his answer was in the negative.
For a moment I should like to put on the record what I really think this order in council does. As I see it, it does two things. It appoints Air Marshal Slemon and makes provision for his pay. It instructs him that he is to take his orders from a superior at the Colorado headquarters. There is something else that has been raised. What justifies the 40 members of his staff being out of this country under a foreign commander, General Partridge? I do not believe we have had that answered yet in this house, except probably by an explanation which added to the confusion.


George Randolph Pearkes: I wonder whether I might help the hon. member. The figure 40 is quite inaccurate; 13 is the number.


William James Henderson: I am very glad to have that information at this time, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to thank the minister for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? In view of the fact that he has made reference to sessional paper No. 183 and the order in council of July 31, 1957, will he say where he finds in this order in council anything which indicates to whom Air Marshal Slemon is responsible?


William James Henderson: I think it is indicated, Mr. Chairman. He is to be deputy commander in chief. He is described as such, which would imply that he would have a commander in chief.


Major James William Coldwell: He might be responsible to the President of the United States.


William James Henderson: Yes. It is now some time Since the order in council was passed, and we have been advised that over this period of time there has been consultation, but we have found that there has been consultation on a military level only. Included in the statement issued by the secretary of defence of the United States and the Minister of National Defence of Canada, which statement accompanied the order in council, there is a particular sentence which is important and which I should like to read. It is in these words:
This system of integrated operational control and the setting up of a joint headquarters will become effective at an early date.
That was five months ago. The statement that the command became operative immediately is further supported by the answer to a question I asked the Minister of National Defence on November 5, as found at pages

757 and 758 of Hansard. I asked the minister if the command was operative, and the minister replied:
Yes, it is operative on an interim basis until the formal agreement has been drawn up as I explained to the house.
Hon. members will realize that an agreement must have some limitations, and although we might agree with the policy or purpose of the order in council we certainly would like to know what the limitations and details of the agreement are at this time, five months after some kind of an arrangement was made, during which period of time the headquarters of General Partridge and Air Marshal Slemon has been operative.
We were particularly interested in knowing what consultation there had been with the government of Canada, and on November 6, 1957 I asked the minister how there could be consultation with the government of Canada prior to Canadian fighters being put in the air if there was an attack by an aggressor. The minister answered, "Mr. Speaker, by telephone or other means." On that same day there was the following exchange between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Essex East as found at page 812 of Hansard:


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, oh.


Mr. Martin (Essex East) :: The Prime Minister says "oh, oh." This is an extremely important matter.


John George Diefenbaker: It certainly is.
The Prime Minister agreed that it was extremely important. In the light of the meeting of the external affairs committee the other day and in the light of what has been said in the house and the reference in the minister's statement this morning, it would seem that the same principles were involved as in the case of the arrangement made in the early part of world war II by Mr. King and Mr. Roosevelt. For the sake of clarification perhaps I might read a portion of Mr. King's speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne at the 1940-41 session of parliament. I wish to refer to page 54 of Hansard for November 12, 1940.
Perhaps I might preface what I am about to read by saying that even at this stage, five months after the arrangement was made for NORAD, the Department of External Affairs has never been consulted with respect to any agreement or arrangement with the United States concerning the defence of the North American continent and the involvement of Canada in that defence. I will refer to that later, as that was one of the matters
Supply-National Defence discussed by the external affairs committee earlier this week. Mr. King had this to say in his address:
The first inkling of developments already under way was given to the public by the President of the United States, on August 16. On that day Mr. Roosevelt announced that:
"The United States government is holding conversations with the government of the British Empire with regard to acquisition of naval and air bases for the defence of the western hemisphere and especially the Panama canal. The United States government is carrying on conversations with the Canadian government on the defence of the western hemisphere."
I shall have something to say to the house in a moment about these conversations. I wish first to recall the events which followed immediately on President Roosevelt's announcement.
The following day, which was August 17, I met the president at Ogdensburg. Our conversations that day, in continuance of conversations previously held, culminated in the formulation of an agreement which was made public the next afternoon, in a joint statement issued by Mr. Roosevelt and myself.	[DOT]
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that in this instance the early stages had passed, the command now became or was immediately operative, and the matter was not dealt with on a military level but a government level, which I suggest is a complete difference in principle from what has been applied in the case of NORAD.


An hon. Member:: There is quite a difference now, too. There was a war on then.


William James Henderson: Well, there is more time to make an agreement now and probably reach an agreement much faster without having other things to do. The Prime Minister and the president had discussed the mutual problems, and these were the terms of the agreement:
The Prime Minister and the President have discussed the mutual problems of defence in relation to the safety of Canada and the United States.
It has been agreed that a permanent joint board on defence shall be set up at once by the two countries.
This permanent joint board on defence shall commence immediate studies relating to sea, land and air problems including personnel and material.
It will consider in the broad sense the defence of the north half of the western hemisphere.
The permanent joint board on defence will consist of four or five members from each country, most of them from the services. It will meet shortly.
It is interesting to note that the instance which concerns us at the present time, NORAD, does not conform to the same principles that were adopted at the beginning of world war II. As found on page 56, Mr. King stated:
Our common problems of defence were discussed at length and in a more concrete and definite way when I visited Washington in November, 1938, to sign the new Canadian-United States trade agreement.

Supply-National Defence
I think it is interesting to place on record the minute of cabinet in 1940, which is not included in sessional paper 183 to which I referred today. On page 56 there is also the following:
By a minute of council approved by His Excellency the Governor General on August 21, the establishment of the permanent joint board on defence was formally ratified and confirmed.
With the permission of the house, I should like to insert in Hansard a copy of the complete minute.
The copy of the complete minute sets out very well the procedure to be followed in the establishment of a joint command of this nature. It is in these terms:
The committee of the privy council had had before them a report, dated August 20, 1940, from the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, representing:
That on August 17, 1940, at the invitation of the President of the United States, he proceeded to the United States to Ogdensburg in the state of New York, to meet Mr. Roosevelt for the purpose of discussing mutual problems of defence in relation to the safety of Canada and the United States.
If I may stop there for a moment, we can see that this arrangement certainly was on a political level and not a military level, as was indicated in the external affairs committee this week. I continue with the following quotation found in the minute:
The Prime Minister and the President have discussed the mutual problems of defence in relation to the safety of Canada and the United States.
It has been agreed that a permanent joint board on defence shall be set up at once by the two countries.
This permanent joint board on defence shall commence immediate studies relating to sea, land and air problems, including personnel and material.
It will consider in the broad sense the defence of the north half of the western hemisphere.
The permanent joint board on defence will consist of four or five members from each country, most of them from the services. It will meet shortly.
That the actions of the Prime Minister in conducting the said conversations and in agreeing, on the part of Canada, to the establishment of a permanent joint board on defence for the consideration of the defence of the north half of the western hemisphere, are in accord with the policy of the government as approved on many occasions by the war committee of the cabinet and the cabinet itself.
May I state, Mr. Chairman, that in the instances we have been discussing this session we have had no indication from the present government on this matter, although they would like to say that this matter was discussed in cabinet and that it received the approval of the war committee of the cabinet; I presume that today that would be called the defence committee of the cabinet.
The Prime Minister, therefore, recommends that his actions in conducting the said conversations and in agreeing to the establishment of the said permanent joint board on defence be ratified and confirmed.

The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
I might say that beyond page 57 Mr. King also related that these declarations marked the first public recognition by both countries of reciprocity in defence.
In the sessional paper we had filed, and the order in council with the statement of the Minister of National Defence and of the secretary of defence for the United States, we failed to have a cabinet minute.


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


William James Henderson: Could I have two minutes more?


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Henri Courtemanche: With the unanimous consent of the committee.


William James Henderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I should like to direct my remarks for a moment to the manner in which the principle involved in the establishing of NORAD has been handled. May I make an observation from the committee on external affairs, where the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked what relationship there is, if any, between Canada's participation or membership in NATO and the joint air defence program with the United States. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said he was unable to answer that question. He was then asked where he could get the answer.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, I observe, was prepared to make a statement about NORAD; and he said the Prime Minister had made a statement in the house, and that this question would be considered further on the estimates of the Department of National Defence. He reiterated with emphasis that so far as his department are concerned they had not been brought into this matter whatsoever, that there had been a discussion on the military level and that his department would deal with the political aspect of it.
It seems to me at this time that although the command is operative, this matter never reached the level of the political aspect, nor has parliament been advised or been able to approve of any permanent or fixed formal agreement which there might be between the two countries with respect to the air defence of North America. It would seem that the principles involved in making an arrangement of this kind between the two countries are not in any way similar to the principles involved in the procedure as between Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. King in 1940.

If I might just bring my remarks to a conclusion at this time, I should like to do so by saying this. The other night I was reading the Dulles policy as outlined by Mr. James Shepley in Life magazine January 16th, 1956, in an article entitled "How Dulles Averted War Three Times-He Brought U.S. Back From the Brink". I should like to conclude these remarks with a sort of warning to the present Minister of National Defence and the present Secretary of State for External Affairs that they should review the situation and make sure that in the handling of a matter so important as NORAD, the joint air defence of North America by Canada and the United States, they have not conducted matters so loosely that there would be a possibility that they might be involved in a policy of what we might call this "brinkmanship"; that Canada by inadvertence, lack of information, negligence, carelessness or otherwise, might unnecessarily be brought into a sphere of policy whereby war would be thrust upon us not of our own making or concurrence.


Major James William Coldwell: I was very happy to listen to the minister this morning when introducing for the first time his estimates to this house. We sat in very close proximity in the last house and were often able to have a chat. I have a very high regard for him, but I must say that I do not envy him in the task that lies before him in this extremely important department.
When I was participating in the external affairs debate on November 26 I stated that we should take a new look at our external policies as well as those of national defence, because the two departments and their policies are more or less linked closely together. Today the Minister of National Defence has introduced estimates that were compiled by his predecessor in office and before some very startling new developments occurred in the production of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in the past six months.
May I say to my friend the hon. member for Kingston that I do not see that it is realistic at all to talk about a limited nuclear war. I do not believe that such a thing is possible. It seems to us that these estimates are not only sadly out of date but that they should be carefully scrutinized by this parliament before they are approved and adopted. I recollect how hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were in opposition, demanded that the estimates of the Department of National Defence presented by the former Liberal administration should be scrutinized by a committee of the House of Commons. What they said then I think is true today, and even
Supply-National Defence more true than it was then. On June 21, 1956, as reported at page 5244 of Hansard of that year the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, had this to say:
The estimates now before us call for an expenditure of $1,775 million.
That is almost identical with the amount we are discussing today.
Further amounts probably will be added by the supplementary estimates which will be presented later. What have we before us to really tell us whether this money is being properly spent or otherwise? We really have nothing but bland assurances which were not substantiated by the detailed facts which would make it possible for us to pass judgment on this vitally important question.
I say that what Mr. Drew had to say on that date is equally applicable this afternoon. We have nothing but bland assurances with no facts to make it possible for us to pass judgment on this vitally important question. We have not even a new white paper. The white paper we have before us is the one that was presented to this house by the former minister of national defence last April. If I may quote again I should like to do so. Speaking in the same debate on June 22, 1956, the present Prime Minister said this, as reported at page 5321 of Hansard:
We are left in the dark. We do not know. In order to obtain information we have to read the reports of the United States Senate committee or the House of Representatives committee . . . Are we receiving value for our expenditures? One does not have to have the knowledge gained by committees to conclude that in too large a measure there has been a wasteful disregard of the requirements of the people as a whole and waste of the moneys collected from the people through taxation.
Even today we are obliged to learn a great deal about North American defence from representations and statements, of which I will perhaps say more in a moment, that are made before a committee of the Senate of the United States. Today we are left more in the dark than ever before, because apparently the Minister of National Defence, without any conference with the Department of External Affairs, has committed our armed forces in North America to the control of a United States commander without the safeguards which we insisted upon when, through diplomatic channels, we agreed to place certain of our forces under the North Atlantic treaty command or, as my hon. friend said a few moments ago, following the Ogdensburg conversations between Mr. King and the late President Roosevelt.
When were these arrangements reached? We do not know. As the hon. gentleman a few moments ago pointed out, we have just the one document, the order in council, and a press statement; that is all we know about it. If the rumours are correct this had
1910	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence been before the former government for some time, on the recommendation of the former minister, but the former government felt it could not approve of the arrangement; yet this decision was made shortly after the present government took office, on July 31 this year. How was it done? Where was it done? And what assurances were given prior to the passing of this order in council? Perhaps we shall get that a little later on. We certainly should.
One could quote extensively from speeches made by the new cabinet ministers including the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of National Defence himself, to the effect that these estimates should be more carefully scrutinized by a parliamentary committee than they have been, and today we have nothing further to substantiate the defence estimates than we had in previous years.
As I said a few moments ago, in the past few months fantastic changes have taken place in the world's military technology, accompanied by almost as rapid changes in strategy and tactics. Indeed, progress in current military science has become so accelerated that nearly every weapon now designed is said to be a transitional weapon soon to be superseded by something more revolutionary. The staggering increase in the rate of obsolescence of weapons of war is a problem which not only all military planners must face but which parliaments like our own must consider before we agree to stupendous expenditures without careful inquiry into the validity of the demands of this department.
We must also ask ourselves today to what extent is it wise or possible to continue to adhere to an arms race when we know that the new and terrible weapons of war give neither security to our people nor defence. Air force General Earl E. Partridge, commander in chief of NORAD, to whom our own Canadian defences have been committed, asserted before a Senate committee-I might say before Russia had launched her satellite- as follows:
If the aggressor's weapon is the intercontinental ballistic missile this continent stands today almost as naked as it did in 19.46, for I have no radar to detect missiles and no defence against them.
This statement is one we should bear in mind when we are considering the recommendations now before us from the Department of National Defence. While these are the estimates for 1957 to 1958-and one does not care to move any reduction in them because much of the money has already been spent-if estimates different from these are not brought in for 1958-59, then I think some


of us will have to move for a reduction in the estimates, particularly if no parliamentary committee is set up to inquire very carefully into these matters at that time.
As I said in the external affairs debate, the only defence possible is one based upon the elimination of war itself through negotiation with other countries-particularly those who may be potential aggressors. Yesterday again one of the military leaders of the United States was reported as having said-and I heard this myself, of course, over the C.B.C.- that the Russians were so far ahead of the United States that there was imminent danger of destruction. His solution, of course, was that more money and more energy must be devoted to more weapons for United States armies and those of her allies. There was no suggestion that a new approach must be taken to end the disastrous arms race which is now in full effect-with Russia, I might add, apparently in the lead.
In the circumstances now clear to us all, we have lost the power to defend ourselves. Nor have the Russians power to defend their people in their country, for General Norstad, head of NATO, testified before his Senate committee a few weeks ago that the west could attack Russia from 250 NATO bases in a complete circle around that country, and that even if the Soviets had 200 per cent of his attacking power they would still be destroyed. Incidentally, when we were given this information we were told it was confidential, but before the senate committee of the United States General Norstad makes this statement publicly and openly, and it is reported in the United States press. Apparently the United States Senate can be given information which is denied to us except under confidential or secret circumstances.
It is a grim situation which faces us when we begin to examine the proposals and expenditures of the Department of National Defence, yet our leaders continue to talk in terms of war. I said in the debate on external affairs that the present arms race really dates from the production of the atomic bomb in 1945. It was then that one of the wisest United States statesmen, Mr. Stinson, secretary of the army during the second world war, told the last United States cabinet meeting which he attended in September, 1945, that "unless the Soviets are voluntarily invited into partnership upon a basis of cooperation and trust" a desperate arms race would follow. Mr. Stinson urged direct negotiations with Russia to that end, and at once, but unfortunately his advice was not followed.
Similar sentiments were expressed in the United Kingdom and in Canada, but

Supply-National Defence
Washington decided to keep the atomic bomb, as she called it, "a sacred trust". So, on November 15, 1945, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada issued a declaration which did the very thing that Stinson had warned against. Since then we ourselves have spent many billions of dollars on defence. Indeed, nearly one-third of our entire budget in recent years has been spent in this field, or one-half of our controllable expenditures.
The estimates now before us provide for an expenditure of $1,717, million and these may have to be supplemented before the end of the current year, I do not know.


George Randolph Pearkes: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to hear the minister say that. We are warned that if we proceed to reorient our military requirements in the direction of modern nuclear and thermonuclear weapons this amount will have to be vastly increased as the years go by.
What is the alternative? On October 7 the New York Times, which has given consistent support to United States leadership in the cold war and against Russia and the satellite countries, had this to say:
The truth is at once more ominous, more exacting and more enchanting. The greatest adventure of ail is not to go to the moon or to explore the rings of Saturn. It is rather to understand the heart and soul of man and to turn away from wrath and destruction and toward creativeness and brotherly love. We cannot look at the world today without realizing that our mastery of ourselves has not kept pace with our mastery of inanimate nature. We now have the power to destroy each other and all the works of civilization, but we have not yet invented a sure way to control this power. In a sense, a part of us never came down from the tree, never crawled out of the cave. Now we must arise out of our long childhood and play the part of wise, mature and humane men-all of us, all mankind, of whatever political or religious faith-or we shall surely die.
This is a very different statement to the kind of statement which comes under the description of the "brinkmanship" of Mr. John Foster Dulles. There is no doubt that the idea of defence is regarded by many people as a principal function of the national state. Yet today we know there is not a people on the face of the earth who can be defended from wholesale and terrible death and destruction if another big war comes. Obviously then we are on the brink of destruction, with no sure defence, unless we revise our national policies and rely on negotiation instead of piling up obsolete weapons of war for which we are providing again in the estimates now before us.
As I said at the outset, our defence program, in spite of the change in government, is to continue free from adequate inquiry under the critical scrutiny of a parliamentary
committee. Unlike the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, the Canadian government has never been compelled to justify before parliament its defence policy involving huge annual expenditures. We should now demand that it do so.
Yet these expenditures, to a very large extent indeed, are for the production and maintenance of obsolete weapons that could contribute little or nothing to the defence of Canada. One could go into each branch of the services and show how pitifully inadequate they are to meet the threat of modern nuclear war. We are still spending huge sums of money on conventional weapons that, by comparison, are as out of date as the weapons used in the South African war were out of date in the second world war.
Our air force, which like our other services contains well-trained and devoted personnel, is equipped with planes that, we are told by competent authorities, are now quite obsolete. Both the United States and the U.S.S.R. have modern planes which are far in advance of anything we possess; yet they too offer no defence against the guided missile. Even before the recent and startling developments Lieutenant General Guy Simonds, the retired chief of our army general staff, on the C.B.C. television program "Citizens' Forum", last February declared that the re-equipping of the R.C.A.F. home squadrons with the mark V of the CF-100 was money "down the drain" since the plane was already obsolete.
Those are not my words. They are the words of Lieutenant General Guy Simonds. Is it true that the conversion of our air force to the mark V CF-105 would cost about $8 million per unit or over $1 billion in all? All this would be required to convert one obsolete plane into another obsolete plane, if we may take what Lieutenant General Guy Simonds says as an accurate statement of the position.
One could develop this statement still further and point out that apart altogether from the guided missiles, these obsolete planes could never intercept the higherflying and faster Soviet intercontinental jet bombers if they were loosed upon us. Nor, as General Partridge has already indicated, can the three radar screens, namely the "Pine-tree" line, near the Canada-United States border, the mid-Canada line, or the distant early warning line, apprise our cities or our forces of the approach of the new intercontinental ballistic missiles.
And into all this we are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars. In an article in Macleans magazine of February 18, 1956- and again, may I say, before the Russians announced the success of their intercontinental ballistic missile-General Macklin,

