1958-01-04

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister and leader of the house whether it is the intention of the government to declare a parliamentary recess during the days when the Liberal convention is being held.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: I did not realize that the hon.
member was so anxious to attend the Liberal convention. I am hoping it will be possible to make some arrangement among the parties so there will be no unnecessary interference with the business of the house or, for that matter, with the business of the convention.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour but in his absence possibly his parliamentary assistant could deal with it. Has the minister received a request from the united fishermen and allied workers' union or from any other source for an investigation into the alleged inefficiency of the unemployment insurance offices at Vancouver in processing claims for benefits as reported in the Prince Rupert Daily News on December 23 and, if so, what action has been taken or is contemplated?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour and his parliamentary assistant I will take the question as notice and see that it is brought to the minister's attention for an early reply.



MATTAWA, ONT.    REQUEST FOR OPENING OF OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Labour this morning, but in his absence and also in 96698-180J
the absence of his parliamentary assistant perhaps the Acting Prime Minister might take it as notice. In view of the recent sharp increase in unemployment in the town of Mattawa, and in view of the inconvenience that is being experienced there under the special circumstances that exist, I wonder whether the minister would give immediate consideration to the opening of an unemployment insurance commission office in that town?


Howard Charles Green: We shall be glad to take that question as notice.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister ask the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to arrange for the televising in the maritime provinces of the Yvon Durelle and Anthony boxing match to be held January 10 in the United States? Yvon Durelle is a New Brunswicker, and the people in the areas covered by television stations are most anxious to view this match.


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to draw the attention of the C.B.C. to the hon. gentleman's question, but in view of the fact that the microwave connection will not be completed until February 2 it may be that there would be some difficulty in arranging for an instantaneous broadcast of that fight.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the minister draw to the attention of the corporation the fact that the people in the maritimes received live television coverage of the world series and other events in Canada even though the microwave connection was not complete.


George Clyde Nowlan: Certainly. I arranged for that to be done because it was a matter of national interest. If the microwave had been installed as soon as it should have been the maritimes would now be receiving such broadcasts, but in view of the fact that there has been some delay it will be impossible before February 2. Nevertheless I will certainly draw the attention of the corporation to the matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry
SHIPPING	LABOUR CONDITIONS



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER  OPERATION OF ICE- BREAKERS NEAR THREE RIVERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a question. Can the minister tell the house when the icebreakers of the Department of Transport will begin their usual course upstream from Three Rivers?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The three icebreakers at present operating in that area will operate north of Three Rivers as soon as ice conditions require their movement north. It is expected that at least one of them will be moving north in the very near future, but just exactly at what hour or on what day my department is not quite sure. However, I am assured that as soon as ice conditions warrant the icebreakers will move north of Three Rivers.


Hon. George C. Marler (Si. Anioine-Wesimouni):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. When he speaks of moving north of Three Rivers, is this a new form of alliance with the Union Nationale?


George Harris Hees: I do not get the joke, Mr. Speaker, although I am sure there must be one intended.


Mr. Pearson:: It is no joke.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the hon. member for Laurier asked me a question with regard to icebreaking in the vicinity of Three Rivers. I have a little more information which might be of interest to him and to the house. The Lapointe is working in the vicinity of Three Rivers at the moment. The McLean and the d'Iberville are in Quebec. The McLean is coming up to Three Rivers within the next day or so. The Lapointe is available for any ferry assistance at Sorel until the ice road is formed. There is no ice of any consequence below Sorel. There is quite a bit of ice running at Sorel, and the new ferry is still in operation.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister whether they are working eastward, westward or northward?


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member does not mind, I think after my last answer I had better consult my map.



FURTHER STATEMENT ON FOREST ACCESS ROADS TO PROVIDE WINTER EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, when I made a statement in the house yesterday, as recorded at page 2774 of Hansard of that date, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet asked the following supplementary question:
Is the signature on that agreement-
Meaning an agreement on forest fire protection signed pursuant to the Canada Forestry Act.
-a condition of the obtaining of a part of those funds for access roads for forest fire protection?
I answered this question in the affirmative, but on reading Hansard I realize that the words "those funds" used by my hon. friend did not refer to funds under the forest fire protection agreements but to the new funds to be requested of parliament for forestry access roads; hence my subsequent reply to the hon. member's question may have been misleading.
It is clear, of course, that in order to obtain funds provided by parliament for the implementation of the forest Are protection agreements a province must have concluded such an agreement with the federal government.
It is equally clear that in order to get federal aid for the construction of forestry access roads under an agreement to cover the period of January 2 to June 30, 1958, a province must conclude an agreement with the federal government and funds must be provided by parliament. But it is not necessary for any province to participate in both agreements before deriving benefits under one agreement.
Naturally, some adjustments must be made with regard to provinces which participate in both agreements. The reason for this is that under the forest fire protection agreement the federal contribution for access roads is limited to 25 per cent. Under the short winter program, proposed especially for access roads, regardless of their purpose, be it for fire protection or for forest management, the contribution offered for this short period is 50 per cent. After June 30, 1958, those provinces which have signed the forest fire protection agreements can claim only 25 per cent.
As Quebec is the only province which has not concluded a forest fire protection agreement, Mr. Speaker, if it concludes an agreement on access roads valid until June 30,

1958, it cannot claim thereafter a 25 per cent contribution by virtue of another agreement which it has not signed. Both agreements are open to all provinces independently on an equal footing.
In a very clear story this morning in the Globe and Mail this winter works program is described accurately and fully. However, in one paragraph there is a misunderstanding which is probably my responsibility. This paragraph says:
Quebec-the only one of ten provinces which has not signed a federal-provincial agreement on forest fire protection-will not be able to participate in the road project.
Therefore I would like to stress again that Quebec can participate in this new program without signing the forest fire protection agreement. To make this absolutely clear, and since there were small changes in the letter to Premier Duplessis in order to take account of the fact that Quebec has not signed a forest fire protection agreement, it might be useful, if the house agreed, for me to table this letter to Premier Duplessis in the original French and in the English version in order that it may be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Lesage:: May I ask the minister a question, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have asked permission to have the letter included in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to the letter being printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of letter referred to above, see appendix, page 2885.]


Jean Lesage: May I ask the minister whether it will be a condition of the 50 per cent participation by the government in the building of those access roads-I am talking about the winter program-that tenders be asked by the provinces for those works?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will have to look at the letter. My memory is that there is no such condition asked of any of the provinces in the letter.


Jean Lesage: May I ask a supplementary question and preface it by saying that in the forest fire protection agreements there is a condition that tenders have to be called. Would not the same condition be in the agreements which will be signed for this short winter program?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member would realize that in making these announcements of
Inquiries of the Ministry policy you do not go into all the details. There will have to be an agreement drawn with each of the provinces, and I certainly think this question of tenders will be considered as part of the agreement.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the minister. Has he given any consideration to the possibility that making the terminal date of these agreements June 30 may be rather limiting it, on account of weather, in the Atlantic provinces and particularly in Newfoundland. If we should have a backward spring in 1958, such as we had in 1957, it would be physically impossible to get this work done by June 30. Would he consider the possibility, in those cases where weather would be a factor, of having the date somewhat later?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This matter was very carefully considered by the forestry branch of my department, and in some other works projects which we are announcing winter employment will end on May 31. For instance, in some that have already been announced employment will end sooner than that. But on this question of forestry access roads we recognize the necessity of being able to do the grading in the summer months. Therefore in deciding on June 30 we took that into consideration. In the first few months the clearing which can be done during the winter would be done to provide employment. Following the break-up period we would have the two months of May and June to do the grading, which would consummate the program.
In regard to the province of Newfoundland I will ask the officials to look into that point again, to make certain there is no hardship in completing the program in that province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appreciate the minister's attitude very much.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Has he been able to reach agreement with Saskatchewan with respect to whether or not the road from Flin Flon via Hanson lake to Prince Albert would qualify for participation under the scheme he outlined yesterday?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Under the
criteria I have announced I think this road might be considered as part of this program, but actually the province of Saskatchewan has made representations to the government on different grounds with respect to the road. These representations are now being considered, and at this time I would rather that this matter be kept separate until we reach

Inquiries of the Ministry some final conclusion with the province of Saskatchewan with regard to the Hanson lake road.


Hon. W. J. Browne (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the weather is not any more backward in Newfoundland than in the other Atlantic provinces.


Lionel Chevrier: Some members on the other side are.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister give information as to the countries of origin of the 2,400 immigrants scheduled to arrive in Halifax this month, and also if employment is assured for all these immigrants?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I cannot give the countries of origin offhand but I will do my best to ascertain them and advise the hon. gentleman. I should also inform him, however, that the great bulk of these immigrants will be people who are sponsored by relatives already in Canada whose settlement arrangements and undertakings to look after these immigrants have been examined by the department and found to be satisfactory. Therefore there will be no question of finding employment for them. They are sponsored by their relatives and are going to be looked after by them so far as settlement is concerned. Any others who might be included in the 2,400 would be in the category of immigrants coming to Canada after careful examination and screening to take positions in fields where there is an actual shortage of employees at the present time. That would be a very small portion of the 2,400.



INQUIRY AS TO RETALIATORY MEASURES AGAINST UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement he made yesterday indicating that the United States government had violated agreements with Canada in curbing crude oil imports from this country, will the minister tell the house whether or not any effective retaliatory action is anticipated?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think I was asked similar questions yesterday. We do not like to think in terms of retaliation at all.



LEAD AND ZINC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Koolenay Easi):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In reading the statement he made yesterday regarding quotas on oil I note that the minister and the Prime Minister discussed this question with the heads of state while in Paris. Did the minister avail himself of that opportunity to again impress upon the President the very serious effect that increased tariffs on lead and zinc would have on the economy of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In my conversation with the
President I did not refer to this subject. In my conversations with the secretary of the treasury I made reference to our previous discussion of the same subject in Washington. I have indicated to the house on previous occasions that this matter of the access of Canadian zinc and lead to the United States market had been discussed at the meeting of the continuing committee on United States-Canada trade and economic relations at Washington in October.


Lionel Chevrier: Was it one of those violent approaches?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There were no violent approaches, nor have there been at any time. The approach at all times has been very friendly, but representations have been frank and vigorous.


Lionel Chevrier: One would not think they had been friendly.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am sorry, but I cannot hear very well. I have been on one of those Trans-Canada planes all night, and I did not hear what the minister said at the end of his statement. Did I understand the minister to say there had been some new developments in this matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No new developments.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Is the minister intending to protest vigorously against this action?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, the Canadian point of view on this matter has been put before the representatives of the United States cabinet very clearly and firmly. They thoroughly understand our point of view. Under the United States system, of course, the cabinet

cannot always answer for the actions of congress, or vice versa. What I said yesterday the hon. member will find in Hansard, and it was that we have no assurance that action will not be taken at Washington to impose barriers against the importation of Canadian zinc and lead.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Is it true, as reported over one of the radio stations this morning, that it is the intention of the Prime Minister of Canada to seek to discuss this matter personally with the President some day next week?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not heard that report, Mr. Speaker, and I am not in a position to make any comment upon it.



PROVISION OP CREDIT FOR SPAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a Canadian Press story originating in Winnipeg and dated December 28. Specifically, I should like to ask whether any consideration has been given to allowing long-term credit to countries which would purchase Canadian wheat but which are not in a position to purchase it on a short-term credit or cash basis. Can the minister add anything to this statement attributed to him in which he said that a short-term credit for Spain might be arranged in order that Canada might get into that market, and the question of a longer term studied later?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, Canada sold some wheat to Spain in 1951, and in 1952 I think, but not since. There is an opportunity for Spain to purchase wheat on short-term credit such as is applicable to Poland, which is the model we follow in that line of discussion. I have nothing to add to my statement with regard to long-term credit.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister confirm that negotiations are going on with Spain in the hope that wheat may be sold to that country, in this instance on a short-term credit basis?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is correct.



U.K. PROPOSAL    DISCUSSION WITH PRESIDENT OF BOARD OF TRADE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the president of the board of trade of the United Kingdom is in the United States at the present time, according to the press, is it the intention of
Inquiries of the Ministry the government to invite him to come to Ottawa to discuss with the government here the United Kingdom free trade proposals?


Gordon Minto Churchill: My understanding is that this gentleman is leaving California for Venezuela and other places in South America before returning to the United Kingdom.



UNITED STATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question. Has he taken cognizance of the decision of the United States announced during the recess of parliament to increase substantially in 1958 the surplus disposal program? If so, what action if any is the government taking to meet that situation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the proposed action on the part of the United States. I do not think any action on our part is necessary. The United States surplus disposal program is not likely to interfere with the sale of wheat to our cash customers, and that is one of the main points about which we have been particularly concerned. Their surplus disposal program, to the extent that it aids underdeveloped countries, raises no objection on our part.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, it is an increase of 50 per cent, which is pretty substantial.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me the following question:
Can the minister say what is the present status of the plans for new airport facilities at Winnipeg? Are these plans being proceeded with? When may it be expected that the new airport will be completed?
The answer is that the major runway expansion program that has been under way for three or four years now should be completed during 1958, although some additional taxiway work will remain.
In the matter of terminal building facilities, a temporary extension to existing facilities has been completed this winter, and a firm of private consulting architects in Winnipeg has been working on plans for a completely new terminal building for some
2842	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry months now and is making satisfactory-progress. When these plans are ready later this year tenders will be called, but I would hesitate to state how long it will take for the building to be erected, although a two to three year period will probably be required.



NOVA SCOTIA-NEW BRUNSWICK  STATUS OF AGREEMENTS ON THERMAL PLANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister inform the house if agreements have been reached and signed between the federal government and the power commissions of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia with regard to the construction and operation of thermal plants in those two provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to that question is no, not yet.



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS TO WESTERN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have a copy of a resolution from the Nut Mountain local of the Saskatchewan farmers' union asking about deficiency payments on the 1955-56 crop of 35 cents a bushel on wheat, 25 cents a bushel on barley and 15 cents a bushel on oats. I wonder if the minister could state whether or not this request is receiving active consideration, and whether an announcement can be made at an early date on government policy on deficiency payments?


Gordon Minto Churchill: A similar question was asked yesterday and I gave an answer then. I doubt the value of repeated questions of this sort. I stated then that the matter was under study.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
the Minister of Transport a question. Can the minister tell us whether the inquiry undertaken by the board of transport commissioners into the equalization of freight


rates across Canada was taken into consideration in the recent order of the board increasing freight rates by 3.6 per cent?


George Harris Hees: I should like to take that question as notice and give an answer on Monday.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Now that it has been demonstrated that the facilities at Argentia are available for unloading motor cars from the ferry William Carson, will the minister now carry out his promise to have the William Carson carry motor cars?


George Harris Hees: I am not aware that it has been so demonstrated; and as I have advised the president of the Newfoundland board of trade, the Canadian National Railways have pointed out a number of other reasons which make it very difficult if not impossible to load and unload automobiles there.



SHIP CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM-INQUIRY AS TO TENDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Smith (Simcoe North):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Will he advise the house whether tenders have been called for the six ships which will be built for the transport department this year?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tender calls were sent out by my department on December 30. The tenders are to be received by 3.30 p.m. on Friday, January 31. I would hope that construction of these ships would start very soon after that date.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare what the attitude of his government is toward the action of the Toronto metropolitan welfare council which last June, already having deducted $5 out of the $6 old age pension increase-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Trinity will appreciate the fact that the actions of the Toronto welfare council are not the responsibility of this government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I rise
on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think Your Honour would possibly want to give consideration to that ruling, because the hon. gentleman has asked what is the attitude of this government with regard to the action taken by another government or another authority with regard to portions of money given to old age pensioners, part of which are provided for by the people of Canada through policies recommended to parliament by the present government. I would think it only right that this government and this parliament should have some concern in the matter covered by the question raised by the hon. member for Trinity.


Howard Charles Green: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that there are many activities in which the three levels of government participate, and it would be quite improper to have discussions of the type which the hon. member for Essex East suggests should be undertaken here. Furthermore, quite apart from all other considerations, this is certainly not a question for orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand it these funds are provided by parliament, but once they have been provided their administration is the responsibility of another body for which this government does not have responsibility. In line with the practice of the past, it has not been in order to ask the government questions on matters for which they are not responsible; and I regard this question as one of that type.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? In view of the hopeful statement that was made by his parliamentary assistant on December 16, while the minister was away, having to do with the government's attitude toward superannuated -civil servants, can the minister say whether the government will soon be introducing some measure to provide an improvement in the pensions of retired civil servants?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, as I have said at various times during the course of the session, this is one of the matters which is being given very careful consideration by the government. So far as the present session is concerned we thought it was going to close soon, and it will not be possible to place any legislation before this present session. As to later sessions, the government's program will be announced, of course, in the regular constitutional manner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's statement yesterday that there would be further supplementary estimates introduced before the end of this fiscal year, will the government consider including in those supplementary estimates an item to take care of those whose pensions are in the lower brackets?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think my previous answer leaves no room for a question of this kind. Such a matter has to have very careful consideration; and while an item in the estimates would be required if such provision were made I doubt very much whether an item in the estimates would be sufficient for the purpose. It seems to me that what would be required would be legislation, if it were the decision of the government to recommend such action to parliament.



REQUEST FOR INCREASES FOR FORMER GOVERNMENT RAILWAY EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Joseph Murphy: Does the answer just given by the Minister of Finance apply also to the pensions of former employees of Canadian government railways, such as the Grand Trunk Railway, whose pensions have been described by the present Prime Minister as thoroughly inadequate?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my answer should not be deemed to go beyond its content.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he say whether consideration is being given to increasing the pensions of retired C.N.R. employees? Is anything being done along the lines of the study referred to by the Minister of Finance with respect to superannuated civil servants?
2844	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I think I have indicated before in this house, these matters are always under consideration by the management of Canadian National Railways.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Finance went abroad he told us he anticipated having discussions with United Kingdom ministers about the forthcoming commonwealth trade conference. Can he bring us up to date with regard to these discussions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to do so. While in London I had a meeting with the chancellor of the exchequer, the president of the board of trade and their officials two weeks ago yesterday, December 20. In discussing this question we had the opportunity of reviewing the whole situation. The British government proposes to send out invitations to all the commonwealth governments to send their officials to London early in February for a meeting to make plans at the official level.
It is expected that there will be two stages to the official preparations for the conference. There will be this meeting of officials in February, and it is likely there will be a further meeting of officials in the spring at which detailed work will be done on the items to come before the conference.
The date of the conference has not yet been finally determined. There is some difference of view among some of the countries of the commonwealth as to which dates would suit their governments best; there have been changes of governments in two of the commonwealth countries. It is our hope, however, that the date and place of the conference can be decided soon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister make any progress during these talks in discussing the proposals which Mr. Thorneycroft made when he was here in September?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that subject was not mentioned. Our concern and purpose were to make plans for the commonwealth trade and economic conference. The situation is precisely as it was reported to this house and to the public in the statement which was issued here in Ottawa following the meeting of the ministers of the United Kingdom government and ministers of the Canadian government in the first week of October of last year.