Supply-National Defence who was adjutant general of the Canadian army until last June wrote:
This being a free country, it is open to the advocates and architects of this gigantic defence to justify its terrific cost in money, machinery and men to the groaning taxpayers who have to pay for it. I am not aware that, so far, they have made any notable efforts to do so.
The whole business has been announced to parliament and the public bit by bit and many of the details are still hidden from us. Perhaps they have to be, in the interests of security, though "security" has far too often itself been used as a wall behind which many an expensive bonehead play has passed unseen by the public.
And we know perfectly well that we have been told in this house on former occasions by former ministers of defence that some of the equipment, orders for which were placed in the factories at the blueprint stage, would be obsolete before the actual equipment came off the line. I believe I remember Mr. Brooke Claxton telling us that in this house with regard to some aircraft.
Members of the house are, therefore, entitled to ask the new government of Canada to justify these estimates which were placed before us by the previous administration and which are quite similar to those which from time to time the gentlemen who now occupy the posts of responsibility, vacated by the Liberals, criticized so severely. We have no right to pass these estimates without the most careful inquiry and scrutiny.
However, from what I have said it is obvious that we believe there is no hope of defence in the proposals that are now before us. On the contrary, we believe that Canada must press for a new look at our defence and international policies which are so inextricably linked. We believe that our surest defence lies in endeavouring to bring about a progressive reduction in defence expenditures through the elimination of threats of war. Hence we urge our government to use its influence to further the cause of world peace through negotiation. We believe that if these estimates were thoroughly investigated and all expenditures for obsolete planes and obsolete equipment of every description eliminated, we could transfer substantial sums of money for the most effective means of human well-being and international security.
The future of the world is not going to be decided on the battlefields, because battlefields may make the future of mankind uncertain. On the contrary, the devotion of our efforts to the relief of human suffering, the promotion of human health, and relief of world-wide hunger would do more to promote world peace and our own security than any other endeavour we could undertake. I should
[Mr. Coldwell.l
like to repeat a quotation from the editorial of the New York Times to which I have already referred:
Now we must arise out of our long childhood and play the part of wise, mature and humane men- all of us, all mankind, of whatever political or religious faith-or we shall surely die.
Unfortunately the signs are few that governments will take effective steps to ensure that we have peace unless they are forced to do so by a mighty demand from the peoples whom they govern. Only an aroused and awakened public opinion can stop this drive to universal annihilation, and as far as we are concerned in this house with the estimates before us, can we say to the people of Canada that after we have spent every penny of this $1,717 million Canada is going to be any safer for it, when we know, and are told by competent authorities such as the three I have named, that we have no assurance of warning in case of attack, that the equipment we are relying upon for defence is obsolete, and that we have been spending hundreds of millions of dollars wastefully?
I say to the new government that I am surprised that after all they said when in opposition regarding the need for a scrutiny of these estimates they should come before us with these estimates practically unchanged and ask us to vote them virtually in toto. We expected that they would set up a committee early this session before which we could call the responsible officials of the department for questioning regarding these expenditures.
Right from the conclusion of the last war the door has been shut against members of parliament inquiring into the activities of this department. We have been told that national security demanded it. But in the light of statements which are now being made by General Partridge, and the fact that our own air force is under the control, as I understand it, of a foreign government these estimates should be scrutinized. The hon. gentleman is shaking his head. He has been shaking his head all afternoon-I do not mean the minister but the hon. gentleman beside him, probably his assistant. He can shake his head as much as he likes, but that will not stop me from saying what I think, and not only what I think and wish to place before the house, but what some other people more competent to judge than he is seem to think.
I want to conclude my remarks by saying that this parliament owes a duty to this country not to let these estimates pass lightly but to see to it that we look into matters carefully, make up our minds what we should do about it, stop the waste and inefficiency and

the obsolescence in this department and co-operate with all others as far as we can to achieve the only way in which mankind can find safety, by the removal of the threat of nuclear war from this country and the world.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, may I begin by admitting that I do not pose as a military expert. I am speaking strictly as a layman who would like to see the right thing but perhaps not knowing exactly what the right thing would be in the field of armaments and military science. I would say at the outset that we deeply appreciate the courtesy of the minister not only today but since he came into his important office because on a number of occasions this year the present minister has given evidence of a desire to keep us informed and help us understand the rather difficult problems that arise from time to time. I want also to express to him our thanks for his courtesy in sending us a copy of his speech which he delivered earlier today. This thoughtful action gave me a better opportunity to follow exactly what he had in mind with regard to government policy.
If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and I had got together earlier today or yesterday I do not suppose we could have followed a more parallel course in what we have to say. I should like to begin by discussing the matter of the committee which he brought up and there is only one thing I can say that would differ from what he has presented here as a good reasoned argument for the committee. I gave him and his colleagues a chance just the other day to make it possible for us to have a committee of that kind set up and he and his colleagues turned down the proposal by voting against the amendment we moved.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not the reason we turned it down.


Solon Earl Low: I understand that but the proposal would have given the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and his colleagues the right and opportunity to put into practice what the hon. member preached here today, and I say it is about time we practise what we preach.


Major James William Coldwell: We usually do.


Solon Earl Low: Otherwise we will never have the careful scrutiny of these estimates which he suggested we must have. We, too, feel that recent developments in the field of intercontinental ballistic missiles and interspace travel and advances in all branches of technology require a reappraisal of our whole defence policy. We feel that such a reappraisal must not be left exclusively to the
Supply-National Defence military leaders of this country. This parliament must apply itself diligently to this particular task, too. Neither the time nor the facilities are available in the committee of the whole in which we find ourselves at this moment to do what anybody could possibly call an efficient job.
The government should have set up a defence estimates committee early in the present session to get started with its work and that work should be carried on continually for the duration of this parliament. Nothing less than many months of effort would be required to secure the information which we should have if the reappraisal I spoke of is to be made.
We suggest that this committee should have the authority to summon witnesses and send for papers. I suggest to the minister that it is not too late yet. We cannot in conscience do less than our full duty as representatives of the people and I say we are not doing our full duty unless we make a very careful and detailed scrutiny of the proposed estimates for defence. The establishment of a committee to study the estimates in the greatest detail is essential if any worth-while reappraisal of our defence policy is to be made.
Such a committee is especially essential in the light of the foolish policy the government has adopted in trying to force unduly the present session to a conclusion. The other day I said what I deeply feel in that connection. I cannot possibly see how anybody could declare that he has done his full duty to the people who sent him here and to his country if he does not prepare himself to stay here as long as it is necessary to thoroughly scrutinize the estimates, particularly those of the Department of National Defence, and study and reappraise our whole defence policy. That is one of the reasons I feel, as I said the other day, it is foolhardy to suggest we should start sitting longer hours for the purpose of trying to finish up before Christmas or perhaps just a few days after Christmas. It seems utterly childish and foolish to me to make this attempt and in all seriousness I suggest that the government even yet should reconsider its determined policy in this regard and agree to the setting up of the committee about which we have spoken.
I would like to mention that earlier this year on February 26, 1957, when the leader of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Quebec East who was then prime minister moved a motion to appoint a select committee on estimates, the hon. gentleman who is now the Prime Minister had some rather cogent remarks to make and I would like to quote

Supply-National Defence his comments as they appear at page 1655 and the following pages of Hansard. This is what the present Prime Minister had to say on that occasion as reported at page 1655:
Today expenditures are fabulous in amount and, except for ministers in the government, there are no adequate research opportunities whereby parliament may properly discharge its responsibilities.
This was part of the hon. gentleman's argument for a better opportunity for members of this house to study the detailed estimates and secure information from the department so they would know what they were doing.
The hon. gentleman who is now the Prime Minister, as reported at page 1657, had this to say:
Throughout the years I have said-and I repeat it now-
You notice that he admits having said it throughout the years which would indicate it was a conviction with him and if it was a conviction with him through those years I suggest it should be now. I continue:
Throughout the years I have said-and I repeat it now-that there is today no means whereby expenditures can be examined. There is no means available. In the first place, members of the opposition naturally have not that research knowledge which is necessary; they have not available to them the civil service. They are obliged to depend on information that comes in that desultory way that has existed throughout the years. Gladstone once said:	It is more difficult
to save a shilling than to spend a million. An estimates committee, properly set up, could bring about savings in this country which would be beneficial not only to the departments concerned but above all to the taxpayers.
Up to the present time, with the exception of that committee which was set up during the days of the war-I refer to the war expenditures committee-there has been no serious endeavour through the years to meet this problem of a careful examination and scrutiny coupled with the necessary recommendations as to the achievement of savings.
I agree with that and I believe the argument is just as valid today as it was on February 26 or at any previous time for the setting up of a committee for the purpose of a detailed analysis of the estimates of which we are about to go into as careful a study as is allowed in the committee of the whole in the few remaining days left before the government hopes to adjourn or prorogue or whatever it is going to do.
Then the hon. gentleman said this:
The committee that is now being set up- Which was the committee on estimates-
-under this resolution is but a copy of the one that has been in existence for two years. In the light of that experience I say that unless it has the power to call witnesses and to ask for papers, it is nothing but a sham and a delusion.
Well, what is the use of having a committee unless you do clothe it with the authority to

call witnesses and to ask for papers? It would be a sham and a delusion. Therefore, the committee we are asking for should be clothed with the authority to call witnesses, especially, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the fact that over these past few months we have retired generals of the army who have made scathing criticisms of the way in which our defence policy is being applied. But I do not necessarily believe all that General Simonds has said, nor General Macklin, both of whom were quoted by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar; but the very fact that those people were in the know, that those people had great responsibility while they were leaders of our military forces in this country, gives some credence to what they say. It seems to me that in the light of what General Simonds said particularly, as is quoted in the Ottawa Citizen of November 6, 1957, we should have a committee. By the way what he said was headlined in these words:
Millions Wasted on Obsolete Arms, Simonds Attacks Suicidal Policy
He goes on to make some pretty strong accusations, and he says at one point that he saw only marginal hope that the defence department will modify its policies. He is speaking of the new one. He continues:
"They spend too much time trying to think up defences for their past decisions, justifying past policies."
Much of the trouble, he said, stemmed from "vested interests" who would not yield to new facts.
These are serious accusations and if there is a shred of truth in them, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there ought to be a thorough investigation of the matter and General Simonds ought to be summoned before that committee to give evidence and to submit himself to serious questioning by the members of this house. It cannot be done, of course, unless we do have a committee.
General Macklin has also made some pretty pointed remarks about our defence policy and he should also be heard. I am not going to weary the committee by quoting what he had to say, but he did declare that Canada's missile radar defence could not possibly stop all the bombers, nor could it warn of guided missiles coming into our country. Well, let us get these men before us and any others who have been free in providing criticism and accusations. Let us get them before that committee and let us examine them most thoroughly and ask them to substantiate the things they have said. It does seem important for us to know. I say we cannot know unless we have some such thing as the committee about which I have spoken.
Let rhe say a word about our position with regard to NORAD. There has been for some

days in this house not a continuous debate but a continuing one about the joint air defence of America. I would just like to say one word about it. It seems clear to me that Canada just would not have the manpower and other resources to defend all of Canadian territory in case of an attack and do it by itself; consequently, in my judgment, we will need the assistance of the United States which does have the manpower and the armed strength. Since this is so, there must be some form of agreement between Canada and the United States regarding the joint defence of North America.
The minister mentioned this morning that this agreement was in the process of development. The procedure and the details are in the process of being worked out. I thought there was nothing peculiar or unusual about that. One hardly expects to enter into an agreement with any other country without first having established the formal and detailed basis upon which an agreement of that kind can be made and be made successfully. For that reason I thought the minister's explanation this morning was quite clear and to me quite sensible. The agreement which is being worked out, however, must make provision for continuation of United States radar and other bases in the northern part of Canada.
We must never allow Canada to become a no man's land between an attacking country and the United States. We insist, therefore, that the defence of Canada must start in the far north. That being the case, we have to join with the United States, it seems to me, in providing the strongest type of warning lines in the north and keep them up to date. I see no alternative to it at the moment unless, Mr. Chairman, it is possible to get such men as General Simonds and those other experts who volunteer information outside the house to come in and give us the information in evidence before the committee and have them undergo careful questioning. If they can show us where it is foolish to spend our money on those northern radar lines then, of course, it would be possible for us to make the necessary change.
We believe that any joint continental air command must be in a position to move to the defence of our country instantly when the attacker has been spotted. There will be no time for consultation once the attack has been launched. We believe that the form of the agreement should provide for whatever Canadian units are to be involved and to be used along with United States units to meet any danger that arises without any further consultation about who is to issue the command or under what circumstances the units
Supply-National Defence are to be used. However, we do believe that parliament should be given the general facts about the agreement as quickly as it has been developed and before action is taken to involve any of our units in any action.
I do not mean to say by that that the details of strategy and all that sort of thing should be divulged to parliament. Nor do I even suggest meeting in camera to hear the details. I refer only to the general form of the agreement, together with the facts about what part Canada is expected to play, who is to command the forces and whether Canadian units can be ordered into action without further consultation with the government or parliament. Once this parliament has approved the general agreement with the United States, then I think all haggling over details should stop.
I should like to say before my time lapses, Mr. Chairman, that I realize some of the problems the new Minister of Defence is up against. I know they must be terrific and I have to make allowances in anything that I say for the short time in which he has been Minister of National Defence; but I have also to keep in mind the many years during which he has been a leading military figure in our country. I give him credit for approaching his task with realism and I do hope he will be successful in effecting those savings of which he spoke, and I think he will be. I do not think there is any question about it. But one of the great problems he faces is the decision about weapons that Canada is developing or already has. Whether we should continue on with the use of conventional weapons or whether we should scrap those, stop all the work on the development of further supersonic jet planes, and that sort of thing and try something else, I do not know.
I am sure that the minister himself is struggling with that problem, but as he struggles with it I am quite certain he will come face to face with the urgent need in this country of better trained, more skilful research and scientific personnel. Various papers in the country for several months past have been emphasizing the need to divert some of the millions of dollars now being spent on defence into the better education and better training of engineers, technologists and skilled researchers. This raises in my mind the question of whether Canada's most effective contribution to defence against aggression might not be the spending of some millions of dollars on research and financing the technical training of a great many more Canadians.
I think perhaps that is going to be essential, particularly if what the minister said this morning is to be made a reality, that is,

Supply-National Defence that through the joint efforts of Canada and the United States at the bases in Texas we are to develop interceptors that will be successful in stopping ballistic missiles that are aimed at us and which we can detect in time. I hope the minister will have something to say on that matter before he closes the debate. In fact, in the course of studying his estimates, if we are going to study them right here in committee of supply, it will be my purpose to remind him of the question and perhaps to draw out from him some of his ideas with regard to this important problem.
I agree with him that our participation in NATO, taking our full responsibility therein, is the best way to show our determination to prevent aggression. I do not think there is any question about the need for pooling the strength of the western nations in such an alliance as NATO. I believe what the minister said this morning is perfectly true, that our collective security is bound up in NATO and we must keep ourselves as strong as we possibly can in that connection. We must never let down our guard and the only way we can be sure that other nations will not launch a war against us is by reminding them through some such collective arrangement as NATO that if they do their sins will rebound on their own heads with redoubled force. I feel that alone is one of the best assurances against war so I do not plead for one moment that we should divert needed moneys from the provision of those weapons of war that are essential to prevent aggression. But I do ask the minister to consider most carefully the possibility of diverting some moneys into the proper training and education of the skilled personnel this country is going to need if we are ever going to keep ourselves free from aggressors.
I do not think I will speak longer at this time. There are many questions we would like to ask regarding the details of the estimates and we will do so when they are before the committee. But I ask the minister and the government once more to consider setting up a committee to study the defence estimates before whom we can call experts to give evidence and to justify the things they have so freely said to the newspapers and in addressing clubs and other organizations across this country.
There is only one final thing I wish to say. While we are concentrating our attention on military affairs, on national defence, I think we should also try to keep ourselves balanced. Let us never forget that the moral influence Canada can exert in this troubled world can be much more effective, if it is properly mobilized and exerted, than all the


military weapons that might be piled up put together. We have a place that we can fill and I certainly suggest that we keep our minds on that phase of world affairs as well.


Mr. Stick:: Mr. Chairman, the debate on defence is one of the most important debates that comes before parliament. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches made thus far. Particularly I should like to make reference briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I should like very much to agree with everything he said, and there is much with which I can agree, but I cannot agree with any letting down of our guard as far as the security of the country and its people is concerned. Peace does not rest with us. Russia can have peace tomorrow on most favourable terms if she desires it and she can also have war. Whether we have peace or war in this world depends largely on Russia.
It may be news to members of the house that during the 1940's a special committee was set up by the authorities in Russia to study the question of whether they could have co-existence with the western nations or, in other words, whether communism and the free world could live side by side in peace or whether there would have to be war. That committee was composed of some of the most eminent men in Russia at that time. They spent about two years studying the question and brought in their report to the politburo or the supreme praesidium as they call it today.
After studying the question from every angle they came to the conclusion that war between the communist world and the free world was inevitable. You may not subscribe to that and I may not subscribe to that, but that was the essence of their report. It was considered by the ruling body in Russia and was accepted. Furthermore, they set three dates when war would be possible, 1952, 1954 and 1956, but they made the provision that circumstances might arise in the course of the timetable they had set which might extend their recommendations to 1960.
Anybody who has studied and followed Russian methods down through the years can readily see, Mr. Chairman, that right along they have been basing their policy on that report. They have tested the west on more than one occasion. They have tested our preparation to resist in Korea. From Korea they went to southeast Asia and now they are testing us in the Middle East.
On the basis of this information, what are Canada and the free world going to do? It is a well known fact, and it only needs to be stated to be believed because it has been

stated time and time again, that the communists mean world domination and unless we accept peace on their terms we must provide the resistance by which our people may continue to live in a free and democratic way as we are doing today. This raises the question of what we are going to do regarding defence. This is a defence budget. This is a debate on defence, and the whole safety of the nation is bound up in it.
I come from the province of Newfoundland and we have problems there that probably do not apply to the provinces inland. Furthermore, we know what war is at first hand. One only needs to remind this house that we had the submarine menace all around our coast during the last war. From our coast we have seen actual sinkings of ships by German submarines. We have had submarines around our coast since then. A few years ago we had five Russian submarines around our coast. We had reports during the past summer of many submarines-I will not say what they are because I have not that definite information-around our coast. They were reported around our coast continually during the whole summer. I am not so naive as to believe that those submarines were there for friendly purposes.
I raised the question in this house with the Minister of National Defence and let me say that I received from him the greatest cooperation which I appreciate immensely. At his invitation I discussed with him some of the problems which we must face on the east coast, particularly Newfoundland. At his request I wrote to him and gave him my views. He acknowledged that letter in a very nice way and said that he would take the matter up with his department and look into my proposals. I do not propose to quote from my letter to the minister in any way with regard to security but perhaps if I quote some parts of it this house may be given some idea of what is in my mind. I shall quote some parts of the letter which I think I can quote without involving security. In my letter to the minister I said this:
The submarine menace to our shipping in case of hostilities is no figment of the imagination but a reality in view of recent events taking place around the shores of Newfoundland for some time. When it is known that Russia has about 500 submarines, numbers of them of the latest model, the danger to our shipping is apparent.
I should like to point out that Newfoundland is very vulnerable to this danger, chiefly because almost all our needs, including food, is imported by water. If this supply is severed, great hardships will ensue and it will be the first duty of Canada to supply our people of Newfoundland with food, etc., and the only way this can be done will be by air.
Supply-National Defence
I made recommendations which I will not specify because I think they can be classified under security but I ended up in this way:
I shall be happy to further discuss those proposals with you or your officials at any time.
I think that clearly sets out the position in which we shall find ourselves in Newfoundland in case of hostilities. That is not all. In his remarks today-and I shall paraphrase them-the minister gave some assurance to this house that the submarine menace is being taken care of. But shortly afterwards he also said that the submarine menace was receiving the most careful consideration. I agree with the minister in what he said there. I do not want this house to take my word alone with regard to the seriousness of this submarine menace. I shall quote two or three articles and I shall be as brief as I can. This statement is by Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery. It is from Chatham, England. The article states as follows:
Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery, Deputy Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, said that control of the seas still is more important than guided missiles.
I have here a report from Paris which reads as follows:
U.S. Admiral Jerauld Wright warned today that Russia is building a huge navy designed to isolate North America from Europe and destroy the North Atlantic Treaty Organization . . .
The Admiral said that Russia has developed the largest submarine fleet ever known in peacetime.
Moscow is building a navy larger than all the others in the world combined except for the U.S. navy, he said, for the purpose of "the isolation of North America from Europe, the defeat of NATO at sea and therefore the destruction of our alliance".
I think I have said enough to draw the attention of this house to the seriousness of the submarine menace. The latest designed submarine the United States had, powered by atomic energy, left a year or so ago to manoeuvre. I think she left in the vicinity of the Azores. She was to penetrate the defences of North America within certain defined limits in order to test the defences against the modern submarine. She set out on her course and was detected by the anti-submarine detection of one of the United States destroyers. However, she promptly got away from it. She penetrated all their defences, surfaced around Cape Cod and then wirelessed to the authorities what she had done. If she had not been circumscribed and kept within limits-she could not go out of those limits-she could very easily have evaded the destroyers that sighted her by their detection devices. But she was within those limits; and even within those limits she penetrated all the defences we had -that was about a year or so ago-and then she surfaced.