The governments of the commonwealth countries are concentrating on the plans for the commonwealth trade and economic conference and wish to make a thorough success of it, and any commonwealth country which wishes to bring forward any proposals in relation to trade within the commonwealth, or to economic questions arising within the commonwealth, or economic policies, will have full opportunity of putting them before the trade and economic conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister could give us any idea of the kind of proposals Canada intends to put forward at this conference. It is surely not going to be held in vacuo?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. gentleman will realize on reflection that his question is quite premature.


Lester Bowles Pearson: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the preparations for this conference are now in the hands of the British and not the Canadian government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, the hon. gentleman is quite wrong. I think it is very likely that agreement will be reached to hold this conference in Canada, but it was considered by practically all the commonwealth ministers represented at Mont Tremblant-and the statements made there have been confirmed since-that London would be the most convenient place for holding the conferences of officials in preparation for the plenary conference. Consequently, in these circumstances, the British government offered to be host in London to the meetings of the officials. It is a matter for general arrangement, but I think I am warranted in saying that the invitation of the Canadian government to hold the plenary conference in Canada will be accepted by all countries.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Minister of Finance said he had only heard up to that time from I think two commonwealth governments as to the recommendations made to them by their ministers of finance. Can my hon. friend now say if all commonwealth governments have accepted the recommendations of the ministers of finance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think my hon. friend has correctly reported what I said. If he will look it up in Hansard I think he will see that he has not reported me correctly. There have been acceptances on behalf of practically all the commonwealth countries. There are, I think, only two or three from which we are awaiting final intimations,

and there is no apprehension felt as to their eventual acceptance of the invitation and participation in the conference.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Have Pakistan and India accepted?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will my hon. friend allow me to check the details on that and give an answer on Monday?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It would be a good idea to give a complete report.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has been one recent message from the Indian government, but as there are eleven governments concerned perhaps my hon. friend would permit me to give him a precise answer on Monday.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
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.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening it was considering the details of item No. 240 under the various headings set out on pages 313 to 315. Discussion was proceeding on the items under the heading "Canadian army, regular and general" on pages 326 to 334. Has discussion under this heading been concluded?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Chairman, it had not been concluded at ten o'clock last evening. I would like to ask permission of the Chair to raise a matter which I raised last evening but the answer to which I did not think was satisfactory. I am glad the Minister of Transport is here, because he is concerned with the matter as well.
Last evening I asked the Minister of National Defence what the position was with regard to the H.M.C.S. Labrador. As I said
Supply-National Defence earlier I thought the answer was certainly lacking in information; and I say this respectfully to him, of course. What I have difficulty in understanding is this. The Department of National Defence had an icebreaker built for its own purposes at a substantial cost. My information is that it cost in the neighbourhood of some $25 million. The cost of an icebreaker for peacetime purposes is less than half that amount.
An icebreaker built for naval purposes is a vessel of an entirely different nature and equipment than that of a Department of Transport icebreaking vessel; and why H.M. C.S. Labrador would be assigned to a peacetime department when it was built for a different purpose is something that I think should be explained to the house more thoroughly than was done last night. In other words, I think the minister should tell us why it is that the Department of National Defence, which required this icebreaker for a definite purpose, now says it is no longer necessary for that purpose. There must be a reason for the change.
The other thing which I think should be explained to the house is why this vessel which was built for a specific purpose is no longer being used for that purpose but is being turned over to a peacetime department exclusively for icebreaking purposes. I hope the minister will come to the conclusion that I am seeking information. I think the committee is entitled to an explanation as to why this has been done.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, reverting
to the item under the heading "Navy" under which the hon. gentleman raised his question, my understanding is that the Labrador was built as an icebreaker and that there was very little difference in the construction of the Labrador from that of the ordinary icebreaker. It was of rather heavier construction for the more northern waters, and will be available for that work under the Department of Transport if work of that nature is again required. She carried out certain exploratory work which was more of a civilian nature than technically a naval matter. After careful consideration and following consultation with the officials of the Department of Transport, we felt that the Labrador could be used to better advantage under the Department of Transport than under the Department of National Defence.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not have these officials at my disposal who know, I am sure, far more about the position than I do; but I have been aboard both the Labrador and the C. D. Howe, the two most up to date icebreakers of the Department of

Supply-National Defence Transport, and I say to the minister in deference that they are like night and day as to the equipment that is on board each. The proof of that lies in the cost. Surely an icebreaker which costs in the neighbourhood of $25 million must have something in it that is far superior to one that cost $5 million or $6 million; and comparing their value and cost my impression is that one must have been built for a specific purpose, namely the purpose of defence in the Arctic waters as well as icebreaking, of course, which was incidental, and the Department of Transport icebreaker which is entirely a peacetime vessel. However, I do not intend to pursue it unnecessarily and unduly, though I say with respect that I am not satisfied with the answer I have received.


Leonard T. Stick: Mr. Chairman, I should like to follow up what the hon. member for Laurier has said. I am rather concerned about the Labrador being transferred from the navy to the Department of Transport. I understood when this ship was built that the navy required the ship for Arctic work. The minister said she would be available, of course, in case of necessity. What does this mean? It means that if hostilities broke out she would be transferred back to the navy. Has the minister any figures on the actual operating cost of the Labrador by the navy? What is it going to cost now to refit this ship for the Department of Transport?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, since we passed this naval item yesterday I have not the naval advisers here, so I cannot possibly give an answer to that question; but I can obtain it and let the hon. member have it at the beginning of the week.


Stanley Haidasz: Can the minister tell me
whether in the item dealing with professors there are included the salaries for professors who teach the Russian language to Canadian army personnel? How many professors are engaged in teaching the Russian language, and what are their respective salaries? How many Canadian army personnel are studying the Russian language?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have not that information immediately available, but I will get it and report back in a short time.


Henri Courtemanche: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Henderson:: Since you were not in the chair last night, Mr. Chairman, and so there will be no mistake about it, when you say "shall the item carry?" you mean the heading of the detail?


Henri Courtemanche: The heading of the detail.


William James Henderson: While we were on the army details last night the minister told me that
[Mr. Chevrier.l

he had either cancelled or deferred a building construction program of $20 million for the army; that although the saving had been $9 million, actually there had been a deferment or cancellation of a $20 million building construction program. Can the minister give me now in dollars the amount of the deferment or cancellation of contracts other than the construction program which he effected in the army?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is an item of $150,000 for engineering, land valuation and legal fees. That is rather connected with the construction item. Then there is $146,000 for advertising; acquisition of miscellaneous materials and supplies, $1,399,000; repair and upkeep of equipment, $1,205,000. These are the main items in connection with the army.


William James Henderson: I presume these were cancellations of contracts, or were they deferments?


George Randolph Pearkes: In some cases they were cancellations of contracts and in other cases deferments.


William James Henderson: Were the contracts with Canadian producers?


George Randolph Pearkes: In some cases they were with Canadian producers and in some cases with foreign producers.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Has the army area headquarters located in Fredericton been transferred to any other location?


George Randolph Pearkes: No; the area headquarters is at Fredericton.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: There are one or two questions in my mind emanating from the communique of the NATO powers in Paris. Perhaps the minister would care to explain this statement:
As regards defence production, we have decided, in view of the progress already made, to take further measures within NATO to promote the co-ordination of research, development and manufacture of modern weapons including intermediate range ballistic missiles.
Will the minister please tell us what is being done to promote this co-ordination in these fields of research and development and in the manufacture of weapons? What is actually being done?


George Randolph Pearkes: That question could better be put when we come to the item for the defence research board, but there is co-ordination going on. There have been a number of exchanges of visits between senior officials of the United States forces and of the British forces. As the hon. gentleman knows, there were set up at the NATO conference certain advisers on the scientific and research staff, and it is hoped that there will be frequent

and regular consultations among the representatives of all NATO countries on the matter of research and development.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister outline, perhaps briefly, what plans his department has for improving the property known as Camp	Chippewa during	1958?


George Randolph Pearkes: Did the	hon.	gentleman	say
"Camp Chippewa"?


John Richard Garland: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: There	are	no	immediate
plans for any changes in that camp.


John Richard Garland: Do I understand that there will be no improvement in that property in this calendar year?


George Randolph Pearkes: There	are	no	plans	for
extensive improvement. The ordinary maintenance will be kept up.


John Richard Garland: In other words it is intended to drop the plans that were scheduled for improving the property?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am advised that there are no special plans for any further construction at Chippewa. The ordinary maintenance will be kept up, but no expansion is planned for that camp.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Since the minister has informed me that the army area headquarters have not been moved from Fredericton, can he explain why army camps in other areas a long distance from Gagetown have been closed? I am informed that the camp at Fredericton has a very high maintenance cost. It is located in a very beautiful part of the city which perhaps could be used to much better advantage. Those working at the army area headquarters in Fredericton would be inconvenienced very little by a move of 12 or 14 miles to Gagetown.
Can the minister explain why a camp such as Camp Utopia in Charlotte county would be closed and a camp in the city of Fredericton would be maintained? I have been asked this question by many people, and I can assure the minister that there is a great interest in the province of New Brunswick concerning this matter as it is felt that army headquarters in Fredericton could have been moved and the Utopia camp maintained at very little cost to the government.


George Randolph Pearkes: As the hon. member knows. Camp Gagetown has been under construction for a number of years. The intention was that the training of all the units in the Atlantic provinces would take place at Gagetown, and that the regular army units would be stationed there as soon as the accommodation was completed.
Supply-National Defence
The hon. member asked me whether the headquarters were still at Fredericton. My answer was that the headquarters are still at Fredericton. There is no camp at Fredericton, but at the present moment there is no spare accommodation at Gagetown. Units are moving into Gagetown as soon as accommodation is made available. It is under consideration whether at some future date, when the accommodation question is adjusted, the headquarters for that area might not be moved from Fredericton to Gagetown, but the accommodation is not available at the present time.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Did the minister say there were no personnel at army headquarters in Fredericton? Did he say that the personnel there had been moved?


George Randolph Pearkes: I said there was no camp at Fredericton, but the headquarters are still retained in the administration building there.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the answer the minister gave to my last question was completely unsatisfactory and thoroughly disheartening. The only reason I excuse him is that, as he said and probably legitimately so, he was not dealing with his own department and this was really a matter for defence production. Nevertheless, when the Minister of National Defence tells me that the degree of co-ordination we have achieved after all these years is limited to the exchange of visits, the setting up of a group of advisers and frequent consultations, I should like to know what is the meaning of the word "co-ordination". However, I will ask him another question which I think he possibly can answer in view of the fact that we have in Europe a brigade and an air division. This arises again out of this awful communique from Paris.
Recognizing the rapidly growing interdependence of the nations of the free world-
These cliches are not mine, Mr. Chairman.
-we have, in organizing our forces, decided to bring about closer co-ordination with a view to ensuring that each NATO member country makes its most effective contribution . . .
Will the minister please translate those words into something tangible? Will he tell us what is actually happening in the way of co-ordination of the armed forces of NATO?


George Randolph Pearkes: Co-ordination of the armed forces of NATO will be discussed in detail when the meeting of the defence ministers of the NATO countries takes place next March. The communique to which the hon. member refers was really an outline of the principles agreed upon by the heads of states. The details will have to be worked

Supply-National Defence out at the subsequent meeting which, as I have said, has been called for early in the year, March or April, I believe.
There is one point on which the hon. member misunderstood my remarks. I did not say that this was a matter for defence production. I referred to the defence research board, which is a later item in this estimate.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Am I to
accept the minister's statement that despite the many speeches that have been made by ministers since NATO was founded, we are only going to start to co-ordinate our forces this year? Has there been no attempt at coordination in the past, or have we been deceived throughout all these years by these vague and pious statements emanating from men whose minds are still in the Maginot era?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is a most ridiculous statement. Long before the present government came into power meetings were held. Ever since the NATO organization was established there have been meetings of the defence ministers every year, and there is a very high measure of co-ordination now among the NATO countries. That co-ordination will continue, and the next meeting of the defence ministers is in March.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: In that case why is this particular paragraph included in the communique? Second, when I asked for some information about co-ordination why did the minister tell me that this would be decided at the next meeting of defence ministers? On that basis one can assume legitimately that nothing much had been done about it before. What I want to know is not about the next meeting of ministers and the hopes that may be raised as a result of that meeting, but what has actually happened in the field of co-ordination up to the present. How efficiently co-ordinated are the forces or, indeed, is there co-ordination in any sense of the word?


Mr. Cameron:: Unfortunately I was not here yesterday, but I noticed in Hansard that there was an exchange between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the minister with regard to the apparent conflict between statements made by the minister before the NATO conference and statements made by the Prime Minister after the conference, in that the minister had indicated earlier that it was the hope of the government to be able to curtail and economize on defence expenditures and the Prime Minister indicated that colossal further spending would be necessary.
I quite understand the logic of the minister's suggestion that he cannot discuss next


year's estimates while we are still discussing the current estimates, but I would suggest that the defence expenditures we are making today cannot be considered in a vacuum and as purely concerned with the year that ends on March 31, 1958. Surely they must have some relationship to future plans of the government with regard to defence spending.
Therefore I think we are entitled to at least some indication from the minister with respect to whether or not the government is still of the mind which he expressed earlier, that it will be possible to reduce the colossal spendings that are going on at the present time; or do we have to contemplate even greater ones as suggested by the Prime Minister? It seems to me that the government should tell us quite frankly whether or not they are still of the opinion that in the present circumstances the type of defence spending that has been going on in Canada is really of any relevance in the world of modern warfare.


George Randolph Pearkes: All these expenditures have been very carefully considered, and we believe that the amount of money allocated for defence as reflected in these estimates is very definitely related to the commitments we have to make both for the defence of this country and our obligations under our NATO and United Nations commitments. It is impossible at this time to give any indication as to the extent of next year's estimates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister inform the house whether, as a result of the annual review of the NATO authorities which must have been discussed at the last council meeting, any requests were made of the Canadian government which would require any modification of our military contribution to NATO?


George Randolph Pearkes: As the hon. member knows, there is an annual review which is submitted to the different countries and which will be discussed at the March meeting. My recollection is that no substantial change in the size of the forces Canada is contributing has been recommended.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand that in addition to the annual review which is part of NATO's normal procedure a reassessment of NATO's military planning, tactics and strategy has been made or is being made by the NATO military authorities. Can the minister say whether or not that reassessment has been completed, or whether it remains to be discussed at the March meeting to which he has referred?


George Randolph Pearkes: That remains to be discussed at the March meeting. Our commitments are

constantly under review. Certain recommendations have been made by the commander, General Norstad, and those are receiving consideration of the department now.


Mr. Raymond:: Will the minister tell the committee if his department has considered the offer of the city of St. Jerome to buy the drill hall in that city, which has not been in use for quite a long time?


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall have to check that. If the hon. member would not mind, I will get the information later this day.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: 
George Randolph Pearkes: I have visited the Canadian brigade camp in Germany since I became Minister of National Defence. I paid a short visit to the camp again in July of this year.

Supply-[DOT]National Defence I can support the statements I made previously that the buildings and camps are of a very high order. Our troops are well accommodated in Germany, and I think it is necessary that they should be well accommodated in order that their morale may be retained. It is not an easy task for any troops to be stationed in a foreign country, surrounded by people who speak a different language and who, while friendly, cannot be entirely intimate; the same relationship cannot exist as if those troops were stationed in their own land.
Certain amenities have to be provided, as I indicated in the remarks the hon. member read, in the way of providing special food, special schools and that sort of thing. Those are being maintained and will be maintained as long as we keep troops in western Europe. We have a commitment with NATO that we will maintain one brigade group in Europe. Until we are relieved of that commitment I do not believe Canada would think of making a unilateral decision to withdraw those troops. In fact, I believe it is essential for the preservation of peace and for the maintenance of that unity which was shown at this last NATO meeting among all NATO countries, that we have a contingent in Europe for the time being.
It is to be hoped that when the forces of West Germany are reorganized and their training has been completed, and they have in existence the number of troops contemplated, there may then be an opportunity of reducing our commitment in Europe. I will admit it is a heavy drain on the economy, but it is an international agreement which we have made. Until it is agreed by our allies that our forces should be withdrawn, I do not see how we can make any material reduction in those forces.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Two years ago I think the fact that the minister referred to the flying of pasteurized milk to Germany implied that he thought, in view of the importance of the dairy industry in that part of the world, that was a type of economy that might be contemplated. Can the minister indicate whether any change has been made? Is milk still being flown from Canada to Germany? I gather that was the criticism he intended to make two years ago when he raised the question.


George Randolph Pearkes: Milk is at present being obtained from Denmark under contract.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has talked about our NATO commitment, and has said that it would be inappropriate to modify that commitment without the approval of our fellow members of NATO. As he knows, of course,


that commitment we share with other NATO members. Perhaps it is worth putting on the record that certain other members of NATO-and I am not criticizing them for this-by unilateral action have already modified their commitments in that regard.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not think the hon. member is suggesting that Canada should make a unilateral change, is he?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I am not; but I do not think we should take on commitments of a different kind or of a different nature than those which are undertaken by the other members of NATO. We are all in exactly the same position. Inasmuch as other members of NATO, for reasons which may be very good both for them and for NATO, have by their own decision found it necessary to modify their commitments, I just question the minister's categorical statement that it would be impossible or inappropriate for us to alter our commitment in any regard except after agreement with all the NATO members. I think that statement just should be put on the record.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think it would be inappropriate for Canada to change her commitment without discussing it with her allies.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Discussion is one thing; agreement is another.


John Richard Garland: I was greatly disappointed to hear the Minister of National Defence say that he knew of no plans for improving the property known as the Camp Chippewa site at North Bay during 1958. Perhaps he is not aware of the fact that his department acquired this property from the city of North Bay on the distinct understanding that they would improve it. I certainly know the people of North Bay will be greatly disappointed to learn that the new government does not intend to go ahead with that proposal or with that definite, firm understanding. I wonder whether the minister would look into this matter and attempt to give me some kind of satisfactory answer.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will look into that detail and let the hon. member know; but as far as I know at the present time there is no intention of extending that project. However, I will check on the matter, make certain and let the hon. member know this afternoon.


John Richard Garland: Perhaps I might explain that when they acquired the property from the city there was a firm undertaking by his department that they would improve and clean up that area. We are building a beautiful new high school directly across the street and there is substantial housing

in that area. There must be improvement in that property. I certainly hope it will be proceeded with.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will look into the matter and let the hon. member know this afternoon.


Donald Cameron: I wonder whether the minister can give us any sort of rough estimate as to what proportion of our total defence spending is involved in our NATO commitments. I realize it will be difficult to do, but perhaps we might be able to get some idea of how much is involved in the NATO commitments.


George Randolph Pearkes: In round figures the cost of maintaining the air division in Europe is $90 million and the cost of maintaining the brigade is $30 million. That refers to that portion of our NATO commitments which is in Europe. Of course we have our commitments as far as NATO is concerned in connection with the navy and in connection with the air force in the defence of this North American continent, all of which are part of the general scheme for the prevention of war.


Donald Cameron: By the minister's answer am I to understand that all Canada's defence spendings are in effect NATO commitments either in North America or in Europe?


George Randolph Pearkes: Our whole defence policy is based on the deterrent against and the prevention of war, linked up with our NATO allies. We are not operating as a single country trying to provide for the defence of Canada. Our whole defence policy is related to the general NATO policy for the prevention of war.


Donald Cameron: The minister has mentioned the portion of our defence policy which he referred to as the deterrent power. Can he tell us whether the Canadian government has at its disposal any weapon or deterrent power for the protection of North America?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Chairman. "Deterrent", did the hon. member say?


Donald Cameron: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, certainly. I think all our forces contribute in some measure or another to the deterrent against war.


Donald Cameron: Are there deterrents against guided missiles? Have we any deterrent against those?


George Randolph Pearkes: We have no direct defence against the guided missile at the present time; that is as to a missile launched,-if it was possible, from some foreign country against this continent. There would be no direct defence against that. I do not think any direct defence exists at the present time. If the hon.
Supply-National Defence member is thinking of the possibility of guided missiles being launched from ships at sea, of course we have a deterrent in our navy which would keep the launching ship, we hope, far away from our shores.


Donald Cameron: The minister was speaking of defence, and he was speaking earlier of deterrent power which I have always understood to be the power to pursue a policy of what Mr. Dulles called massive retaliation in order to prevent an attack rather than defend against it. Have we in our possession or is there in the government's possession any method of deterrent in that form? Is it possible for us to deter a missile attack against Canadian territory?


George Randolph Pearkes: The power of retaliation is in the main based with the strategic air force of the United States and with the bomber forces and the rocket forces now being developed in the United Kingdom and in western Europe. We have no part in that phase of the deterrent, namely the power of retaliation.


Donald Cameron: Then do I take it, Mr. Chairman, that Canada is not able to play any part in the defence which is dependent on the power of retaliation to deter attacks: that we are dependent entirely on the United States and Britain. Is that correct?


George Randolph Pearkes: Canada is a member of the NATO organization. We have tried to coordinate and assign to the different countries the part they are best able to play in the whole defence scheme. We have a very important part to play as far as the defence of this North American continent is concerned. We have not taken on any part with regard to the forces of retaliation other than to provide protection for those forces of retaliation by our warning system, our air defence command here on the North American continent, and naval patrols which would prevent enemy submarines from interfering with the powers of retaliation. Also there is our contribution in Europe, which acts as a shield and protection to the forces which are established in Europe and which can take part in measures of retaliation.


Donald Cameron: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
understood the minister to say that the power of deterrent by means of possible retaliation lies with the strategic air command. That does not agree with his statement that our contribution to NATO is a contribution to power, because the strategic air command is not, I understand, under the command of NATO at all but entirely under the command of the United States administration. Is that not true?

Supply-National Defence


George Randolph Pearkes: The deterrent must be viewed as a whole. It is in two parts. One is the defensive measures which protect the powers of retaliation and prevent the possibility of the enemy gaining successes, and the second is the power of retaliation. The launching of that retaliation is, as I think the hon. member said, a matter for decision by the President of the United States.


Donald Cameron: And can the minister tell us in view of that fact-it would be a matter of interest to Canadians-if the United States has at its command the necessary weapons now to produce massive retaliation in the event of a guided missile attack?


George Randolph Pearkes: From the information which I received at NATO I am convinced that NATO is strong today.
As to the details regarding United States plans for retaliation, that is another country and it is not for me to answer or to give details regarding that matter.


Donald Cameron: But I must remind the minister that he has already told us in effect that we rely on the United States strategic air command for the power of retaliation as an instrument in our defence, and I do not think he can very well slide back into NATO again when he has told us that. I think it is of importance to us to know whether the strategic air command of the United States upon which we apparently rely is now in possession of weapons able to supply that protection.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am confident that the United States and other NATO countries have a power of retaliation which will be very effective.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point we have been discussing, Mr. Chairman, the committee will of course be aware that a great deal of detailed information on this very matter has recently been given during congressional investigations in Washington by Americans in charge of national defence. The information is all on the record there now, so there is nothing very secret about it.
I want to ask the minister whether he has any comment to make on a story which appeared in the London Free Press of December 27, and which is reported to have been based on information supplied by the directorate of public relations for the army in Ottawa. The nature of the story will be indicated by the first paragraph of this report, which I will read. It is as follows:
Second battalion, the Royal Canadian regiment, now in Wolseley barracks, (London), has been placed on constant stand-by alert to move into any


trouble spot in the world if necessary, as Canada's contribution to a United Nations or NATO emergency force, it was learned today.


George Randolph Pearkes: After the experience which was acquired when there came a demand to send a Canadian unit to Suez, the decision was reached to have one stand-by battalion ready for any emergency, not earmarked necessarily for the United Nations, but for any emergency.
I can give an example of the changes which are brought about by that decision. In a good many of the units-and this applied particularly when the Queen's Own was ordered to go to Suez-it was found that there were a number of men who were under the age when it was desirable that men should leave this country on active service. By earmarking one battalion for immediate readiness we have eliminated the younger men from that battalion and created a unit which would be ready for any emergency which might occur.


William James Henderson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made striking changes in the militia- I notice this matter may be discussed under a subheading the details of which we are now discussing-but in spite of the statements the minister has made I am convinced there is still a great deal of doubt in the minds of members of the militia as to when their units might lose their identity.
The minister has explained about the various columns into which the militia would be divided for civil defence purposes, but I still find there is doubt in the minds of the people of Canada as to which body would be replacing the militia in case of infiltration by enemy troops or the infiltration of agents into certain districts. Considering also the fact that the military training given to militia units is now greatly reduced compared with what it formerly was, I wonder if the minister would make a statement bringing us up to date on the militia today, and whether he would also give us a forecast as to future unit recognition, telling us what body he thinks would replace the militia in the event, for instance, of local skirmishes in the absence of the permanent forces.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no force contemplated to take the place of the militia. The militia has a very important role to play in the general defence program. Emphasis is being placed this year on the ability of the militia to play its part in aid of the civil power if a disaster should occur here in Canada. They are being trained especially this year in order to maintain the ability of this nation to survive if this country should come under attack. It is a realistic role, and

one which can be allocated to a force which is composed of citizen soldiers many of whom are closely in touch with the civil authorities by the very nature of their civilian employment.
This does not mean they are not to continue their training in the other roles in which they might possibly be employed. All the advice I received from the best military judgment indicates that if there is another major war it will start with a period of intense nuclear activity, and this continent and this country might well be a target for hostile bombers or even for missiles if our deterrent fails. In order to be able to play their part in those preliminary phases of another war the militia are concentrating on their role in aid to the civilian power, and it is being organized so that each militia unit will be able to make a definite contribution in that regard.


William James Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I notice
that on three occasions the minister was at pains to lay emphasis on the statement that the training was for this year. I was wondering if he could forecast if this civil defence training was merely for this year, and if he was going to revert next year to the training the militia previously had?


George Randolph Pearkes: No. The militia will always, as far as I can see, have a very definite role to play in the first battle for survival in this country, and we will continue to emphasize the importance of that; but we will not overlook other possible future roles, and so the know-how of the ordinary military training will have to be maintained. I must emphasize the fact that I believe military training, disciplined troops, would have a tremendous effect in restoring order in an area which had been under attack or which had met with some catastrophe. The appearance of an organized, disciplined, uniformed body would do more to restore morale than almost anything else. Therefore we must concentrate part of the militia's training toward the relief of such a catastrophe on the importance of discipline and military training as such.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that when I had the responsibility for civil defence I always found my hon. friend very objective and responsible with regard to the very difficult problem involved in trying to provide for the defence of the civilian population against modern potential warfare. While I realize that civil defence does not come under the purview of the Minister of National Defence, the responsibility of the two departments in this particular is so related that I do not think it inappropriate to ask the Minister of National Defence one or two questions having to do
Supply-National Defence directly with civil defence. I would hope certainly that before the conclusion of this session we could anticipate some statement by the responsible minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with respect to this difficult question of civil defence.
The suggestion has been made, of course, that the only effective way of providing for civil defence is through the use of mobile columns provided largely from the militia itself. This view is predicated upon an alleged practice that has been embarked upon in the United Kingdom. As I am sure my hon. friend knows, the extent of the use of these mobile columns in the United Kingdom has been greatly exaggerated. I think it would be well, if the minister feels that is the case, if he would indicate this; because there are many thousands of people in Canada interested in civil defence who are somewhat frustrated and who are influenced to some degree by the suggestion that the proper way to provide for civil defence is through the use of the militia.
I think it is a well known fact that it had been rather well established at least a year before the previous government vacated office that the militia, the reserve forces and the armed forces generally would be indoctrinated to a much greater extent than heretofore in the matter of civil defence. It would be useful for the minister to indicate what increased use is being made by the armed forces, for instance, of the civil defence college, of the training received there; what additional civil defence training is afforded the armed forces at the Royal Military College or elsewhere, to indicate an increasing realization by the armed forces of the responsibility for civil defence and the part the armed forces can play in this very difficult matter.
It might also be useful for the minister to indicate his views, if he is now in a position to do so-and I am not pressing him because I know the difficulty-about the practicality of evacuation as a defence against atomic and thermonuclear warfare. He might indicate, too, what is the view of the Department of National Defence with regard to civil defence in so far as it has to do with the intercontinental ballistic missile, and what is the latest thinking.
I raise these questions not in a critical way, because this is too important a matter to raise for the purpose of political embarrassment. This is an extremely difficult problem, and I know it perhaps as well as anyone in this house. It seems to me that the government does have a direct responsibility if we are spending these huge sums of money for the maintenance of our freedom



Supply-National Defence and integrity-and I see no alternative to our so doing-as an insurance premium, as the leader of the opposition often used to say about the cost of NATO. By the same process of reasoning it must be presumed that the civilian population of the country must be afforded some measure of defence against the terrible potential that could exist in modern warfare.
Does the minister think that the basic lines of civilian defence pursued in this country by the provinces, the federal government and the municipalities, relying upon the municipalities, relying upon the municipality as the main arm with the co-ordinated effort of government is the right course? If it is not, do my hon. friends have some changes in mind? Perhaps this would be the appropriate moment for the Minister of National Defence to give us the benefit of his thinking and of his assessment since he became the minister responsible for national defence.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have always emphasized the fact that the role which the militia is to play in civil defence is that of aid to the civil power. I take exception to the remark -perhaps it was not intentional-made by the hon. member that mobile columns were the only form of defence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the United Kingdom. I was referring to the United Kingdom.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the situation is quite different here owing to the distance between cities. I can see a great value in having an organized body of militiamen capable of moving into an adjacent area which has been destroyed by enemy action or by some act of God. We are organizing those columns, of which there will be approximately 50 distributed across the country, consisting of reconnaissance companies, rescue companies, communications companies, traffic control companies and that sort of thing. Each militia unit will be given a definite quota of subunits ready to move into any adjacent area which has had the misfortune of being attacked or, if there are any survivors after an attack in their own particular area, to be there to give aid.
But there is no basic change in the concept of the role of the militia to aid the civil power. I want to emphasize that point. The militia is not taking over civil defence. The responsibility for civil defence still rests with the provinces and the municipalities. I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare will support that contention when he speaks.
We are stepping up the training of the militia and the regular army in their duties

in connection with civil defence, and we are increasing the attendance at courses at the Arnprior civil defence college. There is to be a staff course conducted there, a sort of staff study, between the senior militia officers and the senior officials of civil defence in order to ensure that the two organizations work in the closest possible harmony.


Henri Courtemanche: Before we proceed further to consider the heading "Canadian army, militia" may I assume that the discussion under the heading "Canadian army, regular" has been concluded.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Henri Courtemanche: If not, shall we consider both headings together?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which two headings?


Henri Courtemanche: Militia and Canadian army, regular.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated in his reply a few moments ago that he recognized the real importance of the reserve units as they are spread out across the country. I am sure the minister is aware of the very excellent unit of the Royal Canadian Engineers established in the town of Kimberley. It is a mining community where a large percentage of the employees are engineers and others with mechanical training.
This unit is up to full strength but has completely inadequate facilities. They are renting an old hall which, while it has been of some use, has got well beyond its usefulness. For some time we have been pressing for an armoury. In addition, the unit has to pay high rent for storage of the equipment, trucks and the various armaments.
I was assured by the former minister that plans were well in hand for the establishment of an armoury in Kimberley for this very important unit. I have not seen any evidence of any progress. Can the minister tell me what the position is today?


George Randolph Pearkes: The whole question of the construction of new armouries is under review at the present time, and the desirability of constructing an armoury at Kimberley is part of that review.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am sure the minister will agree that it is important to maintain such a unit as this, which is highly trained in engineering, and that he should give primary consideration to an armoury there.


Henri Courtemanche: Shall the headings "Canadian army, regular and militia" carry?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is one o'clock.


Mr. Denisel:: I have one or two questions to ask on the militia heading but I am sure it will take more than one minute to answer them. Will you call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Louis Deniset: Mr. Chairman, I have several questions to ask the Minister of National Defence, particularly with regard to the militia. Some of them were already answered this morning in reply to questions asked by various members on this side of the house. I was very much interested in hearing the comments of the minister this morning on the role of the militia. Before I proceed to ask questions I should like to give my understanding of what the minister said this morning in order that we will be able to proceed on a firm basis. I believe the minister stated that the militia is to continue in its role of an aid to the civil power. He stated further that the militia is not taking over civil defence but that because of its role as an aid to the civil power it is necessary for the militia to step up its training in civil defence and that this is actually being done. If I am wrong up to this point I should like the minister to correct me.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct.


Louis Deniset: On the other hand, the militia is not to continue its old role of providing reserves in time of war but is being reorganized into mobile columns.


George Randolph Pearkes: No, that is not correct. I have said that the secondary or alternative role of the militia will be to be prepared to supply reinforcements if ever required in time of war.


Louis Deniset: I thank the minister for the correction. I wanted to have the record straight. Is it correct that the purpose of the additional role of the militia involving reorganization into mobile columns is so that these columns can be shifted to adjacent theatres of action inside of Canada as those theatres may develop if war comes to Canada?


George Randolph Pearkes: The militia is not being reorganized into support columns. The militia units are being called upon to earmark certain personnel in order to supply some units to the support columns. Let us take the Winnipeg unit. The Winnipeg Rifles might be asked to supply two rescue companies. The Fort Garry Horse might be asked to supply
Supply-National Defence a reconnaissance company for the support column in Winnipeg. The support column in Winnipeg might be required to render aid, shall we say, to the northern part of Winnipeg which perhaps had suffered a disaster or might be moved to Port Arthur or anywhere else where their assistance might be required.


Louis Deniset: I thank the minister very much for his explanation. I think the matter has been clarified. Would the minister also consider that these militia units, in addition to being mobile columns, might also become islands of resistance in case of Canada being overrun by an enemy? The immensity of this country makes it impossible for any enemy to overrun it everywhere at the same time. Having regard to the fact that the enemy might be subjected to attacks from our own bases or bases of our allies and might be subjected to being partially overrun, it would seem to me that by forming islands of resistance throughout the North American continent we could establish the core or the backbone, if you wish, of phase No. 2 in any world war. I am not one who believes in a war that will last only a few hours. The minister knows very well that unless you are dead they have to come and get you if you still want to fight. I should like to hear the opinion of the minister with regard to using the militia units as islands of resistance.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am glad to say that the prospect of Canada or any part of Canada being overrun by invading forces is extremely remote. It would only occur after we had lost the battle of survival. Under those circumstances militia units and any other organized bodies would have to continue the struggle for survival and if any militia personnel were left they would be in a position to offer such centres of resistance as the hon. member has described. Therefore they are continuing their strictly military training as well as concentrating on training to render aid to the civil power during the first and what we believe is the crucial stage of the battle for survival.


Louis Deniset: I thank the minister again for his clarification. Would the minister tell us whether the savings which were announced and which I understand are created by a reduction of militia activity appear anywhere in the estimates now under review?


George Randolph Pearkes: They will be reflected in the estimates for next year. There is one point I should like to emphasize. Canada now has a regular force of 49,000 soldiers. These men are serving for periods of three years and are then returning to civilian life as trained men. One can imagine that in the event of an
2356	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence emergency large numbers of these men, particularly those who had left the service more recently, would return to their units. Therefore there is now a much greater reserve of trained men in Canada, exclusive of the militia, than there has ever been before.


Louis Deniset: I would agree with the minister on that count as long as the militia units remain as active as possible wherever they are situated. If these men coming out from the regular forces have nowhere to go they will return to their civilian occupations and what they have learned in the armed forces will be lost. I should like to comment on that particular subject. Great concern has been expressed throughout the country about the unknown or somewhat unstable policy of the government regarding the militia. We have had to ask many questions on the subject during the question period and we are still asking questions. To use the minister's words, the minister said that the role of the militia used to be glamorous, phony or impractical, and I feel that the house and the Canadian people are justified in requesting an explanation from the minister of these words which he himself used in the house.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister never said that the role of the militia had ever been glamorous or phony. There is no glamour about modern war, none whatever. It would be purely phony to hold out to the militia the prospect of going over in the early days of a conflict to supply reinforcements to a European theatre of war.


Louis Deniset: I could not agree more with the last part of the minister's remarks. There could be nothing more phony than sending the militia abroad in time of war, unless it were a protracted war which we could not contemplate. I could not agree more with his earlier statements. However, I should like to quote from Hansard of October 16, 1957, page 38, when the minister was being asked a question about the militia. He said:
That may not be as glamorous a role as some of the other ones which have in the past been carried out by the militia, but X am confident that the militia will render the same patriotic service in this role as it has always done, rather than seeking some phony, glamorous role which hardly exists.
Those are the words the minister pronounced in the house.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no suggestion in those words that the militia has ever been asked to carry out any phony role. There was a glamorous role. Certainly, there was a certain amount of glamour to war in bygone days. There is no glamour in war today.


Louis Deniset: There again, I could not agree more with the minister. There is no glamour


about war. Certainly nobody wants to go to war. If we are discussing this matter at the present time, it is because we do not want any war. After all, the whole Department of National Defence is insurance for peace. But the minister is back-tracking on this statement which I quoted from Hansard. I will give him credit for that.