Supply-National Defence
I look upon defence against the submarine menace as vital to the safety of Canada. I look upon it as vital to the safety of the troops overseas and the supplying of our allies. This morning the minister said something with which I agree and I again paraphrase what he said. He stated that we cannot in the first phase of war by sea use our shipping. I agree with that statement. We have Canadian forces overseas. We have allies in Europe, particularly in Great Britain. We are vulnerable to the submarine menace. We in Newfoundland shall need food in a very short time if hostilities break out. From what I can understand, Great Britain today has only about three weeks' to one month's food supply bn hand. If this submarine menace is as dangerous and threatening as I have tried to point out, and as I believe to be absolutely true, then the only way in which we can supply the province of Newfoundland and our allies is by air. That stands to reason. We have not the facilities with which to do it and it is time we woke up to the fact that we should have them.
This is a point about which I am greatly concerned. I think the authorities here, particularly in the higher command, must wake up to this fact also. We have co-ordination in our forces and I am glad to pay tribute to it. I believe we have good co-ordination in the lower ranks. However, I am not too sure that we have it in the higher ranks. When you hear retired generals criticizing what the higher command does, and in no uncertain terms, one is left to wonder what is wrong with our higher command. I am not against differences of opinion between the army, the navy and the air force and even within those services; that is all to the good, but when those services are shown up before the general public as being inadequate and not only the general public but the members of the forces themselves realize this indecision which is taking place in the higher command, how can you expect the morale of our troops to be kept at the pitch which we all desire?
I think it is high time that our higher command got together. I do not care whether they call in General Simonds or General Macklin or whoever they call in, but I think they should get together and iron out these things and tell this country where we stand. This uneasiness with respect to our higher command today is penetrating down to the ranks and it is having an effect on the morale of the troops. From what little knowledge I have, it would seem that some of our troops in the different services are seriously considering giving up their careers and going back into civilian life because they are


afraid they are going to be disbanded and cast out upon a cold and hungry world with no prospects of work.
Now I have one final word to say on this united command. I may take a different attitude from some of my colleagues on this side of the house. As you know, we have in Newfoundland the United States strategic air force and in that province we are dependent principally upon those forces for our defence. Let that be understood, there is no mistake about it. Now I asked the minister who would give the orders to this strategic air force in Newfoundland in the case of an emergency when it would have to go into action and the minister very courteously informed me that this strategic force would get its orders from St. Hubert. Well I have nothing against that, but I understand the headquarters of the strategic air force is in Colorado Springs. Then we have another command in St. Hubert and we have this air force operating in Newfoundland and I think also in Labrador, certainly in Greenland.
Now my suggestion to the minister, which I put in all sincerity, is that he should, without any waste of time, look into this business and get it ironed out so that everybody will know exactly where they stand. If General Partridge has the authority to order action on the part of the United States forces or the Canadian forces-I do not care whether it is on Canadian or United States territory then he should not have any strings attached to that authority in the case of necessity. He should have full authority to issue orders immediately without having to wait to contact Ottawa, or contact the minister or the Prime Minister and then have them contact St. Hubert and St. Hubert contact the forces in Newfoundland. We are getting into a state now where I think war is liable to take place and if you give authority-I do not care whether it is to an United States general or a Canadian marshal as long as you think the man is fitted for his position-then I think the time has come for instructions to be given to him in such a way that there will be no waste of time but that he should have full power to order troops into action without having one hand tied behind his back. He should be in a position to act immediately if an emergency arises. I do not care whether the forces fly over our territory or over United States territory so long as they do a good job in defending the people of the North American continent.
I think what the minister has done is to settle political questions before setting up the co-ordination of his military responsibilities. May I say in all sincerity that I

think he has put the cart before the horse- whether it was done by the former government or his government is immaterial to me but he has now settled political questions before military ones which I think is wrong and the first step should be the setting up of the military command. I ask the minister, for the safety of the people of the North American continent, to get this question settled and settled quickly so that there will be no trouble in the event of hostilities and there will be no waste of time.
I have one further suggestion to make and that is with regard to food supplies in Great Britain. Our western friends may appreciate this point. If Great Britain is to be an ally and to play her full part in NATO she cannot do so unless she has food. Now I make this suggestion for what it is worth: I think we should help Great Britain by putting food supplies in that country, and I include grain and other things, which would last between four and six months and which could be stored in case of emergency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Leonard T. Stick: Furthermore, I suggest that Great Britain should use those supplies as she needs them day by day and they can be replenished as necessary. I say this because I am convinced if these hostilities should arise, then automatically it becomes obvious that we shall have to supply Great Britain with food and the only way to do so would be by air. Well, we do not have those facilities today with which to do it. It may also be a means of helping our western farmer to dispose of some of his surplus grain and it will certainly be of great assistance to Great Britain to have food stored against a possible emergency and to be able to use that food as it is needed. Not only will it be helping Great Britain, but we will also have an ally who will be able to fight and will not be half starved.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there are too many points which could be added to those raised by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in his excellent speech this afternoon. I do believe however that his point of view should be buttressed as much as possible in order that it may be given full consideration by the government, because I think there is a definite need which is becoming more apparent by the day for a review of the role filled by our Department of National Defence. I think we have to get away from the Maginot line philosophy which was enunciated by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception where We think in terms of a 1914-1918 war or a 1940-45 war. We now have to gear ourselves
Supply-National Defence to developments which have taken place within the last month and a half and consider the effects which those developments have upon our defence.
When the Minister of National Defence was first appointed to his post I fully expected he might follow the pattern set down by Great Britain in the announcement that there would be reductions in the defence expenditures. At that time, I think, a lot of consideration had in fact been given to this point. However, shortly after he took office an announcement was made that a lot of his criticism had been unfounded and that there would be no significant changes in the defence expenditures. I think at this time, as pointed out by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, it is virtually impossible to make any significant changes in the estimates because the greater part of the year has passed by and it would be most difficult to make reductions in expenditures which would be meaningful.
I believe the comment of the minister, when he was asked to remark on the launching of the Russian sputnik, was that it was "out of this world". I think that comment was something from which we should take our keynote and start gearing our defence thinking to procedures which might, at the moment, seem to be out of this world, but which will be upon us in the very near future.
We already see newspaper speculation about the date of the launching of a rocket to the moon. There is an indication that in five or seven years they may be able to construct manned satellites capable of going to Mars and returning. This seems as spectacular to us now as the invention of gunpowder might have seemed to someone in prehistoric times. We must be aware of the tremendous developments which are taking place in the applications of science to the techniques of destruction, and I think we should ask ourselves just where Canada stands in this great arms race between Russia and the United States. It seems to me that we are in the position of a kindergarten pupil running in the senior foot race. Yes, we get there, but we are so far behind that we might just as well not be in the running. I mean by that, of course, that with our limited resources we can never hope to compete against the scientific development which goes on in the United States and in Russia.
I think an example of this could be cited in the Arrow, the CF-105, which, I believe, cost us over $200 million and perhaps as much as $300 million to design. It has been admitted that this plane is virtually obsolescent before deliveries have been made. We cannot possibly derive much pleasure from the thought of spending $200 or $300 million

Supply-National Defence upon an aircraft which is obsolete. I recognize immediately that in the course of experimental research expenditures are necessary, and that all the expenditures do not pay dividends. But I think we must consider the effectiveness of this expenditure, because Canada over a number of years has spent billions of dollars-the present estimates cover an expenditure of $1,700 million -and can anyone here honestly say that through the expenditure of all this money we now have a defence. We are all aware of the fact that we depend on the strategic air command of the United States for our defence and for the power of retaliation in the event of attack. We are dependent also on the forces of NATO to provide the unified defensive force of the western world.
Having in mind the startling scientific developments which have taken place abroad, and thinking of the jet bombers now being flown by the strategic air command, we can very easily ask ourselves just what is the role of manpower, or what is the limitation of human beings in future air warfare. Air Marshal Joubert of Great Britain recently wrote a book on rockets in which he dealt extensively with the developments which have taken place in Germany, in Peenemiinde, beginning as far back as 1934. He gave evidence to show that had Hitler been as impressed by the technique of rocketry as he was by more conventional aircraft there might have been a tragic difference in the outcome of the second world war.
Air Marshal Joubert asks: what is the limitation on a human being? We find that in aircraft travelling at many hundreds of miles an hour, one, or even two pilots cannot cope with the machine because of the tremendous speed reached and the comparatively slow reaction time of a human being. We are wondering just what is the role of the piloted aircraft in the face of the development which will be taking place in the next three or four years.
Over the past number of years we have prided ourselves, or at least some hon. members have done so, over the radar defence lines, the mid-Canada line, the "Pinetree" line and the distant early warning line. We may very well ask ourselves now how effective these devices will be in face of the intercontinental ballistic missile or the intermediate ballistic missiles. I believe the present radar installations are limited to a range of 70,000 feet. How effective are they going to be in detecting a missile travelling at an altitude of three or four hundred miles?
I have a feeling that our defence budgets over the years have been drawn up by the generals, the field marshals and the admirals.


I think it is very understandable that as they go through the echelons of these various services they should make efforts to maintain establishments. As the budget is drawn up, a certain colonel is going to try to maintain his establishment; he does not like to see his position made unnecessary. I think there is an undue amount of pressure applied for the sake of maintaining establishments which no longer perform their role in the defence of this country.
I should like to endorse to the best of my ability the suggestion which was made by my leader, and which has been made repeatedly in this house by members and supporters of the government when in opposition and by present members of the opposition, namely that we should establish a defence estimates committee to enquire into all aspects of the expenditure of these huge sums of money. I think this is most necessary, and that any consideration of defence expenditures should bear in mind not only military aspects of the matter, but that economic and political considerations should be brought to the forefront.
Speaking as a layman on military matters, and that is in fact what most of us are- I am one who did most of my military work as a foot slogger-it appears to me that one development which can be made toward the modernization of our armed forces would be to unify our armed services. I can see that in former wars there was need for an army, a navy and an air force because each was performing a specialized role. But today, with the development of the hydrogen bomb and nuclear weapons, I think consideration could be given by the government to the unification of all our armed services under one command, whether it is to be called the defence force, the armed service force or anything else. I think economies could be made administratively by this means, and I think, also, that a decision such as this would assist in establishing the chain of command.
One obvious argument in favour of this suggestion is the present situation in the United States where there is great rivalry between the navy and the army as to which service is going to launch the first successful rocket. This has led to the ridiculous situation where two branches of the armed services of a country are competing against each other instead of pooling their knowledge, and I have a suspicion that we Canadians are not completely immune from the criticism which must be directed against such folly.
It would seem to me that with the developments which have taken place in the last few years the question of manpower has become

relatively unimportant. It is true that in terms of small localized wars men are necessary, but manpower will not win wars against nuclear weapons. The suggestion which has been made by this group is that a United Nations police force be established to provide sufficient manpower to control any localized outburst or any small wars.
We must look upon nuclear weapons as provoking all-out war or none at all in view of these technological advances. I think, too, that in future estimates a second look should be given to the role of the militia in Canada. I notice that announcements have been made indicating changes which are being proposed in the role of the militia. We might as well face the fact that they can throw away all the old British 303 Enfields and Sten guns because they will never have the opportunity of using them.
When I visited NATO headquarters in 1954 I had the pleasure of hearing Field Marshal Lord Montgomery address us and he pointed out at that time the hopelessness of getting a militia trained in time to go into action in a modern war. It would require at the least three months to get a militia man trained so he could take part in modern combat. I think most of us are of the impression that if a nuclear war is launched we will not have three months for preparations of this kind.
The militia might very well be geared to playing a most useful role connected with civil defence. They should be provided with radiation indicators so they would be able to determine if in fact radiation were present to a harmful degree. They should be trained to fight fires and to deal with similar local emergencies. If this were done they would be fulfilling a useful role and I am certain that those who are members of the militia would be happier to know that they in fact had a more vital part to play in the defence of Canada than is the case at the present time.
It would seem also that a suggestion could be made related to the example of NATO. In NATO we as nations have each given up a bit of our sovereignty for our common defence and I think Canada's role in defence could be given further consideration in the light of this fact. We cannot ever hope to compete against the United States and Russia in the arms race but it would appear to me that if some agreement could be arrived at where we as a country were to specialize in some particular phase of defence we would be making an even greater contribution to the common defence of the western world. If we were to concentrate on the various aspects of rockets and if the major portion of our defence role were to be geared to scientific development perhaps in the long run we would achieve
Supply-National Defence further protection. I believe we must be careful, however, in any such arrangement to safeguard some aspects of our sovereignty in that no foreign power should be allowed to involve us in a war without our consent. That is the point at issue in discussions of NORAD at the present time, the concern that the United States might possibly control certain Canadian forces.
I want to emphasize again the request that future estimates of the Department of National Defence should be reduced to give consideration to the new look which we are presently taking in external affairs and which we should also be taking in terms of our defence expenditures. Recent scientific developments have produced a tremendous change and we should not be trapped into a Maginot line philosophy. We must put ourselves in a position to progress with the times. This will require a re-allocation of defence expenditures a larger portion of which of necessity must be channelized through our universities in the form of scientific research which along with giving us military defence will assist in the progress of our country and of humanity in general.
The second prong of this approach, as it were, must be to give further consideration to abolishing the causes of war. As we look back through history we find that war in the main has been caused by greed, hunger and oppression. As long as we can look around the world today and see countries which are in a relatively backward state who look with envy at the advanced standard of living that prevails in western countries we are leaving the door open to a furthering of the causes of communism. Discontent will exist in those countries and the forces of communism will be received only too readily. It is the challenge of the western nations to fulfil their responsibilities to these countries of the world which are sometimes referred to as backward-but which are more accurately described as underprivileged-which have been dominated by other countries over the centuries and now have a lower standard of living than ours. We must give consideration to applying some of our defence budget to the supplying of food to these countries through our national organizations and the United Nations so the prevailing standards of living can be raised in these countries and they may become real allies of free humanity.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, other speakers have covered in a general way much of the ground I intend to cover and I agree with most of what has been said. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in his remarks brought out some excellent points worthy of the careful and earnest consideration of this