An hon. Member:: He did not back-track at all.


An hon. Member:: If it was back-tracking.


Louis Deniset: The minister said, again at page 38 of Hansard:
There is no suggestion of the militia having carried out in the past any role that could be considered as phony or glamorous, but there might be roles carried out in the future which would not be practical.
Later on, the minister said-


Mr. Hodgson:: The minister told us what he said.


Henry Joseph Murphy: You get up
and make a speech on this if you want to.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: What he is reading is what the minister has said-


Henry Joseph Murphy: Oh, shut up.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You come over and try to make me shut up. I would like about two minutes with you-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


Louis Deniset: Mr. Chairman, on October 22 I quoted these remarks in the house, and then I said this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Deniset: It would seem that I am hitting below the belt because I can hear noise from the other side. I said this as recorded at page 250 of Hansard for October 22, 1957:
I feel that the thousands of Canadian people who have sacrificed so many evenings, so many weekends and so many vacations during the summer time, purely as a result of devotion to duty to carry out training with the militia, deserve an explanation, and I trust this explanation will be forthcoming sooner than in mere due course.
Now, today we are gradually getting some explanation.


Donald Cameron: I wonder if the minister had an opportunity during the luncheon recess to look at today's copy of the Ottawa Citizen? If so, did he see in it a letter by Major General W. H. S. Macklin, retired, who is discussing a panel discussion which had taken place on T.V., and said:
My own wish, which wasn't debated either, was for a new and realistic defence policy for 1958.
In pursuit of our present sterile policy we have blown in billions on defence year after year. And yet as of new year's 1958, we are defenceless. We

have no defence whatever against the only direct attack that can be delivered on us-a nuclear attack.
We have only a deterrent, to maintain which we have already sacrificed every vestige of sovereign power to stay neutral as Dr. Whitton suggested we should do. Even the deterrent is now disastrously weakened by the Russian rocket.
For my part, in the absence of a new, and more objective defence policy, I should be delighted to take on the job of keeping Canada in her present helpless state for only nine hundred million per year, instead of the eighteen hundred millions or more that we have been dumping into the quicksands of the defence department year by year in the past.
I imagine, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will have a better estimate than I have of the authority with which General Macklin speaks. Both of them being major generals they should have a fair estimate of each other's ability. I should like to ask the minister if he agrees, in the first place, with General Macklin's statement that:
We have no defence whatever against the only direct attack that can be delivered on us-a nuclear attack.
I should like to ask him if he agrees that is the only sort of attack to which we could be subjected. If so, does he seriously contend that there is any method by which, at the present time, Canada or her allies could have a deterrent which might prevent such an attack. I know this morning he told me that they did have a means of protecting the bases from which deterrent attacks could be launched. I would think that is rather questionable in the light of his further statement that there is no defence against the intercontinental guided missile, no method by which the launching sites for deterrents against them could be protected. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would care to comment on General Macklin's rather forthright statement that we have literally no defence, and at the moment we are dumping billions down the drain in pursuit of the same sterile policies?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I thought we were dealing with the details of the army estimates. This question gets back again into the realm of general policy. In so far as the statement of General Macklin is concerned, I did not have an opportunity of reading it during the luncheon hour. I have known General Macklin for a period of 30 years or more, and I think I am in a position to assess the reliability of the information that he sometimes gives to the general public through newspaper reports. I disagree entirely with him that we are in a helpless state. The whole tenor of the NATO conference was that we are speaking from a position of strength. NATO, of which Canada is a partner and an important partner,
Supply-National Defence speaks not from weakness, not from craven fear, not with any idea of appeasement, but from strength and in the knowledge that Russia is fully aware of the strength that there is in the powers of retaliation. That is our hope for peace. So long as we keep up that strength I give the Russians sufficient credit for common sense that they are not going to attempt to attack this country. We count, for the preservation of peace, on the knowledge that we are prepared, if necessary and if Russia violates the present peace conditions-the west has no thought of offensive operations-we are yet in a position to strike back in a way that certainly would not make it worth Russia's while to do that.
I admit that we have no direct defence at the present time against the intercontinental missile, nor has Russia got any strength in intercontinental missiles at the present time. Perhaps by the time Russia has developed strength which might make her foolhardy enough to attack this country we shall have the answer to the intercontinental missile. But our hope for peace today rests on the power of our alliance, on the deterrent that that alliance is able to provide, and on the means of retaliation if Russia is so indiscreet as to start a war.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Earlier this morning the minister was kind enough to indicate that our expenditure to maintain the army in Europe was about $30 million and for the air force, $90 million. Again, if I may, I should like to refer him to the speech he delivered in July, 1956 in which he suggested, as recorded at the bottom of page 6207 of Hansard of that year:
I am not suggesting that there should be any cuts or reductions made in this year's estimates, but I think between now and the time the minister presents his estimates a year hence he must review the whole situation in a most thorough and comprehensive manner.
I would remind him that his colleagues the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of State supported him two years ago in expressing the hope at least that some relief could be seen in the future toward reducing these very heavy expenditures. Now that the minister has been in charge of the department for six months I wonder if he could indicate whether any effective savings have been made in connection with the retaining of the armed services in Europe. While we are not discussing the air force at the moment, these two items total $120 million. While the minister was very careful two years ago to indicate that no intelligent person would suggest that those who are serving Canada in Europe should have their pay and allowances or other services cut, the whole tenor of the minister's remarks two years ago indicated

Supply

National Defence that $120 million a year was a very heavy drain on the Canadian economy and that something should be done to reduce this amount. Could the minister indicate what has happened in the last 12 months or in the year 1957? Has there been any effective reduction in our expenditure with respect to maintaining the army and the air force in Europe?


George Randolph Pearkes: This applies to the air force. Quite recently arrangements have been made to extend the period of service of the personnel in Europe, thereby eliminating the amount of transportation and the cost of continually changing the personnel. They were on a basis of a two-year term of service. But now, where there is any desire on the part of an individual or if the individual has no objection, his period of service is to be extended to three or four years. We are considering the possibility of introducing a similar sort of rotation with respect to the army. Wherever possible we have been reducing administrative costs, which reductions have enabled us to cover the increases which it was desirable to pay to the troops in the way of pay and allowances. But I admit frankly that it is a heavy drain on the Canadian economy to keep these forces in Europe. However it is an obligation that we have assumed. We believe it is money well spent in order to preserve the peace of the world.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Two years ago the minister, as a private member and as an ex-soldier, expressed the considered opinion that these items should be carefully reviewed.


George Randolph Pearkes: They have been carefully
reviewed.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Can the minister indicate the percentage of the reduction in expenses? He has had six months as minister. He gave us roughly the figure of $120 million a year as what it has been costing. Could he indicate in percentages roughly the savings that are going to be effected as a result of the careful survey to which he has referred? Can he give us the total amount or the percentage of reduction that he anticipates?


George Randolph Pearkes: We have not it in detail yet. The end of the year will reflect what savings we have been able to make. If it is possible to make any savings in that respect, they will be reflected in next year's estimates.


John Richard Garland: This morning when we were discussing the matter of improving the site at Camp Chippewa the minister indicated he might give me an answer after lunch.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. During the luncheon hour I was able to make some inquiries with regard to Chippewa. I understand that

the buildings at that camp, which was established during the Korean crisis, are owned by the Department of National Defence but that the land is owned by the city of North Bay. It has been agreed that the Department of National Defence will return part of the land to the city and will purchase the remainder. It has also been agreed that there will be carried out certain improvements, which I have described this morning more or less as general maintenance, to the buildings and their surroundings. I am informed that the plans have not yet been finalized for these improvements but that as soon as they are finalized the necessary improvements and developments of the surroundings will be undertaken.


John Richard Garland: I should like to thank the minister for this information. With that thanks I should like also to couple the suggestion that perhaps he and his officials could expedite the matter. At the present time there are over 2,300 unemployed in our city. This figure is comparable to 900 unemployed exactly a year ago. My point in saying that is this. The majority of the people who are unemployed in our area at the present time are from the construction trades. If some of this work could be carried out at an early date I think it might be helpful.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will certainly look into that matter and see whether we can start the work at an early date. We should like to take advantage of any possible opportunity to relieve unemployment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At
the bottom of page 330 and at the top of page 331 there are listed a number of positions simply under the title "assistants". The salaries or wages paid to these assistants vary from about $1,100 at Belgrade to over $4,000 at Washington. Can the minister say what kind of assistants these persons are or what sort of work it is which they do for these varying rates of pay?


George Randolph Pearkes: In the main they are civilian clerks and stenographers who are attached to the military attaches at these various stations. I believe that is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What kind of a person would be working for $1,100 a year?


George Randolph Pearkes: It would depend entirely on the country. In the main-I do not say exclusively-they are nationals of the countries in which they are employed.


Stanley Haidasz: I note that in the estimates for the navy there is listed an item "All other expenditures, $1,125,000" and for the army, $4,256,000.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. May I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that he is now talking about a navy item which was passed yesterday.


Stanley Haidasz: Then I will restrict myself to the item for the army, "All other expenditures, $4,256,000". If possible, could the minister itemize this statement?


George Randolph Pearkes: The main items under that heading are laundry and dry cleaning. There is an item for $1,069,000 under that. There is also photography and aerial mapping-a large program of mapping is carried out- and that is an item amounting to $1,070,000. There are special grants for uniforms, equipment for bands, compensation for loss of property and various miscellaneous items amounting to $584,730, making a total of $4,250,000. These are a large number of miscellaneous items not otherwise classified.


Arza Clair Casselman: That brings us to the Northwest highway system on page 335, the last item under "Army". Is it agreed that we proceed on that basis?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Barnett:: I wonder whether the minister could bring us up to date with regard to any recent developments in the Northwest highway system, particularly with regard to the matter of the bridge replacement.


George Randolph Pearkes: Unfortunately the bridge over the Peace river between Dawson Creek and Fort St. John was washed out as a result of very heavy rains in the early fall and the general erosion of the north bank. This bridge, it will be recalled, was built by United States engineers during the war. It has been necessary to make temporary arrangements in order that the traffic in the area round Fort St. John and Dawson Creek might be continued. It is mainly civilian traffic; there is very little army traffic going over that portion of the highway at the present time. By various means and by making temporary arrangements for the P.G.E. bridge, thanks to the co-operation of the British Columbia government traffic has been resumed. A small additional bridge had to be built over the Pine river so that traffic could get to the south end of the P.G.E. bridge. A board of consultants has now been established under the chairmanship of Dr. P. L. Pratley, a well-known Montreal engineering consultant, Mr. H. H. Minshall, a Vancouver consultant, Mr. A. B. Sanderson of Victoria, 96698-181
Supply-National Defence and Mr. L. G. Grimble of Edmonton, all of whom are well known engineering consultants.
They have held one meeting already in Ottawa and the second meeting is to take place on January 8 in Vancouver. It is hoped they will produce a design for a more suitable type of bridge than the one which has been in existence, and as soon as a design has been produced it is the intention of the department to call for tenders and to restore the bridge at the earliest possible opportunity.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have from time to time seen press reports about certain plans for hard surfacing of certain portions of the Alaska highway-


George Randolph Pearkes: Tenders have been let for that portion of the highway between Dawson Creek and Fort St. John, and the work is now in progress.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Has that portion of the highway been turned over to the province of British Columbia, or will it remain under the jurisdiction of the Northwest highway authorities?


George Randolph Pearkes: It will remain under the jurisdiction of the federal government until it has been hard surfaced and then it is hoped that discussions will take place with the province of British Columbia to see whether the province would be willing to take over that portion of the highway, which is of very little defence value at the present time, it being used mainly for commercial operations.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is the Department of National Defence bearing the entire cost of the hard surfacing program?


George Randolph Pearkes: The Department of National Defence is bearing the entire cost of the surfacing of the highway because it was in the original agreement that we had to maintain this highway and it has been found that owing to the very heavy wear and tear on the gravel highway the cost of keeping it gravelled, and repairing it, was more than the over-all cost of hard surfacing.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is there any study under way on the question of proceeding with a surfacing program farther north on the highway?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, there is not the same heavy traffic north of Fort St. John as there is between Fort St. John and Dawson Creek.


Arza Clair Casselman: We are now proceeding to the item concerning defence services, air, at the top of page 339, an item which continues until about half way down the page on page 346.

Supply-National Defence


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this is the occasion on which to ask some questions in the hope of receiving some clarification in regard to North American air defence headquarters, on NORAD as it is more popularly known. Earlier questions on this matter, both in the house and in the committee on external affairs, have made it clear that there is no political agreement between the two governments laying down the principles upon which this headquarters should operate, and the relationship of the headquarters to the two governments, and that omission seems to us to be a very notable one because of the importance of this development, an importance which is perhaps as much political as it is military.
We did learn at one stage that the headquarters was operating under an interim arrangement. Then later on December 5 the minister pointed out, as recorded in Hansard at page 1941, that this was not even an interim arrangement in the sense that anything had been put down on paper to govern this matter. He said he would prefer to call the arrangement "interim discussions rather than notes" and he went on to say there had been no passing of any formal notes at all, but there had been visits to the government of the United States.
I take it, Mr. Chairman, that steps are, however, being taken to work out a political arrangement which would govern this very important development, and I should like as my first question to ask the minister what progress has been made in regard to such a political arrangement and whether it has yet been concluded. The minister indicated at one stage, I believe, a hope that it would be concluded by the beginning of the year. Can he tell the committee what progress has been made in this matter?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. I saw Air Marshall Slemon who visited me in Ottawa a few days ago and he said that progress is being made in the working out of these notes. There has already been a draft note submitted which we have sent back to Washington with certain comments. The last information I received was that this matter would be discussed by the United States joint staffs not before January 10.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, is this intergovernmental agreement which by its very nature would have to be a political agreement being worked out merely by the two defence departments of the governments concerned?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, no. They are drawing up first drafts which of course will be submitted to the governments. As the hon.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
gentleman knows these international agreements take a surprisingly long time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is true, Mr. Chairman, but there has been a period of six months in which to conclude this agreement because the headquarters has been in operation for six months without any agreement interim or otherwise.
May I ask another question. It was stated in this house by the Prime Minister before the recess that as a result of the NATO council meeting in Paris "NORAD had become an integral part of the NATO military structure". Those were the words used. I would be grateful if the minister would explain how that has been done and what is the actual relationship then between NORAD and NATO which makes it an integral part of the NATO military structure which I must say was surprising news to me?


George Randolph Pearkes: As the hon. gentleman will recall when the NATO organization was first set up there were I think five regional areas established one of which was the Canada-United States regional planning group. NORAD is definitely under that Canada-United States regional planning group. They report to that Canada-United States regional planning group. That regional planning group differs from the organization in Europe in that it does not have a supreme commander. It consists of the chiefs of staffs of the two countries, Canada and the United States. It has never been considered desirable either by this government or by the previous government to appoint a supreme commander of that particular area. Therefore you have this regional planning group consisting of the chiefs of staff of Canada and the chiefs of staff of the United States. They report to the military committee of NATO and they in turn report to their respective governments and in that way NORAD is definitely a part of the NATO structure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, what the minister has stated and stated very clearly is of course not new. That has been the situation now for some years. But there is a very great difference as the minister will undoubtedly appreciate-and indeed he has already indicated that there is a difference- between a NATO command and the Canada-United States planning group. There is no similarity between the two except in the sense that the planning group, as the minister pointed out, does report annually its activities to the military committee of NATO, but to give the impression that the Canada-United States planning group and

NORAD under that group is in the same relationship to NATO as a NATO command is of course misleading.
Only yesterday I received through the courtesy of the secretary general of NATO an end of the year publication called "Facts about NATO" in which the following paragraph occurs:
A Canada-United States regional planning group has existed ever since the signing of the Ogdens-burg Agreement in 1940 by Canada and the United States. It was a consultative body which, after having functioned successfully during world war II, was asked in 1949 to put forward, within the framework of over-all NATO strategy, defence plans for the Canada-United States area. It is mainly concerned with questions of defence against air attack in the Arctic regions and with the establishment of a vast radar network stretching from Alaska to Newfoundland. The Arctic defence operation is a joint Canadian-United States effort, and the stations may be manned by Canadian or United States staff, or by combined Canadian-United States personnel.
The NATO report then goes on to say:
The Canada-United States regional planning group has no assigned forces and is not a command in the real sense of the word. Its primary task is to work out a common strategy for the North American area.
The NATO commands are definitely under the control of the NATO organization and not only report to but receive political and military guidance from the NATO organization, but NORAD of course has no relationship of that kind to NATO as I am sure my hon. friend will admit because he himself stated that in the house on December 5, 1957, as recorded at page 1899 of Hansard when he said:
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, by the governments of both countries.
There is no reference, of course, to NATO in that paragraph and therefore the impression that may have been created by the words of the Prime Minister that NORAD is now an integral part of NATO seems to me to be an inaccurate one. The fact is, of course, that NORAD, as I understand it, does not derive its authority in any way, shape or form from NATO. To follow that up and arising out of the paragraph which I have just read from the statement the minister gave the house on December 5 I would like to ask him the following questions.
Does the commander or the deputy commander of NORAD receive his appointment from any NATO agency? The answer to this is obvious from what the minister has already said. Secondly, does the commander or the 96698-181J
Supply-National Defence deputy commander of NORAD derive his authority from the NATO council or any other NATO agency? If the answers to those two questions are in the negative, as I am sure they are judging from the minister's previous statement, what then is the source of the authority and command of the NORAD commander and deputy commander? Perhaps the minister might reply to those questions.