Supply-National Defence committee but I would say to him and to all hon. members that we must lace the difficult international situation with our eyes open. Idealism will not counter communism and the outstretched hand must be backed by strength when it is offered to one who lor years has shown no disposition to accept a hand that is offered in peace and good will.
I listened with a great deal ol interest to the outline ol our position as given by the minister this morning. I will give his statement very close reading tomorrow and I am sure we all will have a much broader knowledge and understanding ol the condition in which we find ourselves at the present time. I did observe that he referred at length to the part we play in the Far East, the Near East, the Middle East and NATO. We are glad to know that our nation is taking its rightful place in defence ol the western nations. These are important considerations from an international point of view to prevent aggression and to demonstrate our preparedness to retaliate effectively and promptly in case of attack but I believe our people are more intimately concerned with the possible direct attack on the North American continent and will not be satisfied until they know that no effort is being spared to guarantee the greatest possible degree of defence in the face of modern methods of direct attack. Future attacks, we believe, will come from long-range missiles, long-range bombers and long-range submarines and these may be based miles beyond our borders.
In the face of that, Mr. Chairman, our people want some assurances that very careful attention is being given to this possibility by our defence department and that science is being mobilized to the full to study and to try to find an answer to this very serious problem.
Now, in regard to the estimates proper, it is hard to get down to details when we find that an immense amount of $1,670,000,000 is lumped in one item. It is impossible, as I said, to give any detailed consideration to those estimates and therefore we must deal with them in a very general way. However, when we are considering the expenditure of such a large sum of money

and the taxpayer's money-we who are the representatives of the taxpayers in this house have the responsibility of seeing that this expenditure is given careful consideration. To do that job intelligently, Mr. Chairman, we must have information.
It is certainly discouraging when we find ourselves in the position in which the Minister of National Defence found himself some months ago when he assumed the important office which he now holds. Shortly after
IMr. McLeod.]
assuming office, according to the press, he is reported to have made a statement along these lines: "My criticism of the Department of National Defence in the past was based upon lack of information". This is another way of saying that it was based on ignorance of what was going on. I am not using the word "ignorance" with any personal implications; but I am emphasizing this point to show that we members of this house must be kept informed, and it is to the government of the day that we look for this information. But, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say that under this present administration, although we were promised greater personal responsibility as members and greater responsibility as a parliament, we find that we are kept in the same state of ignorance as we were when the Liberals were in power. According to the old saying, ignorance is bliss; but in matters that affect our international relationships and our national well-being and our people's pocketbooks so much as does this national defence spending and national defence policies, we should not be kept in ignorance.
The people of Canada do not object to heavy defence spending, provided they are satisfied the department is looking after their defence efficiently and is giving value for the money spent. In order to keep our people satisfied there must be a feeling of confidence in the administration which can only be fostered by giving out a reasonable amount of information of what is being done. We do not expect that many of the secret arrangements which are being planned among the various top officials of the different organizations to preserve and to defend our western nations should be given to us. We are not looking for that kind of information; but I would say to the minister that we as members of parliament have, I think, passed the age when we may have been looked upon as juveniles. I do believe that we are responsible and are able to decide in our own minds that which can be given, that which can be publicized and that which cannot.
In order to see that that information is given to us I would certainly support the recommendations that have been made by every speaker thus far for a committee on national defence. That committee, Mr. Chairman, should be a permanent committee; it should not be too large. Besides studying the policies and the expenditures of the department, it could also act in an advisory capacity to the minister of the department which means so much to us and to our future welfare. Our party made the same request in discussing our external affairs problems and we think that in those two fields, so closely

linked, the parliament of Canada should stand united. To do so, though, parliament must have some say in formulating policy and in carrying out that policy. 1 mentioned the two fields of defence and external affairs as being closely linked. I would go farther, Mr. Chairman, and say that they are interlocking. For that reason certain aspects of our integrated defence policy with the United States give us cause for alarm. We, as a proud and aggressive people, are jealous of our sovereign rights. We have bravely and boldly stood for those rights since confederation and I hope it will always be our guiding principle in dealing with other nations.
Expressions have been made by responsible officials of a foreign, though quite friendly nation, that under integration we shall have lost some of those rights. I am glad to note that our Minister of National Defence and our Prime Minister have repudiated those statements; yet I am sure that in the minds of all of us we cannot conceive of such a responsible member of another government making such statements unless there was basis in fact for those remarks.
I am going to say with all the force at my command that we are in favour of integration. We believe it is one way to make the best use of our defensive power, but we say that it must be a temporary arrangement and one which is not irrevocable. Then, since it is so closely linked with our external affairs, the whole plan should have been worked out in conjunction and consultation with the Department of External Affairs.
Instead, what do we find? We find the same ignorance on the part of the Department of External Affairs that I say we as members of this house are faced with when we are giving consideration to the estimates of the department. I am going to refer to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of December 4 in its report of the session of the committee on external affairs. I am going to read just briefly. It appears that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was being interrogated about the progress that had been made and negotiations, if any, that had been carried on. He is reported as having said that his department was not concerned.
The word "concerned" there is in quotation marks. I cannot countenance that the Secretary of State for External Affairs of this country would say that his department was not concerned in such a state of affairs. I am sure there must be something wrong despite the fact that the word "concerned" is in quotation marks. In any event, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that his department was not concerned in the arrangements that had led to the establishment of the command. If that is a fact, 96698-122
Supply-National Defence I think it is one of the most serious things that parliament must face and consider at the present time.
We have also heard that negotiations are taking place at the service level and with respect to that the minister replied that negotiations were being conducted at the service level and that the two commanders are now working out recommendations on the basis of which there will be an intergovernmental exchange of notes specifying the command's terms of reference. Apparently that is right because I believe that is what the Minister of National Defence said this morning, that the top officials of the military organization are working out the plans under which this integration shall take place. One member who just spoke said that the cart had been placed before the horse and I think he used a very apt expression to describe these negotiations.
To me, Mr. Chairman, this is a most serious reflection on the Department of External Affairs when we see something that will affect the political well-being of Canada for years to come being handled by the military authorities. In fact, it would appear that the service commanders are now drawing up political terms which when completed will be turned over to the two governments. That is something which must not go unchallenged. In fact, it is a challenge to the civil authority which must always remain supreme. The Department of National Defence, responsible to the government of Canada and through it to the people of Canada, must take no action to override the civil authority.
We can look back through the history of Britain and the history of Canada since confederation and see that the civil authority has always been supreme. Now we have a serious threat that our military officials are going to dictate to the civil authority of Canada plans and policies which will become effective and which will govern us to some degree for many years to come.


Mr. Mitchell:: Mr. Chairman, I feel I might be allowed to say a few words in the debate on the estimates of the Department of National Defence. However, in so doing I do not intend to set myself up as a military expert in any way or even a critic of national defence. My remarks are going to be of a much more local nature, in fact, so local that they apply only to the constituency I represent. I am sure the minister can almost foretell what I am about to mention as he has been spoken to in this regard before. I hope he does not feel I work under the principle that the squeaking wheel gets the grease, although I will admit it has certain merits in certain places.

Supply-National Defence
I want to ask the minister and the department to give serious reconsideration to the matter of certain moneys which were in the estimates brought down by the former minister of national defence last spring. Certain moneys were set aside for the building of very necessary accommodation in Sudbury.
I am sure the minister had a first-hand opportunity to see the trying conditions under which the military people in our area are working when he paid us a visit on November 10 and graciously assisted in the unveiling of a new cenotaph.
There is a unique situation in the city of Sudbury regarding the proposed building and I should like to bring it to the attention of the house. I think hon. members will all agree that as soon as a suggestion is heard in a community that the government intends to buy some property for the erection of any kind of building the land automatically goes up in price, possibly to a great many times its real value. Such is not the case in our city. A few years ago a public-spirited citizen donated a parcel of land amounting to approximately 5.6 acres for which he paid $10,000. The land is now being held by the crown and the stipulation was made that an armoury would be built thereon. The land was received in the Queen's name by the previous minister of national defence, and in his estimates of last spring he attempted to fulfil his promise to make the building a reality.
I understand that the Department of Public Works feels it is being overcharged most outrageously for the properties now being occupied in view of the accommodation that is supplied. A year ago I was asked to intervene in the matter to see if the owners of the buildings would reduce the rent. I may say I was successful in having it reduced somewhat but I also feel that the rent is still exorbitant. Of course, the owners of the buildings take the view that they are not particularly anxious to rent them for the purpose for which they are now being used and as far as they are concerned they feel they would receive a greater monetary return from new buildings which they would be pleased to construct.
Unfortunately, the property now being held by the crown is affected by a proviso in the agreement of sale between the former owner of the property and the gentleman who donated it to the crown and that proviso is that if an armoury should not be built on this location the land will revert to the original owner at the original price. This land has been examined and tested by the engineers of the department. I am not prepared to prove this but I understand that plans were drawn up for the erection of the building but they are now pigeonholed.

The reason I am on my feet today is to make a serious appeal to the minister and the department to reconsider their decision not to erect this building at the present time.
I feel that we will lose the property which was given to us for this purpose if action is not taken soon and I also believe that we are paying an exorbitant rent for the premises now occupied. I am deadly serious about this request to the department and I hope the minister will see fit to reconsider the matter very shortly.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief word. I appreciated very much the Minister of National Defence allowing us a few days ago to hear one of our distinguished generals. By the outlines on the charts, and we can see those outlines yet, he showed us what Canada was doing and what it was prepared to do. The reason I rose at this time is to say that it is not aeroplanes that win the war. Neither is it submarines or bombs. I ask what it was that defeated Germany in the last war. They had the best equipped army in the world. They had more aeroplanes and more submarines than any other country. They had everything that would indicate that Germany was going to win. Why did Germany not win? If they had had more aeroplanes, would they have won?
A call went out across the country, Mr. Chairman, for a day of prayer. That was a big day not only here but in other countries. What happened? Germany made three outstanding mistakes. The Germans were clever. Germany was supposed to have the best brains in the world. Our students used to go there in order to complete their education, as they thought; but they did not do so. What were the three mistakes? After Dunkirk, when the allies were beaten, the first mistake they made was that they did not wipe England off the map. Why did they not do so? That was the first mistake they made. The next mistake was Pearl Harbor. Why was the attack made on Pearl Harbor? The attack was made because they thought it would help win the war. But what did it do? It brought the United States wholeheartedly into the war. The third mistake they made was that they attacked Russia and kept on attacking her with the result that they were finally beaten. I can hear so many in the opposition saying "Too little and too late"; but you are never too late when God is first and when your men rally behind you in the way our Canadian youth did. That is why we won the war.


Mr. Blackmore:: In following the fine rousing remarks of the hon. member for Fort William and the equally fine remarks of the hon. member for Trinity-Conception as opposed to the spirit of fatalism and of defeat breathed

by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, it seems to me that it is fitting that just a few more things be said. If we say that we simply cannot win and if we give up, we do not give the Lord a chance to play a part at all. We may not be able to do very much when we start, as was the case in the battle of Britain in world war II, but if we do all that we possibly can and if we rely on the God of battles, we shall have a chance of winning. My feeling is that it is very much the same as we approach this dreadful crisis in world history, the worst the world has ever known.
It seems to me also that we should give a little bit of thought to another matter which was referred to indirectly by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception. I refer to the kind of people we are opposed to. Most people think it is the Russian people we are opposed to. That is the last thing in the world we are opposed to. We are opposed to the group of men who conquered Russia in the so-called revolution back in 1917, who now rule Russia with an iron hand and who intend to extend that sordid rule over all the people of the world. There is no use in talking about coexistence with those people. With them it is all or none. They talk co-existence but it is the last thing they think of.
May I refer to the remarks of three of their leaders. I mention Lenin first. In 1923 Lenin announced to the world-or so it would be announced to the world-that it would be unnecessary to defeat the United States in a military way, that she would fall into their hands like an over-ripe fruit. All that is necessary is that enough people in Canada and the United States speak as did the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and the whole of North America will fall into their hands like an overripe fruit.
The next communist leader who said a most significant thing in this respect was Manuilsky. This man, if I recall it correctly, spoke in 1930. He said this-these are not his exact words; I am not quoting; I am speaking from memory-"We will put on a peace offensive which will surpass anything the world ever saw and when we get them all softened up we will smash them with the iron fist". If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had wanted to play right into Manuilsky's hands or into Lenin's, he could not have done it better.
The next man is Khrushchev. I cannot remember just exactly what it was that Khrushchev said, but fairly recently he made a remark which I have already put on the record in times past and which did not in any way indicate that he had receded from the position of Lenin and Manuilsky but rather that he was following on as a member in the team, aiming to accomplish the thing which 96698-1224
Supply-National Defence the other two had foretold. Let everybody bear in mind this most important matter.
May I repeat once more that we are not fighting the Russians; we are not fighting the Chinese; we are not fighting any of the people who have come under the domination of the so-called communist organization which is another outfit entirely, parading under the mask of communism. We are not fighting the peoples who are their fronts; we are fighting the men hidden behind communism. Let us never forget that fact.
While we are on the subject may I suggest to the Minister of National Defence that, with all the ardour of his being, he impress upon the leaders of the United States, Great Britain and the other NATO nations that if they do not single out those men in their governments who are agents of that group of people who are behind communism it will do no good at all to find out new secrets, because those secrets will be in the hands of Moscow before we ourselves hear about them.
I have taken occasion to refer to this matter two or three times in the house previously. Some people have supposed that there is nothing to what I have said. May I say that it will be a great deal better if they can learn now than at some later time when they will say, "Oh, if I had only known". It could have been known but they were just simply too narrow-minded and blind to listen, so that they could have been told.
May I urge upon the minister that he take the utmost care with regard to this matter. Let me remind him that immediately after the first satellite went up from Russia, Gouzenko who is in a position to know a great deal more about the matter than does anybody in this house or probably anyone else in this country, announced to the people of Canada and the United States, as far as he could cause his voice to be heard, that the Russians had put the first satellite into the air because the secrets which the United States and Canada had discovered had been transmitted to Russia by people imbedded in the administrations of our countries. I saw that statement in at least two papers.
Let me urge the minister,-and I do not think I need to do so

that he pay no attention to those who join in this cry of defeat. He will find plenty of them; he will find pretty nearly every C.C.F. member and every socialist in the country among them. Pay no attention to those people; pay attention to the people who believe in Canada, who believe in the British flag and in the British people, who believe in the future of Christianity and who believe in the future of freedom. He should put everything he has got into his task and, if it becomes
1926	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence necessary, as indicated by the hon. member for Fort William, at some future time to call a day of national prayer let him not hesitate to do so. As has been so very well stated by Tennyson:
More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.
And I think that there is a statement in the Bible by the Lord saying:
I will yet for this be enquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them.
That is all I will say on this matter at the present time.


Mr. Carier:: Mr. Chairman, I am aware
that the estimates now before the house were prepared by the former administration and, as a supporter of that administration and of that party, I naturally support these estimates. We have before us expenditures of over $1.7 billion for various kinds of military offensive and defensive weapons. We all regret that so much money has to be diverted into unproductive channels when it could be used in so many other ways for human betterment but we realize that this expenditure for military weapons is necessary even if some of the equipment becomes obsolete before it becomes operational.
It is right and fitting that we should make every possible preparation for possible war- a war which we hope will never come-but it does cause me some concern, as it has caused me concern every year since I have been here that we should make an effort to provide for war which does not exist at the present time and yet seem to be so unconcerned about a war which does exist at the present time, a war which in fact has been going on continuously for the last 40 years and which has recently entered a new and decisive phase. I refer, of course, to the war of ideas.
We have become almost panic-stricken because soviet Russia has taken away our lead by launching sputniks and guided missiles. Yet, on the other hand, we are extremely apathetic, complacent and indifferent about an even more deadly weapon, the communist ideology, to which I understand my hon. friend from Lethbridge was referring a few moments ago. Military weapons are not the only means of fighting a war or of protecting ourselves against war, there are political weapons and economic weapons. In soviet Russia, however, military, economic and political weapons are all controlled by and subordinated to their ideology. Our hysteria about the sputniks and the ICBM's is exactly what Russia wants at this time because it diverts our attention from their ideological weapons upon which they are relying for
[Mr. Blackmore.I

ultimate victory and it diverts also our attention from the necessity of developing ideological counter weapons of our own.
The word ideology is one which we use with a certain amount of discomfort. We do not seem to have any very clear idea of what it means. We use it in a casual and offhand manner, but we do not take the trouble to analyse or to dissect it and we are very often content to confuse it with idealism, as did my hon. friend from Macleod when he spoke earlier in this debate. An ideology is an idea in action; an idea that includes a plan for remaking the world; an idea that has become a force because it has captured the hearts and souls of human beings to such an extent that they are prepared to give everything they have to assure its triumph. Over the years the anti-democratic countries have perfected ideological weapons, techniques and strategies; they have won many countries with the force of their ideas alone and without firing a single shot. We try to counteract that purely by military political and economic means.
By means of their ideology the communists can achieve and have achieved the following objectives and during the period of coexistence it is upon the achievement of these objectives that they rely for ultimate victory. Now the first objective they seek to attain is to destroy and weaken our belief in the central values which the democratic nations wish to preserve and endeavour to defend. What are we doing to counteract that? What are we doing to build up our defences against it? The second objective is to undermine confidence in the ability and the moral integrity of national leadership, that is, of all politicians, military and administrative leaders and those with whom the citizens are in contact and who have their confidence. The third objective is to weaken the ability and the willingness of a nation to co-operate for common aims by destroying group solidarity. In the fourth place they seek to destroy the peoples' psychic equilibrium and personal adjustment to existing conditions.
These objectives are being achieved by the communist ideology right here in Canada, and that is something about which we cannot feel too complacent. As the hon. member for Lethbridge pointed out, it is not necessary for everyone in a nation to be a committed communist; Lenin took over Russia with only 11,000 of them, a hard core of 11,000 people committed to his ideology. I am told by a reliable source that there are about 8,000 committed communists in Canada at the present time. When we consider the defence of our country we must consider all aspects of defence, not the military aspect only.

The minister pointed out that our policy is based on collective security within the framework of NATO. That collective security is only as strong as NATO's ability and will to resist and to act decisively; it is only as strong as NATO's unity. And what is NATO's unity based on today? It is based on fear, and it is hardly strong enough to withstand the internal stresses and strains of conflicting self interest among member nations. What NATO needs primarily, and what we need, I think, to contribute to NATO is a positive and moral ideology which is capable of counteracting these objectives which I listed a few moments earlier, and capable not only of resisting them but of taking the offensive against them.
The original idea of NATO as a temporary shield while defences were mobilized was sound, but the present idea of NATO as a permanent Maginot line is unsound and that is what NATO has developed into, a ring, as we have been told, of 250 bases. The only difference is that we have armed this modern Maginot line with nuclear weapons and guided missiles instead of the conventional weapons of the old Maginot line. But the fundamental idea is the same, and it is unsound.
In the ideological war, as in the war of arms, the best defence is attack, and in the war of ideas NATO must therefore take the offensive. Earlier today hon. members have spoken about removing the causes of war. I think the hon. member for Kindersley referred to poverty and hunger as among the factors which caused war, and he spoke of them, in the way most of us do, as though they were something separate and apart from ourselves, something abstract, which does not concern us as individuals. That is not so, and I think that is where we have been missing the boat all along. The mess we are in today in external affairs, in the United Nations, in the Middle East and in all the theatres of the world has been brought about by people who have been regarded as being extremely practical. One of the reasons why we have not come to grips with these problems is because we have lacked a positive ideology, and we have lacked a positive ideology because we have thought of these things in the abstract without relating them to ourselves. To develop an ideology we should begin, of course, with ourselves, because as I am so is my nation.
When we, the people of the democratic countries, begin to live out in our lives the things we talk about, then democracy will
Supply-National Defence have an ideology capable of taking the offensive against communism. It would be a good thing, if, as some hon. members have suggested, we could do something about alleviating the hunger in the world. We all sympathize with the hungry nations in Asia; and here we are in Canada with a huge pile of surplus wheat and other food products. It has been suggested that instead of spending money on arms we should use that money to purchase commodities to give to the hungry millions of the world. This, in itself, would be a good thing, but it would not be an ideological move, and it would not serve any ideological purpose because of the very fact that we have a surplus and there is an element of self interest in getting rid of it.
In other words, the situation would be as it was pointed out in an article in the last issue of Maclean's Magazine in which the writer described Canadians as we appear to the have not nations of Asia and Africa. They note that when we give, we give selfishly of our abundance and without any sacrifice. It is the total commitment to an idea which constitutes an ideology and which makes it so effective. The thing which attracts people to communism-wealthy people, learned people, scientific people-is not the communist idea itself so much as the commitment of the people to it, that is, the total commitment of the communists with whom they come into contact.
NATO needs an ideology. Some time ago when the bureau of current affairs was set up I thought that might be the beginning of the development of the ideological training of the armed forces. I noted today that the minister said this bureau was going to be discontinued. I am not criticizing the minister for this, because I do not think the bureau of current affairs has ever served the purpose I hoped it would. I have followed its course over the years. It has probably done some good, but nothing which was vital to the needs of the day. I agree with the minister that there are things more pressing and more urgent. But I cannot agree that there is anything more urgent today than the development of ideological training for our services and for our people, and I think the armed services would provide a good starting point.
I was interested in looking over a Soviet news bulletin some time ago in which an explanation was given of the demotion of Marshal Zhukov. I am not going to read all the relevant parts, but I can paraphrase what the bulletin said. What it amounted to was that Marshal Zhukov was becoming less

Supply-National Defence and less enthusiastic about ideological training in the armed forces. One sentence of the bulletin reads:
Comrade Zhukov by his incorrect actions reduced party organizations to the status of purely educational organs.
Then it went on to say that the other thing that was wrong with Marshal Zhukov was that he was not personally living up to his ideology but was glorifying himself instead of the party principles which made him what he was. As I said before, I would like to see some concern and some recognition of this need on the part of the Conservative government.