George Randolph Pearkes: The commander of NORAD, General Partridge, of course was appointed by the United States in exactly the same way as the deputy commander, Air Marshal Slemon, was appointed by this government. Both of them are working together at Colorado Springs. The concept of this North American defence command is very definitely part of the whole NATO attempt to prevent war developing.
I think it is utterly impossible to separate the defence of the North American continent from the rest of the NATO defence plan. This command has been set up under the general Canada-United States planning group. As the hon. gentleman said, that planning group has been set up ever since NATO was started and I understand that one of the objects of all of these planning groups and of all of these regional planning groups was the protection of the particular area with which they were concerned. It is only a later development that commanders-in-chief were appointed for some of the other commands. That did not exist, I believe, when the regional pacts were first started and they have gradually developed.
As I pointed out, there is no commander-in-chief of the Canada-United States pact, but the joint chiefs of staff of Canada and of the United States act in that capacity and refer not only to their own governments but to the military committees of NATO. I think the chain of command is identical with the chain of command of some subordinate commander in the European force who, instead of reporting to a committee, owing to the particular situation existing in the group, reports to the commander-in-chief, General Norstad, who in turn reports to the military committee. The chain of command is identical; the purposes are identical; but it has not yet been considered desirable to establish a supreme commander of the Canadian-United States regional pact.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree that these various aspects of defence are interdependent and indeed they are indivisible. One of my preoccupations with this matter is that action has not been taken to bring this particular command into closer relationship with the NATO command.
28S2

Supply-National Defence
The minister had indicated that there is really no difference in essence between the NATO command as such and this North American air defence organization but he knows that in relation to the NATO command we in this parliament know exactly where we stand. There was a political agreement between governments establishing NATO and its commands. That agreement was discussed and approved in this house and as a result of that approval Canadian forces were allocated to a NATO commander appointed by NATO though on the recommendation, in so far as SACEUR is concerned, of the United States government. It was all done in a perfectly regular parliamentary way with a political foundation for the action which we took.
As I understand it, nothing like that has happened in so far as NORAD is concerned. It was taken by governmental action without any political agreement, though one is being worked out now. It was taken without bringing this particular command into any other relationship with NATO than that, and it is a very tenuous relationship, with all respect to the minister, which comes through its association with the United States-Canada planning group. I think it is quite misleading to give the impression that the same kind of action was taken in setting up NORAD as was taken in setting up SACEUR. We, of course, participate in both. We know where we stand in one; we do not know where we stand-at least, I do not know where we stand -in the other.
For instance, the minister has already said in this house that General Partridge, the commander of NORAD, a commander-I may be wrong in this-who I believe has no obligation whatever to report to any NATO agency as has general Norstad; and, whose deputy is a Canadian, has operational control over the air forces allocated for the defence of North America, whether they are United States or Canadian air forces. That being the case, surely it is important for us to know from what source this commander derives the authority which gives him operational command over Canadian forces. We know the source of that authority in the case of General Norstad and the NATO command; we do not know it in the case of NORAD.
General Partridge, however, seems himself to know the source of his own authority because he has stated that the President of the United States has given his approval to use, without reference to anybody, any weapons at his disposal if there is a hostile aircraft in the sky. That is what General Partridge said as I read it from an interview he gave a few weeks ago. One of the weapons that General Partridge has at his

disposal is the Royal Canadian Air Force. Therefore I would like to know whether General Partridge has the same authority from the Canadian government and how he got it. Furthermore, I would like to know whether the deputy commander, Air Marshal Slemon, if he were in charge, and he would be in charge if General Partridge were away, has exactly the same authority and command over United States operational forces as has General Partridge.


George Randolph Pearkes: I can assure the hon. member at once that Air Marshal Slemon is in every respect the deputy commander. If General Partridge is away Air Marshal Slemon has full control of the United States air force designed for the defence of the North American continent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the minister answer my other question? What is the source of General Partridge's authority and his operational control over Canadian forces?


George Randolph Pearkes: That will be laid out in detail in the formal note. At the present time we are operating, as the hon. member said, on an oral and verbal agreement. The two commanders are there. They are getting acquainted with each other and it is very important that these two staffs should work in together. There is, I am assured from what Air Marshal Slemon told me, the greatest possible harmony and co-operation between the two groups at Colorado Springs. If anything happened within the next day or two that headquarters would be in a position to render a defence of this country which could never have been achieved, the magnitude of it could never have been achieved, if there had not been an integrated command.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree with the minister that it is of the very greatest importance that these two forces should work together in harmony and that they should be able to work swiftly in an emergency. I am sure there is no difference between us on that score. I do not necessarily agree with him, however, in his last observation that they are now in a position to act so much more swiftly and effectively than they were before NORAD was set up.


George Randolph Pearkes: They are.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As the minister knows, before NORAD was established there were very effective arrangements in connection with cooperation between the air defence forces of the two countries and I cannot follow the minister when he seems to indicate that all of this can be done-though it is very important that it should be done-merely by an oral or verbal arrangement between members

of the two governments. That seems to me to be a very shaky basis for the kind of cooperation which is so important both militarily and politically.


George Randolph Pearkes: As I have explained, those oral conversations and agreements will be confirmed by a formal note which will be placed before parliament in due course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to indicate once again our support of the concern which has been expressed by the hon. member for Algoma East. We agree that it is desirable to have joint defence of these two countries and that the necessary arrangements should be worked out. But we also feel it is extremely important that the proper political basis be established for any action that might be taken by such a joint defence force. I too was interested in the words that the Prime Minister used in this connection on December 21 after his return from Paris, and I think it is worthwhile to place on the record what he said on that occasion. To do so is to point up the fact to which the hon. member for Algoma East has already referred, namely that in our view there is something a bit misleading in these remarks. This is what the Prime Minister said as found on page 2721 of Hansard:
I refer to the arrangements we made with the United States government for the integrated air defence of North America under what is called NORAD. I want to re-emphasize that I pointed out there, and it was accepted as a fact, that these integrated forces are an integral part of the NATO military structure in the Canada-United States region; that there is a committee of NATO dealing with Canada-United States relations in this regard, and that anything we have done has been reported to the standing group and that course will be followed in the future. The NATO council will have full reports on everything we do, similar to the practice followed in all other NATO military commands.
These words, Mr. Chairman, suggest that there is a similarity between the control over NORAD and the control over other NATO commands such as SACEUR. Yet when one reads these words closely it is quite clear that there is a difference. The Prime Minister did not allege in his remarks that NORAD derives its authority from NATO as is the case with General Norstad who is in charge in Europe but merely that Canada and the United States had vis-a-vis NORAD reported to the Canada-United States political group and in turn reported to NATO. It is one thing to derive authority from a civilian body such as the NATO council and it is another thing simply to report the activities of a military group to such a body.
Supply-National Defence
It seems to me that in this matter we are dealing with something that is extremely important and very basic to our whole democratic approach. Some of us have been in the house long enough to remember the days of the slogan that the parliament of Canada will decide what Canada will do so far as any outbreak of war is concerned. We remember how Mr. King used to give us that assurance very categorically. That, of course, was in the days when wars were launched or declared by nations as individuals. Nevertheless, so long as that was the situation we preserved parliamentary control over this country going to war by means of a section in the National Defence Act which requires that if the government of the day puts troops on active service outside of Canada parliament, if it is not then in session, must be called within a certain number of days. In other words, parliament must be given the opportunity to approve or otherwise of the action of the government which is superior to the armed forces.
We, of course, had that in the case of the outbreak of war in 1939. As a matter of fact, parliament was called within a day or so of the troops being put on active service. We also had it at the time troops were sent to Korea. An order in council was passed and parliament was summoned within the required length of time. Orders in council were passed when troups were sent to Europe under NATO, and so on. In other words, in these developing arrangements we have held to the principle that the civilian authority is superior to the military authority.
In the case of NATO we got away a bit from the necessity of parliament being called in the event that something should happen in Europe. Our troops are already there but they are over there under a political command to which parliament has agreed because we have had the NATO treaty before the House of Commons.
When we come to the situation we are now discussing, the possibility of joint operational activities on the part of the United States and Canadian air forces, these could happen by the decision of a United States general or a Canadian air marshal. They could happen because of discussions that have taken place not even at the departmental level but between military people in these two countries without parliament having agreed in advance to the necessary arrangements.
It seems to me that even the exchange of notes that the minister says will take place in due course is not sufficient. It seems to me that we must either have the situation

Supply-National Defence that we had in years gone by whereby parliament is summoned if our forces have been put on active service or we must have an agreement in advance such as the approval by parliament of the North Atlantic treaty. In the light of the seriousness of this whole matter I feel that the assurances the minister has given still are not satisfactory. Like the hon. member for Algoma East, we agree that these arrangements have to be made. We agree as to the desirability of joint defence. But we also emphasize very strongly the need of maintaining civilian political authority over the military operations.
When General Norstad visited this country a few months ago and spoke both publicly and privately at various places in Ottawa he made it very clear that he has military authority only because he derives that authority from NATO. The minister has not yet demonstrated to us that General Partridge and Air Marshal Slemon draw their military authority from any civilian or political group. It is not satisfactory to say that they get their authority from the joint chiefs of staff of the two countries. The minister says that in the event of action there might be a telephone call to Washington or Ottawa but the basic requirement of establishing political authority over the military establishment has not yet been made clear.
As I say, it seems to us that even the exchange of notes between the two governments which is envisaged is not sufficient and that soon or later there should be either an agreement that somehow is within the framework of NATO in the same way as the other commands, so that authority is derived from the civilian side of NATO, or there should be something in the nature of a treaty between the United States and Canada which parliament will have the opportunity to consider in the same way that we have considered the North Atlantic treaty and other arrangements of this kind.
Let no one suggest that either the hon. member for Algoma East or we in this group are holding back so far as joint defence arrangements are concerned. But we do suggest most strongly that the proper political authority for such defence arrangements should be established and that parliament should have the chance to approve those arrangements.


George Randolph Pearkes: I agree entirely with the hon. member that political authority must be established and it is established.


An hon. Member:: Where?


George Randolph Pearkes: The chiefs of staff of Canada report to me as Minister of National Defence. I report to the cabinet defence committee or

to the cabinet as a whole. That is where political authority is maintained in exactly the same way as the joint chiefs of staff of the United States report to their political authorities. In addition, the combined chiefs of staff report to the military committee of NATO which reports to the military council of NATO. Now, that is where the civilian control is maintained, and the plans which are made have to be examined and approved in principle by the civilian control side in the United States or in Canada.
I am afraid that the hon. member is picturing a possibility of these forces being sent away from this continent. These are the forces, the Canadian air force and the United States air force, specially earmarked for the defence of this North American continent. They are not going to move away from this North American continent, but they will go into action if at any time enemy bombers commit an overt act of war by flying through Canadian air space and giving indication they are about to commit a hostile act. They go into operation automatically. There would be no opportunity to call parliament together when enemy bombers were over our territory. You have to make these arrangements beforehand, and these arrangements are made beforehand. These forces are ready to go into action if any enemy bombers violate our air space and show a hostile intention against the North American continent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No
one ever suggested that the phrase "Parliament will decide" meant that parliament had actually to be summoned between the time the enemy attacked and retaliation was commenced for the defence of Canada. The way in which the role of parliament to decide has been preserved is that within a certain period of time after the forces have been put on active service or given a job to do parliament must meet. But we have gone beyond that. We have now got to the point where we have made certain commitments, such as the North Atlantic Treaty, which would make it possible for forces responsible to NATO to go into action and parliament not be called because we have already agreed to the terms of the treaty.
But in this instance there is not anything to which the parliament of Canada has had any opportunity of agreeing so far as this joint defence of North America is concerned. The minister says I seem to be picturing these forces being used elsewhere than in North America. Well, at any rate a number of our personnel are outside of Canada right now. They are down at Colorado Springs. The minister might say it is only a handful, 35 or 40 service personnel, but whatever the number might be I would point out that they

are outside of Canada. In any previous instance where troops have been put on active service outside of Canada there has been an order in council and that order in council has been tabled in parliament within the required number of days of the order in council being issued. So far we have been able to learn of only one order in council that has anything to do with the setup at Colorado Springs, and that is the order in council stipulating what Air Marshal Slemon's salary and allowances are to be.
In the very nature of the case defence could involve Canadian air force personnel in operations outside of the territorial limits of Canada. I am not objecting to that being done. I recognize a situation could arise in which that would be necessary, and in which it would be necessary for that action to be taken instantly without the opportunity for the parliamentary process. But it is because of the necessity for that that it seems to me a special decision should be made in advance and parliament should have an opportunity of making that decision.
There is one other question I should like to put to the minister. In view of the fact that General Partridge is in command of these tremendous forces which are based at Colorado Springs, and in view of the obvious interest of General Partridge and his associates in the defence of the position of the United States, what would happen if United States interests or forces in the Far East were attacked? What would happen, for example, if any trouble broke out between the mainland of China and Formosa and United States forces in Formosa were under attack and General Partridge felt it necessary to dispatch bombers from Colorado Springs?


George Randolph Pearkes: General Partridge has no authority whatever outside of the defence of the North American continent. If there is action in Formosa it would not come under General Partridge.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I put the question this way? What would happen if there was action in Formosa or off Formosa between the United States and the communist regime in China, and as a result of that action in the Far East there were steps taken by the communist regime in China which indicated an air threat to this continent and General Partridge interpreted it as such? Would he then have authority to put the continental air defences into operation, including the Canadian element of his command?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am quite certain that would be a point which would have to be covered by political agreement beforehand. The idea of General Partridge's command is for the
Supply-National Defence defence of the North American continent. I suggest that if the North American continent is being attacked by anybody Canada is within that target area. We would have to have defensive measures taken in Canada as well as in the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I quite agree that we have to have these defensive measures, and of course we should take them on a continental basis. All we on this side are seeking to establish is the authority for action of this kind, the political authority. I agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. You have to have these political arrangements made in advance. In an emergency there will be no time for calling parliament, perhaps there will be no time for even making a telephone call, as was once suggested. But there are various ways of making these advance political arrangements. We did it one way in the case of NATO, not only by government decision but by parliamentary decision.
The political authority for the integration of the North American air command, it has been clearly established now, was a decision of the government which decision has not been approved or even discussed by parliament. We have nothing to discuss because the political arrangements covering that decision made by the government six months ago are still under negotiation. Until we have an opportunity to consider the results of the negotiation the action that has been taken has no parliamentary backing of any kind; that is obvious.
May I ask the minister, while I am on my feet, two questions. One is, when was the establishment of NORAD reported to NATO and, secondly, is it the intention of the government, when agreement has been reached with the United States on the political arrangements covering this defence organization, to submit that political agreement to the NATO council for discussion with the NATO partners in the hope perhaps that an agreement of this kind could be made an integral part of the NATO organization? Perhaps NORAD could be brought into closer relationship with NATO than seems at present to be the case.


George Randolph Pearkes: NATO was informed prior to the publication or prior to the joint announcement made by myself and the defence secretary of the United States. I have not the exact date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Was it prior to the decision taken by the Canadian government?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, it would not be prior to the decision made by the Canadian government but it would be prior to the statement

Supply-National Defence which was given. As to the second part of the question, that matter of course would have to be discussed with the United States. I could not make any firm commitment. I could only express a personal opinion which it would not be wise for me to express here. It would have to be discussed, as the hon. gentleman knows, with the United States.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There are one or
two questions that I should like to ask. It seems to me that some of the important questions put by the hon. member for Algoma East have not yet been answered. It is true that the hon. member for Algoma East said that the putting of the interrogations themselves likely reveals the answers. He asked two questions in this context. One was this. Do the commanders in question, namely General Partridge and Air Marshal Slemon, derive their authority from a NATO agency? There has been no answer to that question. He also asked this question: does their authority derive only, in so far as Canada is concerned, from an oral expression given by the minister or by the government itself? I think the Minister of National Defence is confronted with the necessity of answering those questions, even though their replies may be self-evident.
There is another question that arises out of a statement made by the Minister of National Defence in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Algoma East. The hon. member for Algoma East asked this question:	in the absence of General
Partridge, what authority will Air Marshal Slemon be capable of exercising? The Minister of National Defence at once rose and said, "Of course, in the absence of General Partridge, Air Marshal Slemon will have precisely the same authority that General Partridge himself would have".


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister now says, "That is correct". That creates a very serious situation, it seems to me, because of what we are advised by General Partridge himself in the interview which he gave on September 6, and which is contained in the U.S. News and World Report. In that article, as I reminded the minister on another occasion in this house, General Partridge said in effect that he had an understanding with the President of the United States to the effect that there likely being no time available in the event of an emergency he was not obligated before acting to receive the informal or formal approval of the President or of the government of the United States. When asked as to the authority of General Partridge vis-a-vis the Canadian

government my hon. and gallant friend said that that kind of freedom of action in so far as Canada was concerned did not exist in so far as the NORAD commander was concerned, and that there would have to be consultation with Ottawa. We were never told who in Ottawa must be consulted. We were never told whether that was the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence or any combination of ministers of the crown. But in any event the point is that General Partridge, in so far as Canada is concerned, just could not on his own initiative and discretion push the button. 1 think I correctly state the situation as related by the Minister of National Defence to us some weeks ago.
If that is the case, what is the situation that now flows from the replies of my hon. friend? Air Marshal Slemon, a Canadian officer, No. 2 in command, will have in the United States and over United States air forces authority which he does not possess in Canada over Canadian air force officers and over the particular operation in the event of an emergency. This surely reveals the difficult position in which the minister finds himself and with which I think we all have much sympathy but I think it is largely based upon the character and the nature of the replies which he gave. Surely the situation in Canada with respect to this matter cannot be any different from the situation that prevails in the United States. This must, I would think, be conceived of as the same operation. Any decision taken by General Partridge or, in his absence, by Air Marshal Slemon must in the very nature of things apply to both countries. But it cannot do so, in so far as Canada is concerned, if what the minister said is to be taken as the correct procedural situation. I think the minister owes it to the country, to himself and to parliament to indicate whether or not the functions of General Partridge or, in his absence, of Air Marshal Slemon, are any different as between one country and another.
It surely must mean that General Partridge has in Canada precisely the same authority that he has in the United States. I think the minister also owes it to us to say whether or not the situation is as General Partridge revealed in this interview, namely that there would in all probability be no time for consultation; and if there is not time for consultation, does the minister still take the position that General Partridge, or in his absence, Air Marshal Slemon, must first of all contact someone in Ottawa? Also, as I say, the minister must tell us what particular authority in Ottawa.
All of this adds up to what the hon. member for Algoma East said, namely that these are

matters that require precision of agreement. The minister said that Air Marshal Slemon had gone to the United States and was working out an interim arrangement. He has not yet indicated to us whether, as the result of that interim arrangement leading to some kind of formal agreement between the United States and Canada, that agreement will at some subsequent time be submitted to parliament for approval or ratification. I would think, however, in view of the discussion that has taken place here today and during the course of this present session of parliament this government would not make the mistake even at this date of failing to bring to parliament a treaty or a document which embodies the policy which the government is prepared to recommend to parliament.
The Minister of National Defence said that this was not a matter involving the dispatch of troops overseas. I suppose technically that is correct, although under certain conceivable circumstances it could be the case that men employed in the defence of the country in this particular arrangement might have to leave the shores of Canada. That may or may not be an academic question but that surely is not the issue. When in November of 1940 the then prime minister of Canada submitted the Ogdensburg agreement that set up a joint board for defence between the United States and Canada that was an instrument that had nothing at all to do with the dispatch of troops anywhere, either on this continent or in Europe. But the government of the day took the parliamentary step of submitting to parliament the policy of the government in asking for approval. That is what the hon. member for Algoma East, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others during the course of this particular discussion have insisted was a necessary thing to do within our parliamentary tradition.
In fact, our parliamentary tradition in Canada goes beyond that. Since 1926 there has grown up the custom, respected by every government, that any matters involving relations of this country, except commercial treaties, whether they include the dispatch of troops overseas or whether they are in the nature of commitments entered into by this country with other nations, should be submitted to parliament. We had a discussion in 1935 as to whether or not, for instance, the imposition of sanctions under the covenant of the League of Nations, if supported by Canada, would require first of all the consent, or the approval rather, of the Canadian parliament. If it is our tradition that this should be done in the case of nonmilitary action such as the sanctions which were contemplated in the case of the Ethio-pian-Italian dispute, then surely a matter of 96698-182
Supply-National Defence the greatest importance such as this, which is perhaps an agreement more important than any other agreement outside the NATO agreement that we have ever had to deal with, should be submitted to the parliament of Canada.
I think one could successfully argue that once a decision has been taken even in interim form-a decision which the Prime Minister said was a decision of the government as a whole-it should have been submitted to parliament. But it was not submitted to parliament. Even to this very day there has been no formal submission of the step taken, and now that the defence forces of the two countries are negotiating an agreement which will later be embodied, presumably as the hon. member for Algoma East has said in a political agreement-and the minister ought, I think, to give us an assurance about that-this surely will be submitted to parliament. Not that parliament objects to the objectives which the government has in mind, because it is elementary to observe that in this thermonuclear age it is essential for our continental defence that there should be the fullest co-operation between Canada and the United States, as the hon. member for Algoma East said. But nevertheless because of all the implications- implications which all of us appreciate without spelling them out-I think it is a desirable safeguard that, first of all, the government should have taken parliament into its confidence. This not having been done, we should at least be given an assurance that once a political document, whether in the form of an exchange of notes or a treaty is prepared, it will be submitted to parliament. The government will have decided its policy and I have no doubt what the result will be, but we will then be in a position to make an examination of all the factors involved.
But I think the minister will want to take this opportunity of acknowledging that the answers which General Partridge made are inconsistent with the replies he himself made a few weeks ago. Either General Partridge is right or the minister is wrong. Both cannot be right. I am sure the minister-and I say this to him knowing his heavy responsibility -must agree that this is the case. I understand that that interview between General Partridge and the interviewer was submitted after the end of June to either the minister, or if not to him, then to the Department of National Defence-I do not know whether I should say for approval. But I think that under the article there is a footnote-an asterisk on the first page-which says that the article, in so far as the Canadian references are concerned, was submitted to the