Major James William Coldwell: Would the hon. member permit a question? Surely he is not urging that the government should set up an organization in the army to spread the ideology of the Conservative party?


Mr. Carter:: No, I said it should be a moral ideology that is above party, race and creed and that such an ideology is in existence and there are training schools where people could be trained in it. I would like to see some real attention given to this aspect of our defence.
NATO needs an ideology and when the NATO countries develop a positive ideology then they will be able to act in a realm of unity above their divisions of pride and prejudice, above the barriers of their social and national characteristics and above the isolation created by their individual points of view. The starting point for nations as well as for individuals is with an honest admission of past mistakes and failures, honest apologies for the harm they have done, honest efforts to put right what can be put right and an honest appraisal of our motives, past, present and future. With such an ideology NATO could revolutionize the thinking and conduct of the world and without that ideology NATO's policy will always be dictated by events and the events will be dictated or engineered by Moscow.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether or not this is the right time to raise the point concerning government tenders for supplying food to the armed forces. In Manitoba today it is only the large packers who are getting such business and I wish to speak about the situation. If this is the wrong place to raise the question I will bring it up again at some other time but it occurred to me it should come under the heading of administration.
I see no reason why a small packer should not have the right to tender for supplying food to the services as long as he can deliver the goods. The little fellow does not pay as
[Mr. Carter.!
much income tax as the big fellow but he does pay income tax. I am not talking about a packer who has just established himself in Manitoba but I am referring to the small packers some of whom have been in business there for 40 years. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to give us his assurance that the small businessman in Manitoba will receive a square deal when it comes to tendering for supplies of food to the armed forces.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might answer that question now. I would point out that our requirements are supplied by the ministry of defence production. We inform the ministry what is required for these services and they let out the contracts. I would suggest to the hon. member that he should direct his question to the Minister of Defence Production when the estimates of that department are before the house.


William Scottie Bryce: Well, is there a Minister of Defence Production?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is an Acting Minister of Defence Production.


William Scottie Bryce: All right, I shall do that.
Thank you.


George Randolph Pearkes: While I am on my feet perhaps I might clear up one or two of the points that have been raised. I believe we all agree with the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar that the essential need is to remove, if possible, the causes of war but until there is a realistic disarmament policy I feel we must maintain a reasonable degree of security so that our people can live and carry out their ordinary peaceful avocations.
The hon. member for Fort William, the hon. member for Lethbridge, and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo have spoken about the ideological aspects of training. It would perhaps be interesting to note that in all units there is carried out a service which to a large extent replaces the work which was being done by the bureau of current affairs and of course the unit officers instruct their men on the day to day events of the world.
The hon. member for Kingston and others seemed to be under the impression that there was some lack of liaison between the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence regarding the arrangements connected with the integrated command of the air defences. The original arrangement started as far back as May 14, 1956 when there was a meeting of the Canadian chiefs of staff and the United States joint chiefs of staff and a decision was made to refer the matter to a joint study group. At

that meeting and all subsequent meetings representatives of the Department of External Affairs were present and that department was conversant with all that was going on. In addition to that, of course, the matter was referred to the cabinet as a whole and, as the Prime Minister stated, it was a government decision to adopt this integrated command.
I wish to assure the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke that I fully appreciate the importance of civil control of the armed forces and under no circumstances will the military be permitted in any way to usurp, or override as he said, the civil authority or dictate to the government of the country. I can assure the hon. member that nothing of that nature is occurring at the present time.
The hon. member for Kingston asked about the question of manpower. Recruiting for all three services has been very good recently and we have the total number of men required to meet our commitments. Of course, there is always a shortage of technical personnel and, as the hon. member for Peace River stated, it is desirable that we give all the encouragement possible to the young men of this country to develop technical and engineering skills. It is for that purpose that research and development grants are made through the defence research board through universities for the encouragement of special projects. Regarding the total of money which is being spent on research at the present time, the estimates show that the sum of $64,796,000 is being spent on research and development. It is rather difficult sometimes, as hon. members will appreciate, to separate research from development but if necessary I could give further information regarding that subject.
The question arose as to whether or not our weapons are obsolete. It is easy to suggest that the weapons of today cannot meet the weapons an enemy may have in the near future. I believe that the weapons we have today are capable of meeting the weapons that any potential enemy has today. I believe our interceptors can intercept any Russian bomber that the Russian air force have today.
We are going one step farther: we are developing this CF-105, which is a supersonic interceptor. It will probably be five years before that CF-105 will be in squadron operation, if it turns out to be entirely satisfactory in every respect. I believe that the CF-105 will then be able to deal with any bomber that the Russians will have five years hence. Of course, it will not be able to deal with the intercontinental missile.
Supply-National Defence
As I tried to point out in the remarks I made this morning, we are members of a team and we take on those tasks and produce those weapons which we consider we are most adapted to provide and whose procurement is within our means. In this partnership team we are providing the manned interceptor to meet the manned bomber. We have not gone into the missile field. The anti-intercontinental ballistic missile will be developed and provided by other partners of our alliance. We hope that there will be an opportunity for us to contribute toward that development, but our particular role in this partnership for the defence of the North American continent is to provide a proportion of the manned interceptors to meet the manned bombers and the best advice that I have, founded on the judgment given by our own military advisers and military advisers from our NATO partners, is that for many years to come there will be manned bombers. In fact, we know, contrary to statements which have been made elsewhere, that the Russians are still developing and producing manned bombers. It may well be, as I stated this morning, that if our deterrent fails and an attack does occur, that attack will be a combination of intercontinental missiles and manned bombers.
It is our sincere hope that the means of dealing with the intercontinental missile will be produced and developed by the time the Russians have any quantity of the intercontinental missile.
Reference was made to our radar line. I know that those radar lines were designed for and are capable of locating the bomber of today and can be developed to meet the bomber of the next few years. They are not designed to meet the intercontinental missile.
Now, there were a number of other questions which were taken up and I understand that we shall be departing to the other place in the near future and perhaps when we leave this general discussion and get on to the details they can be answered in their proper place.


Mr. Broome:: If I may have a few minutes I would like to put before the minister a question with regard to armouries.


George Randolph Pearkes: I wonder whether the hon. member would take that up when we come to the question of the army and the construction under the army when I shall have my advisers here to give me the details of that question.


Peter Stefura: I have a few questions but I do not know where they come, whether they come under item 240 or not.

The Royal Assent


George Randolph Pearkes: If it would be the wish of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I suggest we follow the procedure of previous years in which, after there has been a general discussion on policy, we took the details as given in the blue book dealing with the main subjects, such as administration, inspection services, navy, army and air force; then, the defence research board, and so on. If that policy is followed I can have my particular advisers here who can give the details. If we were able to start there at eight o'clock it would be most helpful.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rea):: Do hon. members wish to follow the procedure outlined by the Minister of National Defence? Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Edward Rea: Defence services, departmental administration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: thought the suggestion of the minister was that we would have the general discussion first.


George Randolph Pearkes: After the general discussion we will have the discussion of the details and I said I hoped we could start at eight o'clock. I was under the impression that the general discussion was finished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
colleague from Port Arthur wishes to say something.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House,
Ottawa, December 5, 1957
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 5th December, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Joseph Alfred Victor Tasse.
An act for the relief of Claudine Yvette Felicite Cavallero Neely.
An act for the relief of Evelyn Thelma Passineau Uyeda.
An act for the relief of Ronald Victor Turner.
An act for the relief of Charles Frederick Church.
An act for the relief of Sarah Sally Abramovici Schor.
An act for the relief of Eunice Kennedy Standeven.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Louise Blaylock Hall Dunning.
An act for the relief of Mary Hilbert Madge.
An act for the relief of Marthe Helene Le Bel Champion.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Dermer Boyd.
An act for the relief of Clarice Mendell Uditsky.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Elizabeth Allen Bellenger.
An act for the relief of Mildred Weiner Gordon.
An act for the relief of Theresa Mary Moran Redmond Cooke.
An act for the relief of Siegmund Paul Fritz Matthes.
An act for the relief of Lillian Boyce Suttner.
An act for the relief of Helen May Verner Joyce.
An act for the relief of Lila Redmond Mc-Corriston.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Freda Sabbath Isaacson.
An act for the relief of Marguerite Lavoie Jolin.
An act for the relief of Margaret Lillian Mackenzie Smallwood.
An act for the relief of Edith Elizabeth Altherr Thompson.
An act for the relief of Jean Marc Marceau.
An act for the relief of Moe Boxerman.
An act for the relief of Marilyn Joan O'Bryan Watson.
An act for the relief of Irene Elsa Rubin Cohen.
An act for the relief of Sally Baker Golding Rohrlich.
An act for the relief of Jerzy Dzynaw.
An act for the relief of Pauline Mechanik Winterfeld.
An	act	for	the	relief	of Gennie Loza Jarvis.An	act	for	the	relief	of James Keith.An	act	for	the	relief	of Michal Rybikowski.An	act	for	the	relief	of Beverley Joan Abbott
Reid.
An act for the relief of Mark Astman.
An act for the relief of Karl Schubert.
An act for the relief of Norma Leibovitch Ryer.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Manola Mainville
Lefebvre.
An act for the relief of Anne Marie Fontaine Brien.
An act for the relief of Joyce Hahn Maiste.
An act for the relief of Joseph Fabien Marcel Perras.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Elizabeth Geroux
Touchette.
An act for the relief of Conrad Donat Joseph Bouffard.
An act for the relief of Claire Lenoff Schecter.
An act for the relief of Gun Elsa-Maria Stridh Zukrowski.

An act for the relief of Dorothy Maureen Allan Cybuliak.
An act for the relief of Lita Eleanor Ciceri Desrochers.
An act for the relief of Gwendoline Georgina Adelaide McNamee Phillips.
An act for the relief of Robert James Beakes.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Ann Vedder Chadwick.
An act for the relief of Osbourne Denzil St. Martin.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Janet Davidson Blacklock.
An act for the relief of Mary Isabel Bristow Livingston.
An act for the relief of Zelda King Neuss.
An act for the relief of Lena Therese Dean Lauzon.
An act for the relief of Sydney Wagner.
An act for the relief of Margaret Williams Mullins.
An act for the relief of Donald Ernest Lamont.
An act for the relief of Margo Jean Thornton Savard.
An act for the relief of Marie Reina Pauline Duquette Cottier.
An act for the relief of Molly Gloria Goldman Mencher.
An act for the relief of Marie Marguerite Eugenie Lucie Prevost Dorfman.
An act for the relief of Florence Hewitt Scribner Hartt.
An act for the relief of Mona Areta Emsley Forbes.
An act respecting British Columbia Telephone Company.
An act respecting The Rio de Janeiro Tramway, Light and Power Company, Limited.
An act respecting Sao Paulo Electric Company, Limited.
An act respecting Brazilian Hydro Electric Company, Limited.
An act respecting Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited.
An act to incorporate Investors Trust Company.
An act respecting Mexico Tramways Company.
An act respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1958.


Mr. Speaker:: The house will now revert to the business which was interrupted by the message from the Senate.

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
240. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including costs incurred in the participation of the Canadian forces in the United Nations emergency force and 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 $130,000,000, 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
Supply-National Defence 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 $3,338,164,131 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,521,731,982 will come due for payment in future years), $1,669,450,149.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, before I go any further I would like to correct a small error made by the Minister of National Defence. It is rather petty, but he did say that the member for Port Arthur was one of those who had spoken on the ideological training in the armed services. Actually it was the member for Fort William.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have made that correction. I beg your pardon.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Thank you. I wanted to make sure it was corrected because from my own personal memory of the services-I might add that one of the pleasures of my taking part in this debate is from the point of view of a former private asking questions of a former general

I do recall that we got horribly bored with some of the ideological training.
At this time perhaps I might also take the opportunity to refer to what was said by the gentleman from Alberta. Perhaps he did not mean to cast an aspersion upon the loyalty of the C.C.F. as a group with respect to our national defence, but I would just like to remind him that we have our share of returned veterans and if we, perhaps, are not so vociferous in referring to the bible or the crown that is no reason to infer that we are disloyal or unchristian.
Now what I wanted to speak about in particular had specifically to do with Canadian service colleges. Of course their estimates are scattered throughout many subjects but I do feel that this is the proper time to put my questions. I think it is one of the ironies in connection with education that the only full subsidization of higher education in this country at the present time should be for the purpose of producing soldiers and sailors. Of course, as a believer in full subsidization of higher education so that more people may get the benefit of it, this specific aspect of national defence intrigues me and it seems to me that if the production of regimental officers or air pilots is worthy of full subsidization the same principle should be much more widely extended to cover the training of scientists and specialists in the liberal arts. That of course is something else again.

Supply-National Defence
Now one of the difficulties in there being no breakdown available, and no chance to examine the expenditures in connection with the service colleges and that aspect of the department generally, could be rectified if the minister, in the estimates, the public accounts, or in his departmental report, would provide some facilities for such an examination. That is the first request I would like to make.
The second point I would like to raise is this. A former minister stated there were plans for carrying on the equivalent of postgraduate work for graduates of the service colleges at the national defence college and at the army and air staff colleges. Now in what way is such post graduate work geared to advanced physical research in the fields of missiles, technology and atomic weapons. I would like to know how that is progressing. I have in mind a statement made in 1952 by Mr. Claxton on this very subject. I would also like to know something about the makeup of the advisory board of the Canadian service colleges. Who are the members, and are they still meeting once a year, and has the membership changed? Would the minister say if there has been any great change in the conceptions of the board since his government took office?
Another question I would like to ask, and I know of course that I will have to wait for the minister to obtain expert advice in order to answer me in this respect, is as follows: What is the comparison of costs for the production of officers at each of the three service colleges and what is the comparison of costs between producing an officer at a service college compared to an officer produced under the university training plan? I think these are all aspects of the departmental estimates which we should be entitled to investigate.
Now has there been any discussion about narrowing the rather liberal kind of education now available to students at service colleges? In the first two years especially the education in general is quite liberal and I would like to know if there have been any discussions about narrowing that education and making it more specifically military?
Another question I would like to ask is whether there is a provincial quota for the service colleges and if so have those quotas been filled in recent years and by what provinces?
Further, in 1952 there was an announcement made that the College Militaire in Quebec would have an objective of enrolment of 400 students. I would like to know if that objective has been reached and, if it has not what difficulty stands in the way?

I also have a similar question in connection with the rather different position with respect to the academic professorial staff in the service colleges and similar staffs at the universities. I would like to know whether there is a definite minimum and maximum in terms of pupil load and lecturing hours for the academic staff at service colleges. I have received some reports that such staff is overworked and other reports that they have practically a year-round holiday.
I would further like to know the position of the civilian teaching staff at the service colleges with respect to work in vacation time. For example, could an engineering professor take on private services for a fee or could an arts professor, who had published a book as a result of his studies carried on as an employee of the civil service, have the profits of the publication accrue to him?
Something else I would like to know is how the schedule of salaries for professorial staff in service colleges compares with that recommended by the association of university professors or with that of the University of Toronto which, I understand, is the general standard in Canada by which other colleges and universities govern themselves?
Another question I would like to ask is, can academic civil servants of the department belong to the professorial association of university professors; have they that right?
I would like to know the relationship between the National Council of Canadian Universities and the directors of the Canadian Service Colleges? Just what is the liaison between these groups and are the service colleges part of that national council?
More particularly, how many service college graduates in the last three school years have chosen to go on to take the degree at our universities immediately they were able to do so?
As a penultimate question I would like to ask what is the percentage of Canadian service college graduates which remains in the active forces after completing the term of service? Lastly, what percentage of the student body presently enrolled in the service colleges is, or could be, classified as French Canadian?
I realize, in reading this long list of questions, that it will take time to answer them and that there will be difficulties involved in doing so. I feel, however, that this is the place to ask rather than on the orders of the day and will look forward to sending over this list to the minister and later on, as the discussion continues, to having such answers as his assistants may be able to provide.


Frederick George Hahn: I have just a very few questions at this time, Mr. Chairman, but as the night progresses I will have more to add. I would first like to compliment the minister in respect of his announcement than he expects to cut down on the expenses of the department. I may say that I have found him to be one of the most approachable ministers with whom I have ever had contact in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Hahn: I find he is always prepared to meet one and to discuss problems although that does not necessarily mean that I agree with everything that is being done in his particular department. I did hope that we would have had the public accounts of Canada for 1957 by this time so that we could come to some reasonable understanding by a comparison of the estimates for last year with the amounts actually expended by the various departments. My reason for this hope is that I find this is one department in which there is a great discrepancy between the estimates and the actual expenditures.
The people in this country complain bitterly about excessive taxation to which we are subjected and I must under the circumstances refer to the public accounts of Canada for the year 1956 and in particular to volume I, page N-4, to illustrate my particular point.
The estimates set down by the department under departmental administration amounted to $3,494,080 while the amount actually expended was approximately half a million dollars less; $500,000 on an expenditure of some $3 million. Actually, the figure expended was $2,963,787. That represents a difference of about one-sixth, or 16 per cent.
Now I have taken time in the course of the day to review former public accounts and in many instances I have found a similar story. I have tried to discover by going through the estimates exactly where the discrepancy arises. I must say at this point that I do recognize the fact that the minister is new to this particular department and has not had the opportunity of checking these things for himself. He has not had the time. I know how much time it would take to check every individual item among the thousands of items which appear. The point I wish to make is, possibly, best illustrated on page 313 of the estimates for 1957-58 with which we are particularly concerned. I would direct the minister's attention to the section entitled departmental administration.
We see there, under the description of civil staff-possibly civil servants-one deputy minister, one associate deputy minister, three assistant deputy ministers-two at $12,000 and one at $10,500-making in all a total, together 96698-1234
Supply-National Defence with their staffs, of 774 employees in the administrative staff compared with 776 last year. Now the question I have in mind is this: have these offices ever been filled at any one time, all of them, or have any been vacant for a year? Is it the intention of the department to fill these vacancies?
Again, I wish to say that all this points to the fact that we should have a special committee to study these estimates in the same way as other departmental estimates are studied. I could make some very pointed comments about this matter, but I do not intend to pursue the discussion very far at this moment. But if we do have each of these particular offices filled, I am wondering who are the individuals who fill them. As I said, in 1956 there was a discrepancy of over half a million dollars according to the public accounts. Certainly, under "Administration", this is an item identical with the one we find included in the estimates this year.
We find a saving of half a million, which would indicate that the department is expecting the taxpayers of Canada to pay half a million more each year than is actually required, because, to the best of my knowledge, I have never seen all the posts in this department filled at any one time. Possibly the minister would make a statement on this matter later.
I found, also, among other things, a matter which might best be described by reference to the white sheet at the back of the estimates. Let us take one example: construction or acquisition of buildings and works, including land. Hon. members will find that this year we are being asked to appropriate approximately $143 million as compared with $191 million last year, a saving of about $50 million. I should not say it is a saving; we are probably spending $50 million less on buildings. We are just not spending the money. It does seem that at this time we should be better advised to spend the full $191 million on new buildings, not only because we need the buildings but because this is one way of getting .people to work.
While I am dealing with this particular question I wonder if the minister would indicate to the house whether there is any change in policy involved here. Are there to be fewer replacements of armouries? What is the decision of the department? In the city which I have the honour to represent we have an armoury which has been in existence for many years. The building is in very poor condition. Ten years or more ago the former government promised that they would replace this armoury. This was long before my time as a member of parliament, but I remember reading about it in the newspaper. This

Supply[DOT]-National Defence promise has never been fulfilled; there was always one excuse or another, and it seems that the appropriation was never there. If these moneys are not expended and the taxpayer has paid for them, the balance must have appeared at some place in the appropriation. What has happened to this particular balance? Is it being held, is it the intention of the department to carry on a building program or has it other plans. I am sure that each of the hon. members of the house who has an armoury in his area, replacement or renewal of which has been promised, would be very interested to hear the minister's observations on this.
There is another question which I think is very important at this time, and it arises out of a statement made by the Minister of Public Works last evening when he was introducing his housing legislation. If I recall the matter correctly, he indicated that the mari-times and British Columbia were not in a position to take advantage of housing loans. There may be several reasons for this situation, but it could be that these regions are suffering severely from unemployment and as a result the people do not have sufficient money available to make down payments. I find, on checking the loans made in various parts of Canada, that in the province of British Columbia we received only one per cent of the defence orders placed by the federal government. We represent eight per cent of the population, yet we received only one per cent of all defence orders. This is a depressed area, as the hon. member for Vancouver South has very recently found out, as has his colleague the member for Vancouver Centre-


An hon. Member:: Better get your constituencies straight.