Supply-National Defence Department of National Defence in Canada. If this is the case I think the minister owes it to the house and to himself to explain what is obviously, I think, an inconsistency between the two positions.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I will take this opportunity to reassure the hon. member immediately that when the formal note is ready it will be submitted to parliament. I have made that statement at least twice in this house, as has the Prime Minister, who has also given that assurance.
Regarding this interview to which reference has been made, let me say in the first place that I understand General Partridge was interviewed before he took over the command, before the integrated command was ever established. The second point is that the article was submitted to the R.C.A.F. for security clearance, because there was some references made in it to equipment which was then held by the R.C.A.F., and the United States authorities did not want to publish any information about Canadian equipment without getting clearance. But there was no question of the article being submitted to me; I never saw it until it appeared in print. There was no question of it being submitted to the department for a report on the general statements contained in it. It was submitted only with regard to the classified nature of the equipment of the R.C.A.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister noted the welcome the committee gave to his statement that any note finally agreed upon would be submitted to the house. He then said that he had made such a statement before. It was my recollection that he did not go that far, and perhaps it was for that reason that the committee was so glad to hear his categorical statement today. As a matter of fact, on a previous occasion when the estimates of the minister's department were being considered, on December 5, as recorded on page 1940 of Hansard, I put this question to the minister:
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?
To which the minister replied:
I would hope 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.
Well, the minister has gone one step further today. If I understood him aright he said it would be tabled and that this house would
(Mr. Martin (Essex East).]

have it. I am sure we welcome that and I hope it will be in such a form that an appropriate motion will be presented to parliament and parliament will have the opportunity to decide for or against this joint defence arrangement. May I say to the minister that in making these arrangements we hope he will bear in mind that there is a difference between an arrangement which provides merely for reports to a body such as NATO and a command which draws its authority from a civilian authority such as NATO.
While I am on my feet may I just spell out briefly what I referred to earlier today by directing the minister's attention to sections 32 and 33 of the National Defence Act. These are the sections I had in mind when I was speaking earlier, under which the governor in council does have authority at any time to place any component, unit or person in the forces on active service. This can be done in Canada or abroad. It can be done by reason of an emergency for the defence of Canada or in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations charter, the North Atlantic treaty or any other similar instrument for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada. However, Mr. Chairman, the point of section 33 of the National Defence Act is that if the government does exercise this authority which it has of putting any Canadian personnel on active service, if parliament is not in session at the time parliament must be called within ten days of that action having been taken. I suppose it is a question of whether or not these personnel at Colorado Springs today are on active service. Does the minister want to comment on that?


George Randolph Pearkes: All the regular forces of Canada are on active service. They have never been taken off active service since the Korean war.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But, Mr. Chairman, when they were placed on active service for the purpose of the Korean war, if my memory serves me right, the order in council specifically referred to the operations in Korea. From time to time as our service personnel have been placed on active service in Europe under NATO there have been orders in council directly relating to that service. My question is the obvious one. Has there been any order in council providing for these personnel to be on active service at Colorado Springs? If they are not on what is active service now, what would happen if under the direction of General Partridge or Air Marshal Slemon they were put on active service?

These things are routine. We all agree that these are things that may have to be done on the basis of a split-second decision but we urge the minister not to think of them as such routine military measures that he or the government forgets the parliamentary requirements as spelled out in the act under which the minister's department operates.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this at the present time. I believe this is one of the most important acts that has taken place within our Department of National Defence since the time of Korea. From the interest shown by the speakers thus far I think the importance of this subject has been demonstrated to the house and the concern which most of us feel is over the possible surrendering of our sovereign rights or of the civil authority becoming secondary to military authority.
I do not believe that any of us is opposed to co-operation or integration if you want to call it that but we are fearful that co-operation may mean a surrender of our sovereign rights. However I was glad to hear the minister inform us that nothing like this will take place. He assures us that the chiefs of the general staff are reporting directly to him. On the basis of that statement I would assume that he has some knowledge of the progress that is being made. If such is the case I am wondering why a little more of that knowledge is not given to the house.
I must say I have listened to this discussion quite carefully and I do not know a great deal more about this question than I did on December 5 when it was first raised in this house. Surely the minister must have knowledge of some progress that has been made. He must know something about what is going on. I believe it is up to him to report to this parliament whatever accomplishments have occurred.
There was one other statement made by the minister and I do not know if I correctly understood him. I am under the impression he said that a draft note had been prepared by the military authority and had been submitted to Washington. If that is the case I would like to know why a similar action has not taken place so far as Canada is concerned. If this has transpired I think it is a serious matter and something of which we should be made aware.
One other question I have concerns finance. I should like to know what arrangements have been made or are being contemplated for the sharing of the costs of the operation of NORAD?
96698-182J
Supply-National Defence


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question I should like to ask the minister. So far the discussion has been about what could be done in the event of enemy bombers coming over but I am interested in knowing what is the situation regarding enemy submarines. How near could they come to the coast of North America before we would be in a position to take action against those submarines? We have been informed that Russia has 500 submarines and in a short space of time will have 1,200. We have also been informed that they are armed with rocket-launching devices so I think most of us would believe that in the event of war Russia would probably use them for the purpose of launching atomic missiles against towns in the United States. At what distance could they be attacked by our planes if they were spotted?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is nothing to prevent any vessel coming through the territorial waters which area in general is three miles out. They could not possibly be attacked unless they committed some overt act of war. If a Russian submarine attacked a Canadian vessel then appropriate action could be taken by any Canadian naval vessel or any Canadian aircraft which was in the vicinity but as for merely cruising up to the territorial waters of Canada there is nothing to prevent a vessel of another country doing so.


Victor Quelch: That is the point that concerns me. The leader of the C.C.F. mentioned the other day that he thought there was reason for Russia to be concerned due to the fact that she had been ringed around by bases of the western allies. Personally I think we are in a far more vulnerable position because we can be ringed around by a series of moving bases, looking upon these submarines as moving bases. I believe General Gruenther suggested that these submarines are equipped with rocket-launching devices and if this is so what is to prevent them at a certain specified time launching an attack on towns all around the American continent?
The minister says we could not take any action against them as long as they were cruising. Does that mean to say that if Russia did decide to make an attack upon this country she could send her submarine fleet out, put them at strategically located points around the continent, and at a given moment fire these rockets at targets on this continent and that we would not be in a position to take action against them until the rockets had been launched? It seems to me that we are in an extremely vulnerable position.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will admit that we are in a vulnerable position and that is a threat which

Supply

National Defence we have to face but as long as there are naval craft of another country cruising off our shores in a peaceful way we certainly cannot take any hostile action against those craft. We are not going to start a war. If they start launching rockets against us then of course we will take immediate action against the submarines. Let me stress the fact that it is the fear of retaliation which we hope will stop the foolhardiness of any country in attacking this continent by any means whatever.


Donald Cameron: Can the minister tell us a little more about the status of the United States forces under General Partridge's command? As I recall it, he said a short while ago that General Partridge would have no authority whatever to commit the forces under his command to any action except that of defensive action of North America. Does that imply that the forces which the United States are placing under General Partridge and under Air Vice Marshal Slemon are to be under the complete control of a joint political group composed of the United States and Canada in the same way that the forces of NATO are under the NATO political organization, or would it be possible for the United States authority to decide that the forces under General Partridge were to be deployed in some such way as the hon. member for Algoma East suggested a few moments ago? Would that be possible because of the threat of an attack from the Chinese mainland forces on the communist government owing to some action they might have taken on Formosa? The point I want to get clear in my mind is this. Are the forces under this joint command going to be relinquished from purely national control and placed under the control of a political organization set up by Canada and the United States in the same way that NATO forces are under the NATO council?


George Randolph Pearkes: General Partridge has operational control over the United States air forces allocated for the defence of the North American continent and operational control over the Canadian air forces allocated for the control of the North American continent. I sometimes wonder whether there is not some confusion amongst hon. members in believing that there is some relation between the strategic air command of the United States, which is a force of retaliation, and General Partridge's command. They are two entirely separate commands. General Partridge's command is purely a defence command of the North American continent. He has no offensive role whatsoever.


Donald Cameron: No-


George Randolph Pearkes: No offensive role.


Donald Cameron: Mr. Chairman, it hinges, of course, on the definition that is given to the term "defensive". It might very well be that in the opinion of the strategists at the time the North American continent could only be defended in a certain instance by operations outside North America, and that is the point that we want to get clear and that, incidentally, is the point that this parliament should have clear and it would have it clear if this government had followed the normal procedure of presenting to this house a clearly outlined treaty which would outline and define the terms used. That has not been done, and so far we have only the suggestion of the minister that we shall have tabled in this house the notes which have been exchanged between the two governments. We do not know whether those notes are going to define clearly to us just what is considered to be defensive action, preventive action, if you like, for the defence of North America. I think we should have that clearly in our minds because otherwise we may find our forces involved in operations which the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament will not be prepared to consider as legitimate defensive action.


William James Henderson: I understood the minister's announced policy to be that the reserve training such as weekend flying, air force training of reserve officer flyers, is to be discontinued. Is that correct?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, that is not correct. Some time before this government came into power difficulties were experienced in fitting the role of the auxiliary forces of the R.C.A.F. into a fighter role. It was thought before the jet aircraft age came in that they could have been utilized to supplement the fighter squadrons of the R.C.A.F. Experience is showing that that cannot be done, and more emphasis is being placed on the role of search and rescue and on transport which is being allotted to the various auxiliary squadrons. It is not intended in any way to disband the auxiliary squadrons of the R.C.A.F., but there will be some change of role.


William James Henderson: Has their flying time or their training time in that role been reduced?


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not think there has been any reduction in training time but it may be that they will have to adjust their type of training to the new role. I would like to say that many of the auxiliary squadrons are doing extremely valuable work in connection with the "Pinetree" line. Personnel have gone there and are capable of relieving regular personnel for quite long periods, and that seems to be a very suitable role indeed for the auxiliary squadrons.


William James Henderson: I mention this because I listened to the minister's reply this morning to the hon. member for Nanaimo about our dependence for the defence of Canada upon the United States air force. I notice that of late the United States forces, particularly the air force division, are advertising more and more the type of training that we give here. They are suggesting that retired airmen should take time at weekends to take this sort of training in the new planes. It is encouraging them. I wondered whether that would have any effect upon the minister's policy in Canada?
Will the minister do the same with this division of the service as he has done with the others and give us the figures of short spending for the years 1956 and 1957, and tell us whether the estimates are in line with his expenditures for the years 1957 and 1958?


George Randolph Pearkes: Here are the figures for 195657. The estimate was $774,862,536. The amount spent was $774,953,444; in other words, there was an overexpenditure of $80,908. This year the estimate was $784,173,000, of which it is now estimated $783,742,000 will be spent, which indicates an underexpenditure of $431,000 which is about as close estimating in both cases as I think it is humanly possible to get.


William James Henderson: Can the minister also tell us something about the deferments or the cancellations of contracts in the two categories, one, the building construction program and the other, supply contracts?


George Randolph Pearkes: Under acquisition and construction of buildings, acquisition of lands, etc., there is an estimated saving of $5 million.


William James Henderson: Is this cancellation or deferment?


George Randolph Pearkes: It includes both.


William James Henderson: Can the minister apportion the $5 million between cancellation and deferment?


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not have the figure broken down in those categories.


William James Henderson: What about supplies?


George Randolph Pearkes: With respect to aircraft, engines, and equipment there is a reduction of $20 million. A good deal of that has resulted from the cancellation of the Mark VI, CF-100.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Apparently the item we are now discussing is going to go through very shortly. I am sure there are very few men in public life who will get $2 million a day for seven days a week and 52 weeks in the year through parliament with as little trouble as the minister. Something over $784 million will
Supply-National Defence be voted very shortly. I should like to ask a few questions about the mid-Canada line. Would the minister indicate what responsibility he now has for the mid-Canada line? Does he have any figures as to the total cost of the line? Could he also indicate what share of the cost is carried by the R.C.A.F. and what is non-R.C.A.F.?
I may say there are a couple of establishments in my constituency. During the recess I was somewhat embarrassed to find that it was very difficult for a member of parliament to see what was going on in his own constituency. During world war II the pass issued to all members of parliament by the Clerk of the house usually made it quite easy to see high ranking officers of the army, air force and navy anywhere in Canada. I was somewhat surprised to find that very strict regulations had been issued stating who could enter the premises but that there was no reference to members of parliament. I should say that I was not placed in the position of being turned away but it was a bit embarrassing for the officers in charge to find a member of parliament seeking to see something in his own constituency without having the proper credentials.
First of all, would the minister give me the information as to the total investment in the mid-Canada line? Then I should like to know the annual cost to the R.C.A.F. Would he also have orders issued that members of the Canadian parliament are to be included as persons who can visit any R.C.A.F. establishment anywhere in Canada?


George Randolph Pearkes: The total cost of construction of the mid-Canada line to date is $112 million. The total cost to date is $215 million.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister give
those two figures again?


George Randolph Pearkes: The total cost of construction to date is approximately $112 million. The total cost is $215 million. It costs approximately $18 million a year to operate the line. As to the hon. member's other question, I think it would be desirable if members of parliament who wish to visit the mid-Canada line, which after all is in a rather remote part of the country, would ask for permission to make such visits. I am quite certain it would be granted readily, but rather than giving a general clearance I think it would be better from the point of view of security reasons for the air force to know who is going to visit.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sorry but I cannot agree with the minister.


An hon. Member:: You cannot agree with anybody.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If during world war II it was taken for granted that members of the

Supply-National Defence Canadian parliament should be encouraged to visit army, air force and navy establishments anywhere in Canada and the identification card issued by the Clerk of the house was considered as adequate, I see no reason why in peacetime a member elected by the people cannot go anywhere in his own constituency without submitting a request to the Minister of National Defence for a special dispensation. I submit that the minister should review this matter and have instructions issued authorizing all establishments in Canada to permit members of the Canadian parliament to visit them without any embarrassing questions being asked as to what their business is and why they should be making visits in their own constituency in connection with their own legitimate business.


Leonard T. Stick: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the estimates but before I go on to the subject I want to discuss may I say to the minister that I appreciate his co-operation very much in connection with the submarine menace about which I spoke some time ago in parliament. The minister has been most kind and co-operative and I should like him and the house to know that I appreciate his co-operation.
To get back to the command of the North American continent, I mentioned before that we in Newfoundland are in a rather different position from the rest of Canada in that we have United States forces stationed on our soil, including United States air force personnel in goodly numbers. We know that we are dependent on them very largely for our defence.
Having regard to the discussion so far and the information the minister has been kind enough to give us, I think there is a bit of confusion in the minds of some of us, certainly in my mind. I am not concerned now with the political aspect of the North American command although I agree that the military should be subservient to the civil. But I am not clear in my mind yet and I am afraid that we may have a second edition of Pearl Harbour. Those of us who have read the report of what happened there know that at that time the United States commander was in a state of uncertainty with respect to where his authority began and where it ended. The consequence was that he hesitated to take command and to set forces in motion to offset the raid by the Japanese aircraft.
I am afraid that unless the command difficulty is settled once and for all so that we will know who is to give orders without consultations with anybody we may find ourselves, particularly in Newfoundland, involved in a second Pearl Harbour. I am not


concerned who commands the air force, whether it is a United States general or a Canadian air marshal. We all agree that co-operation should exist from the highest to the lowest level if we are to have full co-ordination. I do not know yet whether General Partridge's appointment has been confirmed by the Canadian government or whether Air Marshal Slemon's appointment has been confirmed by the United States government, but I do know that the United States and Canada are in this thing together and we cannot be successful unless we have the fullest co-operation.
As I said a moment ago we have the United States air force in goodly numbers in Newfoundland. I want to be assured that General Partridge, or Air Marshal Slemon, whoever it may be, if an act of aggression is committed against our shores, either from submarines or from the air, will have full authority to take counter action immediately without any consultation whatever with this government or the United States government. I think that is necessary, that is vital if we are to have the protection which our people deserve. It is believed by military strategists and military tacticians that if an attack does come-God forbid that it should -it is going to come suddenly, without any warning. There will be no time for consultation with Ottawa or Washington. I trust that whoever is in command will have full authority to act immediately. Naturally he will have to tell the two governments what he has done, but whoever he may be he should have full authority to act immediately without any prior consultation.
I do ask the minister if he could, and if he would, assure me on this point. He has given me several answers before, but I do not think the answer is clear as to who has full authority to act at the moment. It may be that in this exchange of notes about which the minister has been speaking this afternoon, and which no doubt will be followed by a formal agreement between the two governments, this matter will be ironed out. But until that has happened, and until it is approved by both the United States and the Canadian government, I do believe these commanders should have that authority now. I do ask the minister if he has any comment to make upon it, and if he can give me that assurance.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to assure the hon. member that the United States squadrons now based in Newfoundland are under the operation control of the Canadian air defence commander at St. Hubert, and that he has authority at once to engage, according to the accepted terms of engagement, any

hostile plane which is approaching Newfoundland, without reference any further because the terms of the agreement have already been accepted.