Frederick George Hahn: No, I am going right through the list. They have all learned about it by now, including the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. They all know about the condition of the province and the serious unemployment problem. The same applies to the maritimes.	.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: What is Mr. Bennett doing about it?


Frederick George Hahn: We are building roads and highways and spending every available dollar in the treasury which is a lot more than this government is doing.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: What is Saskatchewan doing about it?


Frederick George Hahn: If I may continue, sir, I would add that in circumstances such as these where the Department of National Defence has had all these extra dollars appropriated to it and available in the treasury a good place to
(Mr. Hahn.]
spend that money would be in British Columbia and the maritimes and any other areas where there is a serious unemployment problem at this time in order to set those people at work producing some of the articles that are required in carrying out the defence of our country.


Henri Courtemanche: May I assume that we have now concluded the general discussion on this vote?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make. I would have made them this afternoon but unfortunately I had to be absent to attend the meeting of the external affairs committee.
First of all I must congratulate the minister on his appointment and wish him well in all he undertakes for revision. I think every one realizes that this is one of the most difficult portfolios to deal with in these most uncertain circumstances.
I was interested this morning in the minister's reference to the history of the militia, how it was based on the efforts of the pioneers to provide for their own defence and the defence of the country and how finally in the first world war it was used as the basis of the contingents that went to France. I know as far as my own constituency is concerned the units in Trail and Nelson have been kept going and training has been undertaken week after week, month after month and year after year by a few devoted persons who undertake this work under quite difficult circumstances, in some cases with little public support because of a lack of understanding and because of a degree of uncertainty as to their status in the light of developments that are likely to occur in the future.
In referring to the militia I personally prefer the term "home defence" under these circumstances and I suggested that its role should first of all be primarily home defence, second civil defence and third it should represent training to take action in the case of disaster in peacetime. I think there is a most worth-while role for the militia if training is undertaken along those three lines and that type of training would appeal to many of the younger men who would be willing to join the militia if there were training of that type.
From my experience as a result of talking to the officers, non-commissioned officers and the rank and file of the units in my district I have learned that you cannot arouse very much interest in training year after year on obsolete anti-aircraft guns which I understand were obsolete some years ago and which do not provide much outlet for interest for young men. Because that sort of training has been continued for some years it has been rather

difficult to encourage young men to join the militia in our district. I suggest that first of all you have to have local support and to have local support you must have the type of program in training which engenders that support and local interest.
I suggest that the best results for the money expended can be obtained, particularly under circumstances such as those which obtain in my area, by basic infantry training in which there is training in basic discipline and the understanding of accepting orders and working together in circumstances of emergency. In addition to that I suggest such training could be coupled with frequent manoeuvres into various parts of the district which could be undertaken at very little cost. In fact, the units in my area have undertaken weekend manoeuvres on two or three occasions under the direction of their C.O's. and they have been very successful indeed. I have talked to a lot of the young chaps who were out on these manoeuvres and they appreciated them very much because they felt they were doing something of significance. In a situation such as ours, particularly in a mountainous territory, I believe it is most necessary that we have a corps of men who are well acquainted with the country, its physical features, topography, geography and that sort of thing. In that way the militia is capable of providing a highly adequate home defence in the case of emergency.
Secondly, I think the co-relation of the work of the militia with civil defence can be accomplished with good effect. I was extremely pleased when the minister suggested something more was going to be done in that direction. In fact, if civil defence works in conjunction with the militia I believe we will have a more effective civil defence because there will be a correlation of these two groups both aiming to provide some protection for the country in emergency and in peace.
I also suggest there is an opportunity to use the militia as a group of trained persons willing to be called out to meet any civil disaster in peacetime, particularly during floods and perhaps on occasions when there are very large forest fires when some particularly large organization is required. I stress again my belief that the militia can play a continuing and worth-while role if it is based on home defence, civil defence and disaster defence and alleviation in peacetime.
I am rather parochial in my outlook in some respects because I am essentially a village lad, you know. I feel there is a great deal of value in maintaining the old district names with respect to the militia. There is not much appeal in numbers and that sort
Supply-National Defence of thing but there is a strong appeal in district names and they could be used to a greater extent in any reorganization of the militia. The Rocky Mountain Rangers were formed in the interior of British Columbia in the early days of the century and I remember the drill halls being built in Ross-land, Nelson and Kaslo-I should win the support from the Minister of Public Works in this respect-and in other places and I also recall the interest taken in the militia at that time in an entirely different world situation.
The men who were trained there, like others who were trained in the militia, formed a ready nucleus for the overseas forces during the war. The famous 54 Kootenay regiment was based on the Rocky Mountain Rangers and rendered great service during the first world war. I suggest that the Minister of National Defence would be well advised to form a Kootenay regiment in the Kootenays with platoons or companies in the various towns in question. By so doing the minister would continue the tradition that has been established since the early days of this century and would attract to the militia the sons or grandsons of men who served in the Rocky Mountain Rangers and of those who served in the Kootenay regiment and whose fathers at various times throughout the years served with the militia and the overseas battalion that was formed from it.
I do urge the minister to give some consideration to that and when he replies I would like to get his response to my suggestion in respect of naming the units in the Kootenays, the Kootenay regiment. I am not talking of the engineers or technical groups, but those who are now known as anti-aircraft regiments. I suggest changing those to an infantry regiment. I think it will create much greater interest and will be more suitable for the development of the type of training that is required in that district and will be of considerably less cost than using this heavy equipment and the training that goes with it.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: I should like to make just one or two comments on questions which again involve generalities. First of all may I also congratulate the minister and those associated with defence planning on recognizing for the first time, in some 17 years that I have any knowledge of the armed forces, the necessity for planning flexibility in view of the nature of the defence that we have to make for our country.
I would like to suggest that some of the questions that the minister is going to be confronted with, which were partially covered by his remarks, can be answered when

Supply-National Defence we come to the details of the estimates which we will be giving consideration to in just a moment. To be more specific, I would like to suggest to him that the reserve role which he outlined first of all in so far as it applies to the air force auxiliary units, one that we should have recognized some five years ago, would have to be changed. The reason he gave us was the necessity of carrying out a new role in the interests of civil defence with transport units. Perhaps a more important reason is that our weekend pilots who have done an excellent job with the auxiliary units will undoubtedly in the course of the next few years have some difficulty in flying the very fast jet aircraft on limited flying experience. But I would like to suggest to him that in so far as the use of transport aircraft, the Expediters most currently in use are not a satisfactory type, first of all because of their operational limitations. I would like to suggest to him that the Dakota, which has been the workhorse of the transport units in regular squadrons these past years, should replace the Expediter.
In so far as the reserve militia unit is concerned, I think that most of those who served in the militia, or those in this house who served in the militia, recognize as one member said that certain of our artillery pieces of equipment such as the 25-pounder, while it may be out of date, does nevertheless provide us with the firing power which if used in larger scale operations, will give us the elementary training that we require. What I do suggest to the minister and his department is that while there may be some reduction in the application of reserve units to either fighter squadrons, auxiliary units, transport units or artillery, the militia units, integrated as they may be, and although we may not give them the time with the permanent units at reserve camps as formerly, we should not in any way reduce the number of permanent force liason officers who are associated with them. Otherwise, the basic training which our militia units must carry out with two objects in view, namely replacements in permanent units and association with civil defence, will not be achieved. That purpose can only be carried out with a fairly high level and a very efficient group of permanent force officers who during the past years have been associated with the various regiments.
I do not think we should concern ourselves too much so long as we maintain the high level of training standards which the reserve units are experiencing today. This, of course, can be seriously limited if we do in any

way reduce the association with the permanent units who have assisted with the training in the past.
I should like to say a word to the minister on the long-term suggested plan of integrating some of the common ancillary forces with the permanent forces. I heard an hon. member of the C.C.F. party to my extreme right suggest today that perhaps we should integrate the forces as an entity, not just the ancillary sections, that is to say, administrative, medical or police. I would like to remind the minister and that hon. gentleman who made the suggestion that that is an experience that has been tried by every armed force in the world today and it has failed. I think the identity of the three services is essential. I think what might perhaps be regarded as a trial effort would be to use a common medical service, a common police service and a common accounting service. I think there are actually about six other units which, from the standpoint of the service to the main forces, could be incorporated on a basis which would indeed be of great assistance in saving money in the economy of our permanent forces.
I would like to make a reference to the comment of the minister which suggested that we will have in our permanent force a balanced brigade-three of them, I think. This is something which the armed forces have required for some time. We saw the rather regrettable situation when the emergency force was required for the United Nations. The regiment which was based in Calgary had to steal or beg from whatever source it could and from ancillary units to make up a complete composite brigade. The senior officers of both the air force and the army have maintained for some time that if a brigade is to operate efficiently it must train with its ancillary services, so that they can go into action immediately without having hurried wires or messages sent around the country to make it complete. I think it important, too, in the training of our permanent forces that we carry out as many integrated exercises with the United States forces as it is possible to do. Anyone in this house who suggests that because of integrated training we will become involved in an argument of national security or that the sovereignty of our country is endangered does not recognize the very practical and useful experiences that past exercises have given our own forces. I think the incorporation of our two units, that is to say the common forces, the permanent forces of the United States and Canada, as we are today trying to unify the continental command of the air force, will prove highly beneficial to say the least.

I would like to suggest to the minister that in defence planning as a whole the air members of the air force, again in recognition of the necessity of having a continental defence plan, should meet regularly with their counterparts in order to determine whether the use of our forces-and I refer specifically to aircraft now-is in the best interests of continental defence planning.
We have heard a great deal about the 105. It has been said that within the next five years it will no longer be considered to be a top flight aircraft. It has been said by the best known authorities on modern aircraft, and I am not referring particularly to those who may be in Canada, that it still will surpass anything on the drawing boards today. But even accepting that to be so, I believe that almost immediately we are going to have to give consideration to a new prototype which will provide not necessarily greater speed but greater range. I believe that the air members already carrying out planning duties can best do this in cooperation with the United States air force.
I should like to say a word to the hon. member for Kingston who was so concerned about the problem of filing a flight plan, the identifying of aircraft on radar screens and the time lag that might occur. If the hon. member was at all familiar with the procedure he would realize that it takes only a split second to pick up an aircraft on the screen and have fighter aircraft intercept before an enemy plane reaches the coast, and he would not be nearly so alarmed.
Finally, I should like to say this to the minister. Having regard to the white paper produced by Britain in July of last year, I believe, I think the Canadian government can take credit for the fact that so far as planning for defence is concerned the years ahead, as the minister himself said, have taken a somewhat different trend. It seems to me that this is the first attempt by any government to recognize that a change in the nature as we have planned here to take place involves not only the altered role of our militia units but our contribution to the continental defence of Canada and also, of course, to NATO. I believe that this is a very fine department of government, one into which a great deal of planning has gone, and I hope the minister will take into consideration the questions I have put before him.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman-


Henri Courtemanche: Order. Shall we now
proceed to the consideration of the several headings under this item?
Supply-National Defence


Mr.   Siuari@Charlolie: No, I want to say a few words before we proceed with the details. I can assure you that I will be brief. I was attending committees this afternoon and was not able to be in the house for that reason. I am not aware if anyone from the province of New Brunswick has brought up the matter to which I wish to refer. I know the minister has received petitions from towns and cities in New Brunswick and from many different organizations in that province protesting the closing of camp Utopia in my own county and the curtailing of a great deal of the activity which has been carried on at camp Gagetown.
Camp Utopia, which was established in Charlotte county in 1941, has been in use every year since that time. It is true it is a small camp but I believe the minister was misinformed when he was told that it was in poor condition. I have been there several times this year, last year and the year before and I find it is kept in very good repair and is an excellent camp. Those who go there year after year are very pleased with the surroundings. There would only be 70, 80 or 90 local people employed there but this is an area where employment is greatly needed and the closing of the camp only added to the unemployment. The camp was of great benefit particularly to the eastern part of the county, the town of St. George and one or two other smaller places. It was appreciated by one and all and as it has been in operation continuously since 1941 I regret very much that the minister decided it was necessary to close it at this time.
Camp Gagetown has been under construction now for several years. I know from my experience and the discussions I have had with officials of the Department of National Defence that the particular site was selected in order to give the province of New Brunswick an additional payroll which was greatly needed. It has been estimated that the payroll at camp Gagetown would be approximately $15 million a year. I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs will agree with me when I say that payroll was needed in our province. The people there had come to depend on it. They felt they had a permanent establishment which would provide that type of payroll for many years to come.
When the people were notified recently by the Minister of National Defence that activity at camp Gagetown would be greatly curtailed during the coming year, in fact that the number of troops would be cut from 10,000 to 4,000, it was a most alarming thing to the people of that area, particularly in our capital city of Fredericton, in Saint John

Supply-National Defence and the larger towns. It was a great shock to all of us. I might add that it was most noticeable that there was no curtailing of the service in Nova Scotia. The military establishments in that province will carry on as they have in the past. I shall only appeal to the minister to reconsider the decision he has made. I can assure him that we in the province of New Brunswick are greatly in need of the assistance which was provided by camp Gagetown. Up to now that camp has cost close to $100 million. The building program, which was well under way, could have been completed in a short time, but it has also been curtailed.


Mr. Kennedy:: May I correct the hon. member for Charlotte? He just made the statement that there had been no curtailment of troop establishments in Nova Scotia. Is he not aware that the third R.C.H.A. has been moved to camp Gagetown from camp Debert within the last few weeks?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No, I was not aware of that fact. In the petitions I believe reference was made to the fact that there had been no changes made in the province of Nova Scotia. However, if some part of the army has moved from Nova Scotia to camp Gagetown I feel that is no more than right because at camp Gagetown we have the most modern camp to be found in any part of Canada. I can see no reason why activity there should be curtailed in any way in order to be able to carry on in some other part of the maritime provinces or anywhere within reasonable distance of camp Gagetown which is a modern camp from every standpoint.
I am sure that particular site was selected in order to give New Brunswick a little shot in the arm because it was greatly needed. At this very moment there is a great deal of unemployment there. In my own county not only did we lose camp Utopia but just a couple of months before the closing of that camp we lost a textile mill in Milltown on the international border which had been there for 70 years with the result that about 450 people were out of work. That area today is declared to be a surplus area so far as employment is concerned.
I well remember when there was so much criticism of the suggestion in the Gordon report that those who were not able to make a living in the maritimes could be moved to other areas at government expense. Those who sat in the opposition at that time said that it was a dreadful thing for Mr. Gordon to even consider such an idea. But I note that today those sitting on the government side of the house are prepared to furnish


cash to move these people to some other area. But the question today is, where can they go to find employment? There is a lot of unemployment in all parts of Canada. Before I resume my seat I ask the minister to reconsider the decision he has made and secure a little more knowledge closer to that source because the present situation is a great disappointment to the people there and will cause a great deal more unemployment than we have now. We had depended on camp Gagetown to provide employment and I feel it is a camp that should be maintained permanently at full capacity.


George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps I might clear up this point now with regard to camp Gagetown, camp Utopia and the other camps in the Atlantic provinces. As the hon. member will know, camp Gagetown was started two or three years ago with the intention of building permanent barracks for approximately a brigade group. There is no change whatever in that plan and we are moving troops into camp Gagetown just as quickly as we can get the accommodation made.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: At that point may I ask the minister a question?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Did he not make a statement a short time ago that rather than having 10,000 troops in Gagetown in 1958, we would have only 4,000?


George Randolph Pearkes: The hon. member is confusing those permanently stationed in camp Gagetown and those which are moved in for a short period of summer training. In the past few years there have been troops moved even from as far as British Columbia to camp Gagetown for a short period of summer training in order that they might train as a division. In the coming year it is not the intention to continue that divisional training but there will be troops training in Gagetown and there will be troops permanently stationed in Gagetown. There will be no reduction in the numbers which will eventually be placed in Gagetown. These troops will be moved from the other Atlantic provinces into Gagetown just as quickly as we can get the accommodation made, particularly the married men's accommodation. If we are moving troops into Gagetown as was originally planned-and that was a decision made not by me but by the previous administration-of course we have to move troops from Utopia also into Gagetown and that has already taken place. But we are looking into the question of Utopia to see whether some other use cannot be made of that camp.

While I am on my feet perhaps I might clear up one or two other points. The hon. member for New Westminster asked whether all the positions detailed under administration were always filled. No; they are not always filled. There is a constant review to see whether or not all these positions are necessary.
Then there was the question of armouries. The whole question of the accommodation for the militia or the reserve forces is under investigation. As I pointed out this morning, before the war we had some 4,000 regulars and about the same number of militia as we have today. Now we have 49,000 regulars and they are serving for a period of three years and then the great majority of them go into civilian life. Hence there is being built up a reserve of well trained men. Hence it is necessary to take a look at the whole question of militia accommodation or armouries as they are sometimes referred to. As soon as a complete survey has been made, the armouries which need replacing will be given consideration and will be proceeded with in those localities where they are most urgently needed.
I should like to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West for his very constructive suggestions with regard to the unit in his area. I should like to assure him that when we get these mobile support columns to which I referred this morning fully organized, a sub-unit will carry out one or some of the duties to which he referred. I think those are the main points.