Leonard T. Stick: I should like to thank the minister for that explanation. It is information we have been trying to get for some time. If the arrangements are now made and that can happen I think that should satisfy our people. I thank him for the information.


Stanley Haidasz: I should like the minister to give us some details about item 22, page 344, concerning an expenditure of $1,754,000. I should like to ask him also whether in the case of the item for the air force this money was designated for the recreational branch of the Royal Canadian Air Force. An article written in the Ottawa Journal of Friday, October 25, suggests that the Royal Canadian Air Force recreational branch will receive a chop by national defence department.


George Randolph Pearkes: The answer to the last question is that we recognize the importance of recreational facilities in the maintenance of morale of all the forces, perhaps particularly the R.C.A.F. in these northern stations where there are not the usual means for recreation. For instance, on the "Pinetree" line there are bowling alleys established at the stations. In some cases they have swimming pools, and every reasonable facility is given for recreation.
In so far as the question about the other items which appear at the bottom of page 344 is concerned, they cover the same sort of items as were covered by the other items for the army, such as laundry, grants to the band, physical fitness equipment and so on. There is an amount there of $127,000, giving an indication of the extent to which we are encouraging recreation. I notice that it is expected that amount will be overspent by $16,400 compared to 1956-57, which would certainly give an indication that we are encouraging recreation. There is another item for entertainment expenses. As I have already pointed out, in these northern areas we believe it is important to encourage that sort of thing. The item for this year was $18,500, and we expect that to be overspent to the extent of $2,000.


Mr. Caron:: I should like to ask the minister whether or not it is true that after a man has served for 18 or 19 years in the air force, and he reaches the age of 50 he is told to take his pension or accept a reduction in rank? If he takes his pension, his pension will be much lower, and of course it is against the man's pride to accept a reduction in rank.
Supply-National Defence


George Randolph Pearkes: That certainly is not a general condition which exists, and if the hon. member has some particular instance in mind and would let me know of the case I will have it looked into and let him know exactly the reasons.


Alexis Pierre Caron: This was brought to my attention a little while ago, and I said I would bring it to the minister's attention. This man told me he was told that if any politics entered into it it would be worse for his case. It was for this reason I did not write the minister.


George Randolph Pearkes: If the hon. member will let me know the details of that particular case I will certainly have it looked into. I can assure him that his friend or the person on behalf of whom he is speaking will suffer no adverse effects because he has spoken to his member and asked his member to mention the case.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will do that, but I want to tell the minister that the man was told the order came from Ottawa.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, all members realize the estimates we are discussing are very large indeed. I imagine that no matter what the point of view we would hope these estimates in the future might be reduced. I am rather disturbed about a report in this evening's Ottawa Journal, a statement said to have been made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Edmonton West. I think the committee is entitled to know whether in making this statement he is in fact stating government policy or what government policy is likely to be. This is a Canadian Press dispatch from Calgary, dated January 4, and it reads:
The parliamentary assistant to Defence Minister Pearkes said last night Canada may have to increase its defence expenditures beyond the 1957 budget of $1,750,000,000.
He is talking about the major changes that may be forthcoming, and he goes on to say, and this is in quotation marks:
"Today it is tremendous; tomorrow it may even be greater. We are going to face increased responsibilities and must reorientate our thoughts."
In plain English that would suggest to me that the parliamentary assistant is saying that we are going to be asked to pass larger estimates for national defence in the coming fiscal year. I hope that the Minister of National Defence may be able to say that the expression of his parliamentary assistant is not correct as reported in the newspaper. We know that sometimes the reports in the press are not wholly accurate. I hope he is able to assure the committee that, when the estimates are brought down for the new

Supply-National Defence fiscal year in the matter of a short time they will not in fact contain substantial increases. We in this group feel that the estimates for national defence in the future should be reduced and that there are other ways by which the government can spend money to provide defence in a more secure manner than by continuing to spend the very large sum of $lf billion as a rather fixed amount for an indefinite period.
I think it would be an act of faith on the part of Canada if, in the coming fiscal year, we reduced the amount of money we are voting for national defence and used the resources of this country in other ways to assist people in underdeveloped countries and so on. However, I think the committee has a right to know whether or not the parliamentary assistant in fact is stating the government policy when he says that Canada may have to increase its defence expenditure in the coming year and then spells this statement out by referring to the increased responsibilities and so on.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have not seen the article in question nor have I heard the remarks made by my parliamentary assistant who, I believe, is in Alberta today. Furthermore, as I stated earlier in this discussion, I cannot discuss next year's estimates while we are still considering the estimates of 1957.


Hazen Robert Argue: With great respect to the minister, may I say that I do not think the statement that he has now made is an adequate one. Surely, in discussing the defence estimates for any given fiscal year, it is fair to ask what the government's continuing policy in this field is going to be. With the new fiscal year coming along in less than three months and with his parliamentary assistant being credited with making statements of government policy outside the house, I think the committee has a right to know whether those statements, as attributed to him in the press, are a correct statement of government policy. Of course the minister was not there. I am not asking the minister to say whether or not the parliamentary assistant in fact made those statements. But surely, when they appear in the press, it is fair to ask whether the statements as reported in the press are in fact a statement of the minister's own position and that of the government.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Shall the Royal Canadian Air Force item carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: Since the minister is not talking on this question we will have a chance to find out in the future whether the parliamentary assistant has been more appropriately speaking for the government at the political convention in Calgary than has the

minister himself. I want to refer to another question. The matter of whether the continuing policy to produce substantial quantities of CF-105's is a correct one is, of course, rather controversial. But I should like to know from the minister what amount of money has already been spent in the development of the CF-105 and what commitment the government has made by way of policy that will result in future expenditures for the development of the CF-105.


George Randolph Pearkes: The CF-105 is being developed as a supersonic interceptor. The start was made on this aircraft some few years ago and this year we decided to continue for one year or more the development of this aircraft. We are not committed any further than to continue the development for another year, with the right even then of discontinuing that development should the circumstances warrant taking such a step. I am told that the total amount spent so far on the development of this aircraft is $89,000,641.


Hazen Robert Argue: Over what period of time?


George Randolph Pearkes: This is up to the end of October, 1957 from the time when the initial research work started, which was two or three years ago.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder whether the
minister could indicate what will be the total cost by the time it is off the line?


George Randolph Pearkes: It will depend entirely on the number of aircraft, if any, which are ordered. I will frankly admit there is a very heavy expenditure in developing this particular type of aircraft. The demand at the present time is not large, as no other country is at present ordering this aircraft. We must develop it for ourselves, and the expense is heavy.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say when the one-year period ends for which the development has been continued?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think it was the first of
October of this year.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say what are the likely expenses that will be incurred during this further one-year period? The expense has been some $89 million up to now.


George Randolph Pearkes: The whole situation will
have to be reviewed in the light of the threat that there is of manned bombers. This is an aircraft designed to meet manned bombers. We know that Russia has considerable numbers of manned bombers capable of flying over this country. While the manned bomber, flying at great heights and

at great speeds, is in the armament of a possible enemy, we must keep aircraft which are capable of meeting that threat. But as the bomber threat may decrease and the missile threat may become more definite the whole situation has to be reviewed. One of the difficulties is that we are not looking at the situation which will occur just a year hence, we must try to pierce the future for five years hence.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has already
informed the committee that the cost of development up to October 1, 1957, was some $89 million and that the program is being continued for another period of 12 months. Is the minister able to estimate the cost of continuing the program for the one-year period which I take it is from October 1, 1957 to October 1, 1958?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, I have not a detailed estimate of that cost at all.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think the minister's
predecessor was able to give us some estimate a year ago. It is hard to understand why the minister now is not able to give the committee at least as much information as his predecessor gave. Surely before embarking on a program of this sort the government would want to have some idea as to what the target was going to be. Surely the minister can say something more than that the government has spent $89 million up to October of this year. Can the minister not say what the estimated cost to the treasury will be of completing the job undertaken?


George Randolph Pearkes: The figures for next year will be included in next year's estimates.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But, Mr. Chairman, a year ago the minister's predecessor was able to give the committee some information. I have not got the figures before me, but it is hard to understand why the present minister is not able to give us as much information as we were able to have a year ago regarding what the total cost was going to be. I think he could bring this estimate up to date if he wishes to co-operate with the committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: Up to November 30 the money which has already been spent on air frame development amounted to $11,038,376; on the Iroquois engine development, $7,951,487; and on the electronic development, $4,355,480. That is the total development for the year, $23,345,343.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is helpful. The minister has the information up to the end of November. Surely he could make a forecast for the balance of the year. If this amount has been increased by $20 million for this
Supply-National Defence period, surely some estimate has been made as to what will be the total amount involved for the rest of the 12-month period. Could the minister not give us that information?


George Randolph Pearkes: I would have to get that information; the officials have not got it here.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister inform the committee how many CF-105 planes the department expects to have in the air at the end of this further continuing period of development? Will there be just a prototype, or will there be a number of planes in the air? How many do we expect to have after spending $89 million plus part of another $23 million plus an agreement on an undertaking to provide money for a further one-year period of development?


George Randolph Pearkes: There are eight of the prototype planes being developed but all those eight will not be in the air by the end of this year.


Gordon Campbell Chown: If the
committee is agreeable we will now consider the item on page 346, defence research and development.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I did not realize the subject of air cadets or search and rescue was included under the title we have just been dealing with. I did not have any questions to ask under the heading of air cadets but I do have questions to ask under the heading of search and rescue.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is it
agreed that the hon. member may ask the questions he desires to ask?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As the minister probably realizes, this is a question in which I have taken some little interest when the estimates of his department have been before the committee in previous years, and I was hoping the minister would be able to give us a brief resume of the development which has taken place in this field since he assumed office and tell the committee what he may have in mind for the revision or expansion of the work this branch of the service does. Has the minister any statement he can make to the committee?


George Randolph Pearkes: There has been some reorganization in the air rescue and search command. There has been a concentration of resources at certain centres, and I think this has improved general efficiency. I know the hon. member is particularly interested in the west coast. The command there has carried out very active operations during the year, and in a number of instances it has rendered very valuable aid. There is another
2876	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence centre at Winnipeg from which the northern part of Canada is patrolled, and rescue teams are sent out as required. Canada generally is divided into four or five air rescue commands with a central organization where aircraft are available for these operations.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As the minister says, the only centre of which I have any direct knowledge is that on the west coast, and I certainly agree with him that search and rescue units have been active there. I noticed that only a few days ago they were called out to look for a missing fishing vessel off the northeast coast of Vancouver island.
I see that the particular estimate under the heading of search and rescue appears to provide only for what I understand to be the operating account of search and rescue units. Do I take it that the equipment which they use comes under the general vote for procurement of equipment? Under the air force vote on the preceding page I notice an item "Procurement of equipment including aircraft and engines" and so on but there is no similar heading under search and rescue. I am wondering what arrangements exist for the provision of new aircraft for the search and rescue organization when required.


George Randolph Pearkes: New aircraft, or any new equipment required, are procured under the general account of the air force. I may say that consideration is now being given to the advisability of replacing some of the Cansos which have carried out this operation successfully for a great many years.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Do I understand that Cansos are to be replaced with a new type of plane, or are the Canso planes to be renewed?


George Randolph Pearkes: The best type of new equipment for the search and rescue squadrons is a matter now under consideration, but there have been no new aircraft provided for in the estimates of this year.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder if the minister could tell us what the situation is with respect to helicopters attached to the search and rescue units on the Pacific coast at the present time. How many of those are available for search and rescue work?


George Randolph Pearkes: I speak from recollection, but I think there are two on the west coast, and when additional helicopters are required they have to be hired from civilian firms.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister may recall that last year his colleague the Minister of Transport announced that a new marine agency vessel under construction for the Prince Rupert agency was being fitted with a helicopter landing deck. I wonder if there will be a helicopter under the jurisdiction of the


Department of Transport attached to that vessel? Is this helicopter landing deck being provided for use by the search and rescue unit.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not sure about that. The Minister of Transport is going to make an announcement in the house early next week, I believe, about some new vessels of that type and perhaps he could answer that question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: There is one other matter in connection with the search and rescue situation which I would like to put before the committee before this item carries. As the minister will recall, he and I have had some discussion about the situation with reference to the R.C.A.F. establishment at Tofino. Recently there came to my attention a suggestion that it might be to the general advantage of the search and rescue situation on the west coast if consideration were given by the minister's department to the establishment of a sub-base of the search and rescue section at Tofino. I understand there are some negotiations going on between his department and the Department of Transport in respect to the future of the Tofino airport. As the minister knows, the whole situation there is a matter of considerable concern to the west coast communities.
The idea of the need for units of search and rescue on the west coast of Vancouver island is not really a new one. I have had suggestions made to me before that there are occasions when rescue services may be required on the west coast when the sea island base may be fogged in and there might be a good many occasions when equipment based on the west coast would be fog free when such would not be the case at the existing establishment. I wonder if the minister can give any indication at the present time as to whether he might be prepared to give favourable consideration to the establishment of a search and rescue unit at the Tofino station.


George Randolph Pearkes: We will be very pleased to give it consideration but I cannot guarantee that it will be favourable consideration to the establishment of a substation at Tofino. I know the Tofino airfield very well and I am not at all sure that that would be the best locality for a substation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I realize that there are many technical considerations involved in the question but I hope the minister will look into the matter further and I am glad to have his assurance that he will do so.


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall do so.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In that connection there recently came to my hand a communication arising out of the last annual meeting of the

Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative association. Apparently quite a number of their representatives, particularly those who live along the west coast of Vancouver island, are somewhat concerned over the possibility that with the change that is being made at Tofino the radio beacon on which they have apparently come to rely a great deal will no longer be operative. In view of the change that has taken place in the responsibility of his department in that area I realize that the minister may not be in a position to give me an answer to this quesiton but if he has any information as to whether or not it is planned to have the service of this radio beacon continued either under the auspices of his department or under other auspices I would be very glad to have that information at this time.


George Randolph Pearkes: The area originally covered by the radio at Tofino is now covered by two larger stations, one at Holberg on the north of Vancouver island and the other in the state of Washington which made the necessity of maintaining the station at Tofino for defence purposes unnecessary, but Tofino airport is being transferred to the Department of Transport and I believe they will be making arrangements for the maintenance of that field in a rather less active state than has been the case in the past.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I take it from what the minister said that the matter of the maintenance of this radio beacon is something that could be properly taken up with the Department of Transport?


George Randolph Pearkes: That would be maintained, if maintained, by the Department of Transport.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The case for its maintenance for the fishing fleet is something that could be presented to the Department of Transport?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the Royal Canadian Air Force item a carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Defence research and development, page 346.


William James Henderson: Under this item, Mr. Chairman, I might say to the minister and I am sure he will agree that in this particular year due to the great scientific advances made by countries probably not too friendly toward us, and I refer specifically to sputnik, the other earth satellites and advances in research, I wonder if the minister would like to make a statement today about what Canada is doing in respect of defence research and development in order to cope with the eventuality of nuclear weapons, ICBM's and others.
Supply-National Defence


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. Canada is concentrating on certain aspects of research and development, one of the main efforts being that connected with the location and detection of submarines, research in various branches of the detection of submarine craft and an extensive laboratory is maintained at Halifax for that purpose. There is another laboratory maintained at Esquimalt for the study of the detection of underwater noises and so forth. That is one of the main fields of endeavour. Another field of endeavour is that of the study of the effect of the auroral zone on missiles or other objects entering into that area.
Recently an agreement was made with the United States that we would establish a research station to be manned mainly by scientists from the University of Saskatchewan to operate certain equipment which is being given to Canada by the United States. There are, of course, a number of other research stations throughout the country. There is an important research station at Suffield in Alberta where bacteriological research is carried out as well as research on chemical warfare. There is another important station located at Shirley's Bay where radio propagation experiments are conducted. We have close association with the scientists of the United States and the United Kingdom. Within the last month there was a large gathering held here in the city of Ottawa. A symposium of scientists from all over the world who are interested in defence research was held and some 800 scientists attended those discussions.
A leading scientist from the United Kingdom, who is the director of missile research in connection with the British government, gave the main speech and introduced the subject.
I think I can say that our efforts are concentrated on perhaps a rather limited number of fields in which we are particularly well equipped to carry out research work. Of course, I must mention the research station at Churchill where there is an intensive study being carried on, and which is watched by the United States and the United Kingdom, into the effect of cold weather on personnel, on transport vehicles and on armament, including missiles, which the United States has there to test in order to see the effect of subzero temperatures.


William James Henderson: Were the expenditures less than those anticipated; that is, less than the ones mentioned on page 347, and will there be larger expenditures in the year 1957-58?


George Randolph Pearkes: The expenditures budgeted for last year amounted to $79,032,389, of which $69,322,982 was actually spent; that is to say, $9,709,407 was underspent. This year we

Supply-National Defence appreciate the importance of concentrating on research work and while the original estimate was $64,796,000 it is anticipated that $77,325,000 will be spent, which will be an overexpenditure of $12,549,000. I think that reflects the degree of importance which we are now placing on this research work in view of the developments which have taken place in the world during the last six months.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am very glad to hear the statement by the minister. Before the election very extravagant claims were made as to the savings that could be effected, but when it comes down to the day-to-day decisions that must be made, instead of reducing anticipated expenditures planned by the previous government the minister has spent a good deal more. I wonder whether he can add to the statement made by the Prime Minister on his return from Paris, as reported at page 2723 of Hansard of December 21. This is what the Prime Minister said:
In connection with scientific and technical matters within the alliance there was a general recognition of the need to increase the number of trained scientists and technicians in most of the countries. In Canada, as elsewhere, progress in this field will depend not only on the state contribution but also on the devoted contribution of teachers and scientists in our schools and universities. It will also depend on the support which governments will give to institutions which provide courses in scientific subjects, and this government intends shortly to give full reconsideration to its policy in this regard and have it placed before parliament.
Hon. members who heard Mr. James Duncan, president of the Massey-Harris Company, following his return from Russia, were impressed I am sure by his statement that in the U.S.S.R. they are turning out more scientists and engineers than the United States, Great Britain, Canada and many of the other western countries put together. Mr. Duncan said that those who think that our scientists are better trained had better review their thinking. He claimed that Russian engineers spent more years in the laboratory than Canadian engineers did. I think that when the minister is spending $5 million a day on defence it does not make sense to expect the municipalities, because of their very critical financial position, or the provinces, who have not the resources available, to be able to meet the challenge. Because of the paragraph in the Prime Minister's speech that I have read can the minister indicate that his department is prepared to give more concrete assistance in the training of scientists so that the Department of National Defence will have coming up in the high schools and universities more young Canadians who will be prepared to take their places in the scheme of things, in the light of the very critical international situation?