Mr. Gardiner:: I had not intended to say anything at this stage until the minister mentioned the armouries. I had the estimates here waiting until the item was reached. However, in view of the fact that he has just mentioned the subject, I think probably I should say a word now. I do not know that there would be any reason for my saying anything were it not for the report appearing in the press this evening. I was not here this morning. I was obliged to be at the banking and commerce committee and therefore did not hear what the minister had to say. In the report that is given in this evening's Journal I notice item No. 5 says:
5. The construction program has been reviewed and a number of lower priority items have been deferred.
From previous discussions with the minister I was under the impression, and have so conveyed the message to those at Melville where one of those armouries was intended to be constructed, that the whole plan was under consideration, and I would so understand from the remarks just made. But this report would give the impression that only
Supply-National Defence some of them have been deferred and that they will be considered, and dealt with, I presume, at a later date. I was wondering whether the minister would make a further statement with regard to the proposed armoury at Melville so that it will be more clearly understood by the people there.
Before sitting down I want to join with the others who have congratulated the minister upon having taken over the ministry of defence recently. There is perhaps no one in the house who has had a wider experience in the armed forces of Canada than has the present minister. For that reason many of those on the prairies who have been associated with him will wish me to congratulate him upon having attained his present position.


George Randolph Pearkes: I thank the right hon. member for Melville for his kind remarks. May I say how much I appreciate his interest in the local militia unit at Melville. Earlier in this session he brought to my attention the need for an armoury in that town. As our review is not yet complete I am not yet in a position to say whether or not we are going to go ahead this year with that armoury.


Stanley Howard Knowles: listened with interest to the minister's remarks this morning, particularly that portion of them which dealt with a matter concerning which we have been trying to get information both here and in another place. When I say "another place", I do not mean the place that is usually referred to in that way but rather the meetings of the committee on external affairs. As I say, I listened to what the minister said this morning about the North American Air Defence command. I am fully aware of the positive assurances that have been given to us that the civilian authority is in ultimate control so far as NORAD is concerned. I am aware of the fact that in due course there may be something in the nature of an exchange of notes on an agreement between this country and the United States that can be made public. In other words, I am not asking the minister to go over the ground that he has been over several times. But it seems to some of us that there are one or two points concerning which we have the right to have information now. These are questions which have been asked here and they have also been asked in the committee on external affairs, but some of us feel that we have not yet been given the answers.
We understand that Air Marshall Slemon has been appointed deputy commander in chief of the Canada-United States air defence command by order in council P.C. 1957/1033 of July 31, 1957. What concerns some of us is the legal constitution of that air defence

Supply-National Defence command. It is one thing to appoint an officer to a position in a command, but how did the command get constituted? We should also like to know the basis on which General Partridge was appointed to be commander in chief of that same Canada-United States air defence command.
So far as Canada is concerned, the only documents we have with regard to this matter are the order in council to which I have just referred and the joint press release put out by the minister and his counterpart in the United States on August 1. These two documents are contained in sessional paper 183 and I would like to ask if the minister knows of any similar documents in the United States appointing General Partridge to his position, or constituting this joint air command? As the minister knows, when General Norstad was in Ottawa speaking to the press and at various places, he made it clear that his authority as a military commander in Europe was derived from the NATO council. In other words, the military was under the civil authority. We know how that authority, namely the NATO council is constituted, and what we are trying to get is the corresponding information regarding the North American air defence command. We know who are the supreme and deputy commanders; they are General Partridge and Air Marshal Slemon. We know that they have been appointed to the command and we have documents telling us about their appointment, but we have no documents telling us about the constituting of the command itself.
Now let me be very frank with the minister and say that these are questions we asked this afternoon in the committee on external affairs and we were told that they were really questions which should be addressed to the Department of National Defence. I hope the minister of this department will not send us back to the other department again. We feel that it is desirable to have this matter cleared up.
The minister has made it clear today, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the civil authority is in control but we would like to know the constitutional or legal basis of that civil control over the Canada-United States joint air defence command.


George Randolph Pearkes: I would say that this legal control to which the hon. member has referred will be definitely drawn up and included in the formal note by which we set up this air command. We considered it desirable that the two commanders, General Partridge and Air Marshal Slemon, get together and get working as a team, to discuss this matter between themselves and refer back to their respective governments. The actual formal

note is agreed upon when all the details have been worked out and there will be no doubt that the authority will rest with the civil governments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
it fair to assume then, in view of the importance of that formal note between the two governments, that it will be drawn in such terms-in other words, leaving out the elements of security-so that the note may be tabled here and also tabled in the appropriate place in the United States?


George Randolph Pearkes: I would hope that that would be the case. I say I would hope because naturally we are dealing with another government and we would have to get the consent of that government before tabling it. So I say I would hope it would be drawn up in such terms that there would be no doubt that it could be tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can
the minister say on what legal basis the civil side of this set-up is operating at the present time, that is between now and the time this formal note is agreed upon?


George Randolph Pearkes: As I have said, they are operating on an interim basis now, under which the two commanders get together, draw up their plans both for the relationship between the command and the governments and also with respect to operational plans. However, I hope it will not be long before the formal note is completed and we will be able to give the hon. member full details on this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am sorry if I do not seem to have grasped this as perhaps the minister thinks I should have done. I realize he has told me these two commanders are working together and drawing up plans. We have also been told that in the event of an emergency at the present time one or the other of them, on a certain basis, could take action. Now what is the basis on which they are working together and where is the civilian authority that enables them to work together at the present time or that enables them to take action in the event of an alert from the DEW line?


George Randolph Pearkes: Well this morning I described the procedure which would take place if it was necessary to have any interception. I need not go all over that again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: But all the plans are referred to both governments and both governments are in agreement as to the interim operations of this command.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do
I gather then that these two commanders at the present time are working on the basis of interim notes between Canada and the United States, even if these interim notes are documents which cannot be tabled?


George Randolph Pearkes: No; I would say interim discussions rather than notes. There has been no passing of any formal notes at all, but there have been visits to the government of the United States. We have had officers going directly from here to Washington where the whole matter has been discussed and both countries are in agreement as to the interim basis upon which this headquarters is working and would work in a situation of emergency which we certainly hope will not occur before the formal note is exchanged.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do
I understand from what the minister has now said that any contact between Canada and the United States has been, not by note -interim or otherwise-but by way of discussions and visits. Furthermore, if visits have been made and if discussions have taken place, have they been on the civilian level, the departmental level or solely on the military level.


George Randolph Pearkes: They have been on both the departmental level and what the hon. member referred to as the civilian level through our Canadian representative, the Canadian ambassador in Washington, Mr. Norman Robertson; by the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee and by the two commanders themselves. I may say that there have been a great many discussions on this matter in the last few weeks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: will add just one more question, and I wish to be perfectly fair and say that I asked the same question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon: will he say how soon these formal notes or agreements may be completed?


George Randolph Pearkes: Early next year.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear the minister say that armouries were going to be replaced according to need. I should like to review for the minister's benefit some of the background on recent events with regard to the proposed armouries for the Irish Regiment which is a reserve unit in Vancouver.
This unit was promised a new armoury in 1914, and the promise has been renewed periodically ever since. They are presently training in a frame building which has been condemned for 20 years. The city recently completed arrangements with the Department
Supply-National Defence of National Defence and turned over to the department some 10 acres of land in the southeast corner of the city in return for three acres of a park called Grandview park owned by the Department of National Defence. It was considered that this proposed location was ill advised and unsuitable, and a fight was led to try to stop the building of the armoury at that location. The location was in the middle of a single family dwelling area. It had no public transportation; the nearest bus line would be about a quarter of a mile away, and had a frequency of service of around twice an hour. The militia was not happy with the location, but they had been waiting since 1914 and were willing to take anything.
The arrangement had been that the city of Vancouver would operate a police training academy on the same land and in buildings separate from the armoury. Eventually the police commission decided to switch the police training academy to the Pacific National Exhibition grounds and the city council reversed their plans with regard to the location of this armoury.
The present situation is that the department and the city first of all agreed on the location in an area, which, as I said, was not suitable for an armoury. Now communications have, I believe, emanated from the city to the department asking for a review of this armoury question and its location in a more suitable area.
The modern thinking with regard to an armoury is that it should be located in a well-populated area and should draw its recruits from that area. That would mean a higher priced parcel of land, because the area which has been under consideration is in an undeveloped section, very thinly settled and, in fact, the only area left in Vancouver suitable for large scale subsidized housing development, homes for pensioners and so on. The whole question involves the need to reopen communications between the department and the city so that a more suitable location may be found and the way cleared for the building of this armoury.
An armoury is required by the unit, but the present location is not suitable and I should like the minister, when he has the chance, to have his staff follow this matter up so that it does not become bogged down, and discuss with the city council the new situation which has arisen so that suitable land may be acquired and the armoury built.


William James Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask a question to clarify something in my mind. I notice that the Minister of National Defence in his reply to the hon. member for

Supply-National Defence Winnipeg North Centre stated that discussions had been carried on between Canadian and United States officials with respect to NORAD. I also note that he intimated that arrangements were made through the Canadian ambassador in Washington. Do 1 take it from his answer that the Canadian ambassador was brought into this matter in order to make appointments or arrangements for the meetings with United States officials to discuss NORAD?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, the Canadian ambassador has assisted in every way he possibly can to forward these various meetings which have taken place.


William James Henderson: Another question, Mr. Chairman. The minister asked us this morning if we would speak about as much on the general discussion as we could and I am sure we all want to co-operate and not speak too long on individual items other than those particular ones we want to ask about. The minister showed us how he spent an extra $41 million, by a $34 million increase in pay and allowances and another expenditure of $7 million on the mid-Canada line. He also stated that he had decreased spending in the department by about the equivalent amount of $41 million. I would ask the minister, in order that the members may more intelligently put a spending tag after each item, if he could give us a statement detailing his decreases in expenditure and naming the item to which each decrease would be applied. I think it will be easier for the members then to go over the items and know what they are talking about -what is still on the estimate, and if there has been a reduction what item is reduced.


George Randolph Pearkes: I gave the general area in which reductions have taken place in the remarks I made this morning. To go over every item now would take a very long time, and it would be necessary for me to have my officials here with their lists of items that have been reduced. There have been reductions made in a large number of different items.


William James Henderson: Why I ask that of the minister is that there are a multitude of items and if he could tell us ahead of time, then we would not have to ask on these items: is this item reduced. If he would provide us with this statement-surely, there will be sufficient time overnight-or if he would make some arrangement whereby we could be told what items were reduced, time might be saved. If not it might occur to some members to ask whether this or that item was reduced, and this type of statement might eliminate that type of questioning. Or we might think we have something on the estimates which the [DOT]uinister has erased altogether, because he


has not told us in particular about each item. I am sure that having reduced the estimates by $41 million he must have some kind of statement available he could attach to the various items or make an appendix to our proceedings.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, I have a statement. When we have passed this first item and can get my officials in here they have a statement which goes into more detail.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the officials are as able to come in now as at any other time during the proceedings of this committee, and I think it would facilitate progress if we had a breakdown of the $40 million to which the minister refers, because all of us, I think, are concerned about some domestic items.


George Randolph Pearkes: The hon. member will realize, of course, that there are different officials dealing with different branches-different officials dealing with the navy, the air force and the army. It is hard to get them all here around one small table.


William Moore Benidickson: I agree with the minister, but I think he will agree with me that perhaps no other department of government which presents estimates to the House of Commons has such a small number of items in relation to the dollars involved. I think, in consequence, that if he has changes to make, he could, in deference to the hon. members of this house who do not divide themselves up into categories of air force, navy and army, assist them by providing some form of breakdown of the reductions he is prepared to stand by, compared with the gross items which appear before us.


George Randolph Pearkes: I appreciate the hon. member's difficulty because I remember when I was sitting on the other side of the house I encountered exactly the same problem-


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
almost the same seat.


George Randolph Pearkes: and the hon. member will recall how we questioned the wisdom of lumping all these items into the one vote, No. 240.


William Moore Benidickson: Quite.


William James Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I was glad to hear the minister say that when he sat on this side of the house he experienced difficulty in understanding the grouping of these items into one vote. We have the situation where he has introduced his estimates and explained quite clearly how he spent $41 million. Now we would like to know the debit side of the story as to how he saved money. There may be items in the details of

the estimates involving $3,000 or $4,000 in which some hon. member might be interested and as we proceed with the estimates some of these items might have been erased altogether unknowing to the committee.
I wonder if the minister would agree to the following arrangement. If we pass the present stage of general discussion would the minister when he brings in his officials deal initially with analysing for the members of the committee those items which represent a saving and then we could start dealing with the individual items. This might have the result of shortening the discussion and having the estimates passed more quickly.


George Randolph Pearkes: I would be very pleased to do that as soon as you decide the general discussion is over.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could give the house some information concerning the total cost of developing the CF-105. I believe that is something which is public information and concerning which I have seen many figures put forward.


Charles Edward Rea: I wonder if hon. members would agree that we have concluded the general discussion and may now proceed to a consideration of the several headings under the items. Is that agreeable to hon. members?


William Moore Benidickson: Well, Mr. Chairman, there are not really several headings. If one looks at the estimates and relates $17,000 to the first vote which is statutory, and to the main vote No. 240 which is as I roughly guessed something in excess of $1,600 million, one finds there is not very much discretion for the committee in getting down to individual items. I wonder if some summary is available that would relate to differences in expenditures as proposed by the minister in relation to the four items that I think are likely to be forthcoming before this committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: I believe the hon. member was not in the house earlier today when it was decided that we would deal with the various items as listed under the details, such as the administration for the navy, army and air force; but if the committee would prefer to have item No. 240 dealt with as a whole it would be satisfactory. There has already been a wide range of discussion and I would be perfectly agreeable to that course of action. If the committee agreed, I could bring in the deputy minister and such other officials as are necessary right away.


William Moore Benidickson: Do I understand my hon. friend to say there was a commitment on the
Supply-National Defence part of the committee earlier to refer to item No. 240 in stages based on the services involved?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, that is correct.


William Moore Benidickson: That is satisfactory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be satisfactory if we followed the practice we followed in former years. Actually, in technical terms, all we have before us at the moment is item 240 for something in excess of $1,600 million but if the general discussion has been concluded could we not just let the item stand, proceed to discuss the various details beginning on page 313 and when we have concluded the several pages of details we will discuss we could come back and pass item No. 240 if the committee sees fit to do so.


Charles Edward Rea: If it is
agreeable to the committee we will discuss the details commencing on page 313.


Mr. Maltais:: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding any further perhaps I may be permitted to direct a question to the minister because I cannot relate the subject of this question to any particular item. Have there been any negotiations with the United States for the establishment or construction of launching bases here in Canada for guided missiles either jointly with Canada or from which the United States could act separately?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am afraid I did not fully
understand the hon. member's question.


Mr. Mallais:: Are any negotiations now
taking place or have any taken place concerning allowing the United States to construct launching bases for guided missiles in Canada?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, there are no guided
missile bases being built in Canada at the present time.


Peter Stefura: Mr. Chairman, in rising at
this time I would like to express agreement with much of the discussion that has taken place this afternoon but there is one point I feel we have overlooked. In any event it has been troubling me and I believe it is of concern to many people in this country.
When we look at the total estimated expenditures for national defence we find they amount to approximately $4,866 million for this year. The minister said that one-third of the tax dollar will go toward defence. This is most interesting because our taxes have increased considerably since 1949. Whereas in that year we were paying a per capita tax of $160 we find it has risen today to approximately $325 per person.

Supply-[DOT]National Defence Out of every dollar earned by people in Canada almost 25 cents goes into the federal treasury in the form of taxes. In view of this heavy taxation and our huge defence expenditures one cannot help but wonder sometimes, particularly in the light of certain press reports which appear from time to time, if we are getting our dollar's worth in terms of goods and services for every dollar we spend.
The first question I wish to direct to the minister arises from newspaper reports concerning the Mark IV and Mark V versions of the CF-100. These projects which commenced a little over a year ago have now been abandoned. I would like to know if the planes were ever completed and, if so, whether they were used for training or military purposes? Perhaps the minister could also advise me what was the cost of the Mark IV and Mark V versions of the CF-100. In asking these questions I am referring back to my original query as to whether or not we are getting our dollar's worth for every dollar we spend.
I noticed in the Toronto Star Weekly a report to the effect that the Mark VI version of the CF-100 was abandoned after the CF-105 came into being.
The question that arises is, how much work was done on the Mark VI version and how much money was spent on it? We see other items in the paper from time to time, but I have not been able to find out what the situation is at the present time. I hold in my hand an article from the Edmonton Journal of January last, which deals with the Department of National Defence. Perhaps I should read first and ask the question later. The article is headed:
Ottawa Rapped For Buying Life Insurance On Sculptor
It is a Canadian Press story from Ottawa, and reads in part as follows:
Six years ago, the defence department decided to instal underground steam distribution systems at 30 camps. Major repairs since have been necessary at 14 of these stations, chiefly because of faulty design. Original contracts at the 14 camps were worth $6 million and estimated cost of repairs came to $1,218,500.


George Randolph Pearkes: Might I suggest that we proceed in the manner which was suggested earlier? I will be able to answer all these questions when the air force representatives are present, and give the actual amount of money. If we can start with the administration service I can give the information.


Charles Edward Rea: I think the hon. member will realize that the minister can answer these questions a little easier
[Mr. Stefura.l
when we come to the air force service. We are now on departmental administration, at page 313.


Peter Stefura: I was bringing it up, Mr. Chairman, only with the idea of trying to find out whether we were getting our money's worth for every dollar spent. We all realize that defence is something that we must have. When we spend these dollars do we get our money's worth? Is there a careful enough check of these items. I will agree with the chairman. If the minister prefers to handle these things item by item I shall drop my question for the present.


George Randolph Pearkes: In answer to the question regarding reductions in departmental administration, the total reductions which have been made amount to $380,000, and that is divided into professional and special services, $202,000; travelling and removal expenses, $17,000; postage, $20,000; publication of departmental records and other material, $51,000; office stationery, supplies, equipment and furnishings, $50,000; materials and supplies, $40,000.


William Moore Benidickson: Is that all related to the summary and total on page 315?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is all related to pages 313, 314 and the first part of 315, yes.


William Moore Benidickson: So that the deduction comes from the left-hand column of page 315?


George Randolph Pearkes: The amount of $3,745,000 is reduced by $380,000.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister be able to provide the committee with some indication relative to the previous year which would show the relation between the amount asked for and the amount spent under this particular category?


Leonard T. Stick: I understand we are on item 240, with particulars on page 313. Is that it?


Charles Edward Rea: That is right.


Leonard T. Stick: You have not called it. We would like to know definitely what we are doing.


Charles Edward Rea: We are
on administration, page 313.


Chesley William Carter: I have a question.


William Moore Benidickson: I think members of the committee will understand that year by year there is sometimes a balance left, despite the vote of the committee of ways and means,

and I was wondering whether or not in the previous year the figure of $3,595,000 had been actually spent, or whether there was something underspent in that figure?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have it under different items here.


William Moore Benidickson: Just the aggregate will be sufficient.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will have to get it totalled up. I will give it to my hon. friend in a minute; it is under separate items.


Frederick George Hahn: While they are adding these figures may I say I raised a question earlier in respect of the savings of the staff which the minister was kind enough to answer; that is, the civil staff, and my argument was based on this very first item, as I recall it, as compared with the 1956 public accounts.
Now, using the same figure for the past several years I find that the same thing holds true, namely that about one-sixth of these expenditures was never used; that is, expenditures that we had provided for. In this particular instance, if the minister can assure me that we are going to come very close to spending the $3,745,000 of the estimate I would be prepared to agree and say, well, that is just fine; but it is only an estimation of the dollars that are required to carry on administration. I find it difficult to reconcile my thought with economy in the operations of the department.
In this instance, I take the civil staff alone and I work it out on the basis of $2,952,000, as indicated on page 314. On that basis we would have another saving of about half a million dollars if the department were not to employ all of the civil staff which they indicate they are going to employ. I might say that by using the white sheets and the figures submitted therein I find we would have a grand total saving of $28 million in this department alone. I find that just the same percentage of expenditure is carried throughout. For that reason, the minister should certainly take another look at this particular item and give me a more conclusive answer in order to satisfy me.
Mr. Pearke<u As I indicated, in this item we expect to save, from the present indications, $380,000. There may be further savings, but I can assure the hon. member that we will not be employing any personnel for whom there is not the necessary work. If you ask why there happens to be these savings, of course, I must refer to the fact that there was a general election last summer. Because of that, some of those appointments could not be filled at the time. There were certain professional and special services which
Supply-National Defence could not be proceeded with because there was no government, there was no authority to perform these services. I hope that by watching this very carefully we shall be able to save some more money before the end of the year. But it is necessary to employ the majority of these people. Remember a great many of them are permanent civil servants. Therefore, you cannot just turn them out on the streets in the middle of winter, and we have no intention of doing that.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I listened very closely to what the minister had to say and he has not answered my argument at all. In fact, we are farther apart on this than we were before. In 1955 there was no general election and in 1956 we appropriated the sum of $3,494,080, as indicated on page N-4 of the public accounts for that year.
The actual expenditure was $2,963,000. That was just for administration. The fact is that the saving apparently arose because we did not have as many on the civil staff as had been appropriated for. The same thing held true the year before and the year before that and I do not think elections had anything to do with it. It does not seem to have anything to do with it in view of the comparative figures as I go through the public accounts from one department to another. I must say I have been doing some homework. For that reason I say that with respect to administration the department could apparently save $28 million in civil staff wages alone.
I do know the minister indicated that there was going to be a reduction of $380,000 and I think he broke it down into postage, $20,000, and so on, but he did not indicate anything with respect to the civil staff and there must be some considerable saving there. I have a great deal of faith in the minister. I have known him for a number of years and I am satisfied he will look into the matter before another year but it is a matter of great concern. I am satisfied in my own mind, and it has not been proven otherwise up to now, that we are overestimating the dollars we require for the civil staff. It is not that we are going to have any more unemployed because I am not suggesting we should get rid of anybody. It is just that we are appropriating funds for civil staff and then never filling all the positions.


George Randolph Pearkes: All I can say to that is that there is a constant review of the requirements going on. That practice has been in effect for years and it is still being continued. I hope that when the next estimates, which will be prepared by the present government,

Supply-National Defence are presented next year they will show that the same practice is continuing.


Chesley William Carter: There is one matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and it would seem that this would be the appropriate item on which to raise it. It has to do with the Canadian volunteer service medal. Many Newfoundland veterans have applied for this medal and have not been successful. They have based their application on legislation which provides that active service by a person in any of the naval or army forces of 'Newfoundland or by a person who was recruited in Newfoundland for any naval, army or air forces raised in Newfoundland by or on behalf of the United Kingdom shall be deemed to be active service in the Canadian forces. It is the provision that servicemen recruited in the Newfoundland forces would be deemed to be on active service in the Canadian forces on which these men have based their application for the Canadian war service medal.
I do not know if the minister is familiar with the problem but if he is not I would be grateful if he would look into it and see if something cannot be done about awarding the medal to these Newfoundland veterans as many of them had four or five years overseas service.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will be very pleased to look into the matter.


William James Henderson: On page 315 I notice that the vote for 1956-57 was $3,595,000. Was that amount all spent?


William Moore Benidickson: That was my question before.


George Randolph Pearkes: That information I now have. The estimate was $3,595,000 and of that amount $3,063,830 was actually spent.


William Moore Benidickson: In other words, the minister, well on into the present year, is able to tell the committee that he thinks that in 1957-58 he will likely spend less than the $3,745,000 asked for to the extent of $380,000. Last year under similar circumstances the committee was asked for $3,595,000 and at the end of the year the department had not used the full amount. In fact, they were under it by considerably more than the $380,000 on which the minister has placed so much emphasis in the committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: The hon. member will no doubt recall that all wages of civil servants were increased just before the last government retired.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Can the minister tell us the total number of civilians employed by the Department of National

Defence? I have thumbed through the various pages and I have great difficulty in adding the figures. Has a compilation been made of the number?


George Randolph Pearkes: The total strength as of October 31, 1957, was 51,941.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I want to be deferential to the minister because he was always very courteous when he was on this side and we were discussing these matters. On the other hand, I know that some modest increases have been provided in departmental salaries, but am I right in thinking that on a comparable basis $532,000, although asked for in 1956-57, was not used by the department and that this is comparable to the $380,000 which the minister claims is in the nature of a saving and which he referred to, I believe, as being by reason of the election?


George Randolph Pearkes: I did not refer to it as being by reason of the election. What I meant was that some of these appointments could not be filled during the changeover period between the two governments, but the reason why there is not a larger saving is the increases to all civil servants. This is the estimate at this time. Perhaps it may go a little higher. We cannot tell. I do not suppose that in a similar period last year any more definite information could have been given.


William Moore Benidickson: In other words, the minister wants the whole amount put in the estimates by the previous administration. He is simply telling the committee that he rather expects the windfall to the treasury at the end of the year will be $380,000 which will not be spent although in the previous year the similar windfall going back to the treasury unspent under similar items was $532,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: There was not the same increase in civilian salaries as has been made this time. As I say, my estimate at this time is that there will be a saving of the amount I have mentioned.


William Moore Benidickson: There is a cushion in the amount you are asking, in what we may vote, which you estimate will be $380,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: We are absorbing the
increase in the salaries. In spite of that, may I say that after a review which was made a year ago on which these estimates were based, on the saving that had been made by not being expended, we still are hoping to be able to save $380,000.


William Moore Benidickson: Not save $380,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: Not spend $380,000.


William Moore Benidickson: You are spending less than you are asking us to vote at the present time by $380,000 but in the previous year the committee voted $3,595,000. Under this item the department actually spent $532,000 less than the committee voted under similar circumstances.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall this heading carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In the departmental administration-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. May I ask the hon. member whether he wants to speak on inspection services or departmental administration.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Departmental administration. On page 314 you have some librarians listed. Where is the librarian grade 5 employed?


George Randolph Pearkes: At the national defence
library in Ottawa.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Where is the listing for the librarian in the Royal Military College in this particular estimate?


George Randolph Pearkes: You will find that under the army estimates.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall this heading carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall I proceed to the next item?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Edward Rea: The next heading is inspection services.


William James Henderson: We have about five minutes to go. I wonder whether at this stage the minister could give us the same information ahead that he gave on the above item so that we might have it overnight and it might be reported in Hansard. Then probably we could go a little bit faster tomorrow in reviewing these items.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. Under this item of inspection services there is a total of $1,431,267 which it is not expected to spend. We have reduced the amount of inspection services which have been carried out because it appeared that in some cases the inspectors were doing similar work to that being carried out by service officers; and with the general reduction in the construction work which is being carried out there has not been the need for as many inspectors.


William Moore Benidickson: The saving was what?


George Randolph Pearkes: 

Supply-National Defence


William Moore Benidickson: Actually we would want to know similarly what was the underspending in relation to the vote of parliament on this item for the year 1956-57.


George Randolph Pearkes: It so happens that the savings are shown by the various sub-items and the expenditures of last year are shown under the various sub-items. It would be necessary to go through the book and add those items up before I could give you the total savings.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. My hon. friend will give that information to the committee later in relation to this item which he quotes of $1,431,267?


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall be pleased to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This question may have been answered previously. If so, I trust the minister will pardon me for repeating it. I gather that the saving to which he has just referred in connection with this item and the saving to which he referred in connection with the previous heading and the others that will come along are the figures that add up to the $41 million to which he referred in his general remarks?


George Randolph Pearkes: They will add up approximately to that $41 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
question is this. Is the minister asking for the total amount of vote No. 240 to be reduced by $41 million?


George Randolph Pearkes: No; because we have had to absorb the increases in pay to the regular forces, the reserve forces and the additional cost of the mid-Canada line to which I referred in my remarks this morning. We are therefore asking for the full total, although I have hopes that by the end of the year we will not have spent the full amount which is being asked for.


William Moore Benidickson: I think the minister, when he talks in terms of changes and when he uses his own words since the election, will see why we should like to see something specific about these matters. I wonder whether it would not commend itself to him if overnight he would ask his officials to prepare for us some breakdown of the $41 million so that this breakdown would be available to the committee tomorrow, particularly as it relates to this item 240, or is that the number of it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Item 240 is the big item.


William Moore Benidickson: As it relates to the big item 240. We have just gone through a

Supply-National Defence section in which we have found that underspending in relation to the voting of parliament on the departmental administration item of $380,000 was actually considerably less than the underspending a year ago in relation to the same item. I wonder whether that work could not be done by the minister in order to save this rather tedious procedure in committee as we are examining the details.


George Randolph Pearkes: This morning I gave the general reduction, as the hon. member recalls. I pointed out what were the increases in military pay and allowances. Then I went on to explain where the reductions were made. I said that no supplementary estimate would be asked to cover these expenditures. Then I went on to use these words:
As a result of this review, a number of decisions have been taken which will reduce expenditures. Savings are being made in the operating costs of all three services. A decision has been taken to discontinue the bureau of current affairs.
There will be a definite saving there. I reduced the amount of advertising by one-third. My recollection is that the advertising is shown as somewhere about $2 million, so one-third of that will be shown. I have curtailed travelling expenses in all the services; that is the movement of personnel, the changes in station, visiting and that sort of thing. Then I went on to the question of construction of buildings and showed where there would be savings there and so forth. I gave the main item.


William Moore Benidickson: Quite so. I can understand that and I will read it. But on the other hand I think the minister will follow the progress of the committee and realize that now we are referring to the details of services and inasmuch as we have just completed a discussion under the heading of "Departmental Administration" and have some understanding of that, and as he has now gone only half-way to providing information on the second item in this new section under which he said he anticipates spending less than is mentioned on the estimates by $1,431,000, and inasmuch as we want to relate that figure to the previous year when the total asked for was $10,105,000 and ask how much was underspent that year, what I was saying was simply this: Could the minister and his staff overnight not carry out that procedure under all these categories before the committee sits again?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


George Randolph Pearkes: We shall have a look at it and see whether we can produce the figures for the hon. member.
Progress reported.


Mr. John Palleil (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the leave of the house to revert to presenting reports of standing and select committees?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member the leave of the house so to do?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Pallett.

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what is the business of the house for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we intend to commence with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, to consider them during the morning and afternoon and then in the evening we shall take up the estimates of the Department of Finance.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask if it is the intention of the Minister of Finance to give a financial statement at eight o'clock?


Howard Charles Green: Well I am afraid the hon. member will have to refer back to the statement already made on that point by the Minister of Finance himself.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I just ask for further information. It is customary in the house to deliver a budget address at eight o'clock and we have been told there will be no budget, so I take it that since the Minister of Finance is beginning his estimates at eight o'clock he will be making some sort of statement to which I take it we are entitled. Does it follow from that that this will be the statement that will have to do with taxes and tax reductions?


Howard Charles Green: I think the hon. member may take it that the Minister of Finance will be making such a statement.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what will be the business for Saturday?


Howard Charles Green: We shall probably continue with the estimates of the Department of Finance and, if not, with those of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the leader of the house realizes that a somewhat anomalous position seems to be developing. If the Minister of Finance is intending to make what might be described as a budget speech in presenting the first item of his estimates tomorrow, surely that is running directly counter to all of the traditions of this house with regard to budgetary discussion and also the usual adjournment-


Mr. Monleiih:: Better than by radio.


George Carlyle Marler: -in order to discuss the subject of the budget and in order for the figures to be presented by the minister for consideration.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the same point has been raised before on several occasions and has been quite thoroughly debated in the house. I can make no further statement on it this evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question of the minister. Do we
Business of the House
understand that these tax changes that the minister will be announcing tomorrow night will be announced in the committee of supply rather than in the house with Mr. Speaker in the chair?


Howard Charles Green: I said, Mr. Speaker, that I thought the Minister of Finance would be making a statement when he opened his estimates. Further than that I cannot go.


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

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

Mr. Cardin: 1.	To whom were the contracts for the construction of the railway line from Beattyville to Chibougamau awarded?
2.	By whom were the contracts executed?
3.	Who were the supervising engineers?
4.	What was the cost per mile for the construction of the railway line between Beattyville and Chibougamau?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	Section from Beattyville to Bachelor lake-La Societe d'Entreprises Generates Li-mitee, Amos, Quebec, for clearing, grading, culverts, trestles, substructures of bridges, etc.
Section from Bachelor lake to Chibougamau -Albert Lemieux Limited, Montreal, Quebec, for clearing, grading, culverts, trestles, substructures of bridges, etc.
2.	Contracts were executed by the authorized officers of the railway company and the respective contractors.
3.	Supervision of the work was carried out under the general direction of Mr. W. E. Griffiths, chief engineer, central region, Canadian National Railways, Toronto, and his officers.
4.	Although this line is now in operation, all contract work is not fully completed; therefore, actual cost per mile cannot be finally determined at this time.


RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION, CHIBOUGAMAU-ST. FELICIEN
Mr. Cardin: 1.	To whom were the contracts for the construction of the railway line from Chibougamau to St. Felicien awarded?
2.	What was the cost per mile for the construction of the railway line between Chibougamau and St. Felicien?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	Section from St. Felicien to Lac Chi-goubiche-joint venture-Therrien Construction Co. Ltd., and McNamara Construction Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, for clearing, grading, culverts, trestles, substructures of bridges, etc.
Section from Lac Chigoubiche to Cache lake (Cache lake is the junction point with the line from Beattyville to Chibougamau) -
Ludger Le Page and Fils Ltd., of St. Felicien, Quebec, for clearing.
La Societe cl'Entreprises Generates Limitee, Amos, Quebec, for grading, culverts, trestles and substructures of bridges.
2.	This work will not be completed for some time; therefore cost per mile cannot be determined until all the work is completed.


C.M.H. FORECLOSURES, SASK.
Mr. Ellis: 1.	How many foreclosure actions have been instituted by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation within the province of Saskatchewan up to November 1, 1957?
2.	What was the amount in arrears in each case when foreclosure action was commenced by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
(1)	Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has instituted six actions to terminate agreements for sale in the province of Saskatchewan up to November 1, 1957. No foreclosure actions have been instituted on mortgages in the province of Saskatchewan up to November 1, 1957.
(2)	The arrears in each case where action was instituted to terminate the agreement for
sale amounted to:
Date action instituted	Total
June, 1955	 $388.00
June, 1955	 393.64
August, 1956	 256.00
February, 1957	 280.00
April, 1956	 228.80
May, 1956	 199.00
The arrears represented from five to eleven monthly payments. All agreements were reinstated upon payment of the arrears with the exception of one case which is still pending.


WINTER NAVIGATION STUDIES, LAKEHEAD
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Have any preliminary studies been made of the problems in keeping the Canadian lakehead harbours open through the winter?
2.	If so, could such studies be summarized to indicate the feasibility of the matter?
3.	To the government's knowledge, have American authorities made any studies or plans with regard to the possibility of keeping the American Soo locks open in the winter?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	The department has continually under review the question of improved methods of dealing with winter navigation in Canada. Programs involved range from development of icebreaking capabilities to studies of various technical experiments. All of these are of general applicability rather than related to any one port. In the case of the lakehead, the next most useful step will be the experience gained when the department's new great

lakes vessel, which is being built to icebreaker standards, comes into service and is available at the lakehead for use, in about 12 to 18 months' time.
2.	Answered by No. 1 above.
3.	It is understood that the United States authorities have performed a number of experiments regarding the keeping of the locks open under winter conditions, but the department is not aware of any definite decisions or plans by the United States authorities to keep the United States locks open for any specific winter period.


DREDGING WORK, LOWER FRASER RIVER
Mr. Hahn: 1.	Was certain dredging work carried out on the lower Fraser river between Tree island and the mainland (north side) or Lulu island during the past summer? If so, who authorized the work?
2.	Was there a time limit on the project? If so, what date was the work to commence and terminate?
3.	What was the purpose of the project?
4.	Has the work been completed according to plan? If not, what is its present position?
5. Where were the dredging spoils from this project deposited, and by whose direction?
6.	Has such fill material any monetary value in this area? If so, how much was received from its sale?
7.	Was any crown land, either provincial or federal, requiring fill within a convenient deposit distance of this project?
8.	Was any payment offered on a quantity basis for dredging spoils deposited on private land within dumping distance of this project at anv time since February 1, 1957? If so, who made the offer and on what terms?
Answer by:	Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Dredging was carried out on the lower Fraser river between Tree island and the north side of Lulu island. This work was carried out by plant owned by the Department of Public Works who authorized the work.
2.	This project was part of the schedule of work to be done by dredge P.W.D. No. 322 during the 1957 dredging season and no fixed dates were established for commencement or completion.
3.	The purposes of this project are to block the upper end of the channel between Tree and Lulu islands and thus reduce dredging in the main channel above the block; to dredge out and improve the channel between Tree and Lulu islands below the block for all the holders of riparian rights adjacent to it.
4.	Work has been virtually completed according to plan.
5.	The spoil from this project was deposited in the provincial crown land located in the channel between the end of Tree island and Lulu island. Some surplus spoil was deposited on private land located adjacent to this spoil area.
Questions
6.	The spoil has no monetary value in so far as the federal government is concerned and the spoil was not sold.
7.	Provincial crown land requiring fill located in the channel between Tree island and Lulu island was used as a spoil area. Some surplus spoil was placed on private land adjacent to this crown land.
8.	No payment was offered on a quantity basis for dredging spoils deposited on private land within a distance that could be serviced by equipment owned by the Department of Public Works.


UNEMPLOYMENT REGISTRATIONS, TERREBONNE COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Raymond: How many persons are registered as unemployed at the unemployment offices at St. Jerome, Ste. Agathe des Monts and Ste. Therese, county of Terrebonne, at the present time?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):
The number of persons registered for employment at local offices of the unemployment insurance commission at St. Jerome, Ste. Agathe des Monts and Ste. Therese at November 21, 1957, the latest date for which information is available, are as follows:
St. Jerome	 1,085
Ste. Agathe des Monts	 572
Ste. Therese	 1,091


STE. AGATHE DES MONTS  WHARF
Mr. Raymond: 1.	Has a site been acquired for the building of a wharf in the town of Ste. Agathe des Monts, county of Terrebonne?
2.	If not, are there any negotiations going on between the town of Ste. Agathe des Monts and the federal government at the present time, in this regard?
Answer by: Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	No.
2.	No.


NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. Holowach: 1.	In terms of dollars, what is the present position of the federal government of Canada respecting
(a)	gross national debt including all liabilities;
(b)	public debt in terms of per capita liability?
2.	Since its inception, what is the total amount of interest that has been paid on the nation's debt?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	At March 31, 1957:
(a) $18,326,200,000; (b) 1,106.79.
2.	To March 31, 1957:


$9,924,493,432. HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 6, 1957

(Translation):