George Randolph Pearkes: In these estimates there is the amount of $1,100,000 for grants to universities. Those grants to universities are for university professors and others who are carrying out special research work. I feel sure that as far as this department is concerned, which of course is not a department primarily responsible for education, every encouragement will be given both now and in the future to further development work along those lines. Then, of course, at the service colleges emphasis is placed on the scientific and engineering aspects of the education of those cadets.


Stanley Haidasz: Last November Dr. Patterson, of the Downsview Aerophysics Institute in Toronto, expressed great apprehension during an interview with a reporter from the Toronto Star that further financial aid to his institute would not be forthcoming. Can the minister tell us whether the Downsview Aerophysics Institute will continue to operate and, if so, will it get more money than it got last year?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not forecasting next year's estimates. As I have said several times, there is no intention to cut grants to the universities. There seems to be a misapprehension somehow that there is going to be a reduction in grants to universities for this type of research work. That is not the fact.


Gordon Campbell Chown: We
now come to Mutual Aid. Shall this item carry?


Victor Quelch: Can the minister tell us to what countries this aid was given?


George Randolph Pearkes: The aid has been given to a number of NATO countries. The last instance took place about a month ago when five small naval vessels were given to Turkey. There are five more to go and four frigates. They were the minesweeper class of vessel. Turkish crews came on. Belgium has received aid; Greece has received aid. The policy is, as far as the department is concerned, to declare such equipment as is surplus to NATO and then NATO assigns the particular materials, arms, ships or vehicles, to the different countries. Canada does not allocate direct to any particular NATO country any particular arms. It is done through the NATO organization which says where the surplus equipment will be sent.


Victor Quelch: Is this limited entirely to NATO?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is limited entirely to NATO countries.


Mr. Low:: Just how do you decide what Canada is going to supply? Is it on requisition from NATO headquarters?


George Randolph Pearkes: No. We advise NATO of what equipment we have available. Sometimes requests come asking if we have certain types of equipment available but generally speaking we notify NATO headquarters of what equipment we have available and are prepared to dispose of. There is a very big demand for Canadian equipment.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: What type of equipment do you declare to be surplus and what causes the equipment to become surplus? Is it because the equipment becomes obsolete and is of no further use to us or is it the case that we produce more of certain equipment than we can use thus creating a surplus involving over-spending?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is equipment which we are prepared to make available. I referred to the coastal escort vessels which recently went to Turkey. They were vessels which we did not require particularly for our coastal patrol work now as we have replaced them with a superior type of naval craft such as the St. Laurent type of destroyer escort. Therefore we have been able to make these vessels available. They are of use in the rather narrow waters along the Turkish coast and the Turkish navy was delighted to have the opportunity to acquire them.
We have also made certain aircraft available which we did not need any longer in Canada for our particular conditions here because they were replaced by such aircraft as the CF-100. On the other hand, they would be very suitable to other NATO countries where distances are not so great and climatic conditions are different. We have also made available quite a quantity of vehicles of various types. I have a list here of some of the types of aircraft. We made 200 Harvard aircraft available together with spare parts. We made available 25 T-33 trainers with a good many spare parts.
We were fortunate in arranging a deal with the government of Belgium whereby they took some CF-100's and we also made spare parts available. Certain guns have been made available and certain air force clothing and that sort of thing. There is a whole host of articles which these other countries are delighted to receive and to utilize in their armed forces, thereby increasing the general deterrent.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then actually it is material which has become obsolete for our purpose but might be useful to them?
Supply-National Defence


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. I am not quite certain that "obsolete" is the right word. I would say it is material that we are able to make available.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I take it that completes the details under resolution No. 240.


William James Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a supplementary appropriation for the United Nations emergency force. A blank was left for the amount for 1957-1958. Perhaps the minister would like to fill that in. It is at the bottom of page 347.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is UNEF. That was voted last November.


William James Henderson: Is there no estimate for 1957-58?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is nothing in it for this year. There is no item in the present estimates for that. That was a year ago.


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to ask the minister where the money is coming from if there is no appropriation.


George Randolph Pearkes: It comes out of pay and
allowances for the troops who are employed in the United Nations force.


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid that is merely repeating the question I have asked. What item includes the pay and allowances for the Canadian contribution to UNEF?


George Randolph Pearkes: There was a supplementary appropriation in the 1956-57 estimates. Nothing is included in the estimates we are now discussing. There is no item for 1957-58.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, the point I was trying to elicit was this. As I see the situation, last year $1 was voted for 1956-57. Inasmuch as UNEF is still in being and the men are still serving where is the item which includes their pay and allowances?


George Randolph Pearkes: That would be under the army estimates; it is included in the army estimates.


George Carlyle Marler: Under a preceding item we have already dealt with.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sorry. I was not clear about the question.


William James Henderson: Are there other expenses besides pay and allowances?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, there are other expenditures. There is transportation, food and that sort of thing. They are all absorbed in the army vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
it not the case that the item of $1 which was passed in the previous fiscal year was merely a form of legislation? It was authority to

Supply-National Defence spend some of the money already included in the estimates in support of the troops assigned to UNEF.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I congratulate the minister on his new parliamentary assistant. At least he is in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: was surprised that my hon. friends of the former cabinet, who put the item through, did not realize its significance.


George Carlyle Marler: I would say we got an assist from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
243.	Civil pension, as detailed in the estimates, $2,457.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister say a word about the pensions covered by this item? Could he tell us why they are covered by this particular item and in particular can he explain why the amounts are so small in some cases? We are being asked to vote pensions in some instances of $193, $420, $200 and so on which I take it are for a year.


George Randolph Pearkes: These are all special cases. There is the pension award to the widow of a former minister of national defence which has been carired on for a number of years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
case of Mrs. Rogers is a statutory item but what we have before us now is item 243.


George Randolph Pearkes: The other items are small pensions paid to three men and two women. There is one pension paid to Mr. Robert A. Allen who was employed as a civilian truck driver and suffered an accident which resulted in an injury to an ankle joint. A pension of $269 per annum was authorized in 1918, and has been included in the annual estimates ever since.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How much did the minister say it was?


George Randolph Pearkes: The information here is that the pension is $269.52 per annum.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
the details in the back of the book it is listed as $193.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sorry; it was originally that amount and has now been reduced to $193.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There has been a bit of inflation since that time. Surely the pension should have gone the other way.


George Randolph Pearkes: The pension was reduced in 1946 and has been at that lower amount ever since. It is possible that the man may be overcoming his injury. It was an injury to his ankle, and perhaps he is getting better.


George Carlyle Marler: Is the minister paying this pension in 1946 dollars?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is a pension listed here which was awarded in May, 1926 to Michael Joseph Mountain, a boilermaker, employed at the dockyard in Halifax, who sustained a fall resulting in both wrists being broken and other minor injuries. The medical reports indicated that the wrists were permanently disabled and a life pension of $420 per annum was awarded.
These are the sort of things which are covered where civilians working for the department suffer some injury. There is no provision to include them in the general pension scheme and special cases have been made. All of these pensions have been in existence for a number of years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the fact that other pensions have been increased to some extent because of changed conditions I wonder if the minister would not consider reviewing these pensions? If these people are still alive, with broken ankles and broken wrists, this amount of money seems rather small.


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall be pleased to have them all reviewed. I am sure they are all alive, otherwise they would not be getting the pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some people might need a pension where they go.


Mr. Bryce:: I should like to ask the
minister a question. It has been drawn to my attention now that under special circumstances you can get a pension. Some time ago I had a constituent of mine whose husband was killed in France while a member of the air force. He left a widow and two very small children. She could not get a pension. Would it be proper for me to bring this before the minister?


George Randolph Pearkes: If the hon. member will bring the case to my attention I will have it thoroughly reviewed, and if it comes within the terms-


William Scottie Bryce: I might say, in fairness to the minister, that I have been working on it from different angles without any success whatever. I will certainly give him the particulars of the case, because it is deplorable that Canada neglects a young widow in that way. This man was killed while he was

serving with the air force, but she could not get a pension because he went on leave at six o'clock at night and was killed at eight.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will be pleased to look into that. Considering the efforts I am sure the hon. member has made in the past it would appear to be a somewhat difficult case but I will do the best I can.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
244.	To authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British Commonwealth air training plan who were killed, payment to their dependents of amounts equal to the amounts such dependents would have received under the Pension Act, as amended, had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of Canada, less the value of any benefits received by such dependents under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organizations, $3,840.
Victor Quelch: I should like to ask the minister what happens in the event of these men becoming injured instead of getting killed while flying? Are they covered under the Pension Act?


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not know offhand
whether they receive a pension if they are injured. I shall have to look that up.


Victor Quelch: Since you are looking after the wives it seems to me there should be some provision to guarantee that if pilots are injured while flying they should be pensionable. They are performing a very necessary service.


George Randolph Pearkes: So far as I can see, these pensions are given to the dependants of men who lost their lives. There is no indication that under this vote they receive anything for disability, but I should think that if they receive disabilities they would be given a pension by the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, I shall look into it further and let the hon. member know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
245- Government contributions to the permanent services pension account, $47,281,909.
William James Henderson: I notice that for 1957-58 the amount is $47,281,909. I should like to ask how much this has increased as a result of the increases in pay to service personnel this year? How much has the government's contribution to this item increased?


George Randolph Pearkes: We have not got that information here. This is a pension fund which is contributory for personnel who are retiring, and it is the government's contribution to that?
Supply-National Defence


William James Henderson: It is the government's contribution to the permanent pension account about which I was asking.


George Carlyle Marler: Is the minister not going to supply some information with regard to this question? It seems to me it is quite clear that this item of $47,281,909 was established at the time these estimates were prepared away back near the end of 1956. Of course, we know there have been increases in pay and allowances. Surely, that must be reflected by an increase in the government contribution to this permanent services pension account. I supposed, Mr. Chairman, that we would find something in the further supplementary estimates for this, but in looking through them I find no provision whatever.
I should like to ask the minister in what way is provision going to be made for this increased contribution which I take it the government will make in respect of the officers and men who are receiving higher pay and allowances as a result of the government decision taken late in June or early July of 1957?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am told there will be about a 5 per cent increase in that amount.


George Carlyle Marler: So, Mr. Chairman, in round figures that would mean something a little under $2.5 million. The question I had really put to the minister was, when is provision being made for this $2.5 million?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not sure how it will be covered. We might have to bring in a supplementary estimate to cover that amount, or it might be possible to absorb it.


George Carlyle Marler: Quite frankly, I do not want to quarrel with the minister, but in view of the fact there is going to be an increase of nearly $2.5 million I find it difficult to see how that can be absorbed. I can see that it might be possible to absorb that within the total budget, but I cannot see that there is sufficient flexibility for funds available in some other part of the defence vote to be transferred to this vote No. 245.


George Randolph Pearkes: If it is found necessary we will have to bring in a supplementary estimate before the end of the year to cover that increase in pensions.


George Carlyle Marler: So in effect, Mr. Chairman, there is really an increase in expenditure that is in prospect for this part of the budget?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. There is bound to be an increase in expenditure because of the increase in the pay.


William James Henderson: Before this item passes I wonder whether the minister will assure us that before the end of the fiscal year this

Supply-National Defence credit will be made to this account so that the government will have fulfilled its pension arrangements with the service personnel and they will have made their contribution of approximately $2.5 million to this account.


George Randolph Pearkes: If anybody goes out on pension before the end of the year most certainly it will be fulfilled. His pension will be based on the pay and allowances he received at the time of retirement.


William James Henderson: I do not just mean with
respect to individuals. I mean with respect to over-all service personnel who are expecting that the government will make this contribution. I want the undertaking from the minister that this obligation will be fulfilled before the end of this fiscal year.


George Randolph Pearkes: Certainly it will be fulfilled before the end of the fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans, investments and advances-
527. To authorize loans to be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years in respect of housing projects constructed, pursuant to an agreement with the Minister of National Defence, for occupancy by members of the Canadian forces; such loans to be at interest rates and in accordance with such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, $5,000,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I
wonder whether the minister could indicate to us how many housing units have been constructed this year under the provisions of this item No. 527.


George Randolph Pearkes: Which item is under discussion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Item No. 527. The chairman called it without telling us on what page it was to be found.


George Randolph Pearkes: I could not give you the actual figure of the number of housing units which are going to be built. I do not think we have it here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can
the minister give us any indication as to whether this money is being used and, if so, to what extent? After all, we should not be asked to vote $5 million without some comment on it. I realize that it is only $5 million but still we should know something about it. Maybe the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount knows the answer.


George Randolph Pearkes: I believe there are a number of housing schemes in connection with some of the camps in which the department is not actually building the houses but where the houses are being built on an agreed rental


basis and the personnel of the services rent those houses where there are not military quarters provided. The exact number I do not know but I believe there is such a scheme on the outskirts of Winnipeg close to the air force station at Stevenson field.


Stanley Howard Knowles: appreciate the fact that the minister does not have the type of information that I have been seeking but I would hope that in some way, without holding up this item, we might get information as to what has been done under this item during this year. His statement as to the purpose of the item accords with the information we have had.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have just received a note which says that no housing units have been built under this item during the present year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then why are we voting the money?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just in case.


George Randolph Pearkes: One thing is that the year is not yet over and we are hoping that we shall be able to get some houses built during the rest of the year.


Charles Edward Johnston: Are any houses sold outright? I know there is provision for a loan which has to be at a given rate of interest.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not believe any of these houses are sold outright. That is the advice I have received.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do
I understand from the minister that although this vote of $5 million is being sought none of it has been used thus far in this fiscal year?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is the information I now have. None of this money has yet been spent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has
there been any request for houses to be built under the provision of this legislation?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am told that there have been no requests for the loan of this money. This is money made available for loans and there have been no requests made for such loans up to now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister might lend this money to his colleague the Minister of Public Works. I am sure there are many places where he can use it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

528. To authorize in the current and subsequent fiscal years, under such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, a capital assistance loan to the town of Oromocto, New Brunswick, to be covered by town debentures, for the purpose of assisting in the completion of the physical development of municipal works (revote), $1,500,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask the minister whether anything is being done with this money in this fiscal year? I notice it is a revote of money that was voted in a previous year. Apparently there are a few places where money is being voted and not being spent.


George Randolph Pearkes: I know something of this town of Oromocto which is on the outskirts of Gagetown. It is a very interesting experiment in which the military and civilian authorities are working together with the idea of trying to make a self-sustaining unit adjacent to Gagetown camp. The amount of $1,500,000 is authorized. I am told that money is expected to be spent before the end of the year. As to how much has been spent up to date, I have not that information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Business of the House
Gordon Campbell Chown: That
completes the Department of National Defence.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister whether he can give any indication now as to what the business of the house will be on Tuesday?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. As I announced last night, Monday will be private members' day. Agreement has been reached between the parties that on Tuesday there will be a one-day supply motion, with a vote on any amendment taking place at 8.15 p.m.


George Carlyle Marler: Can the leader of the house project his mind forward past Tuesday and tell us what we are going to do during the rest of the week?


Howard Charles Green: No. I am very sorry but I cannot give that information.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.
[Stage Direction]
Question

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

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the Minister of National Defence received representations for the extension of the rocket project contract with Chrysler Corporation of Canada?
2.	If so, have steps been taken by the government to continue this project?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):
1.	Yes.
2.	Future requirements for these rockets are being determined on an urgent basis by the Department of National Defence. Confirmation of the need for more rockets would allow procurement to proceed. Negotiations have already been commenced with Chrysler Corporation with a view to possible extension of the current contract.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
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.
General services-
241.	Grants to military associations, institutes and others, as detailed in the estimates, $259,175.
242.	War museum, $26,970.
Pensions and other benefits-
243.	Civil pensions, as detailed in the estimates, $2,457.
244.	To authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British commonwealth air training plan who were killed, payment to their dependents of amounts equal to the amounts such dependents would have received under the Pension Act, as amended, had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of Canada, less the value of any benefits received by such dependents under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organizations, $3,840.
Defence Services Pension Act-
245.	Government contribution to the permanent services pension account, $47,281,909.
Loans, investments and advances-
527.	To authorize loans to be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years in respect of housing projects constructed, pursuant to an agreement with the Minister of National Defence, for occupancy by members of the Canadian forces; such loans to be at interest rates and in accordance with such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, $5,000,000
528.	To authorize in the current and subsequent fiscal years, under such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, a capital assistance loan to the town of Oromocto, New Brunswick, to be covered by town debentures, for the purpose of assisting in the completion of the physical development of municipal works (revote), $1,500,000.

Quebec Forest Access Roads


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, January 2, 1958.
The Honourable Maurice L. Duplessis, Premier of the Province of Quebec,
Quebec, P.Q.
My dear Premier:
Under the Canada Forestry Act the government of Canada has offered financial assistance to all provinces with respect to the completion and maintenance of provincial inventories of forest resources, certain kinds of reforestation projects, and, more recently, capital expenditures required for forest fire protection.
My colleagues and I feel that the protection of the forests against fire is a matter of particular importance. Although substantial improvements have been made in this field in recent years, forest fire losses are still excessive and constitute a major deterrent to the application of sound silvicultural practices in forest management.
Good access roads are essential to the attainment of adequate forest fire protection, as well as for other forest management requirements. The seventh British commonwealth forestry conference, which recently met in Australia and New Zealand, recommended that "road systems be developed wherever necessary to permit maximum efficiency and economy in the management and protection of the forests and in the utilization of their produce".
In view of the foregoing and also in view of the need to provide additional employment this winter and spring my colleagues and I are of the opinion that the time is now opportune, if the provinces are so disposed, to enter into agreements under the Canada Forestry Act to provide for additional federal financial aid to the provinces for the construction of
forest access roads and trails. The agreement envisaged would be essentially along the following lines:
(a)	The road and trail construction programs to which the federal government would contribute would be planned and executed by the provinces. The federal contribution would be 50 per cent of the cost, the remainder being paid by the province or by a forest protective association.
(b)	Federal aid under this proposal would apply to expenditures incurred between the date of this letter and June 30, 1958, and the maintenance of roads and trails would be a provincial responsibility.
(c)	The forest access roads and trails included in such programs would be those required for forest fire protection excluding, of course, county or municipal roads and provincial highways.
(d)	Canada would not make any contribution with respect to the acquisition of any land or right of way.
I should be glad of your views on this proposal, and of your advice at the earliest possible date as to whether an agreement along the lines indicated above would be acceptable to the government of your province. In the event that it does prove acceptable, a preliminary estimate of the cost of the program you envisage would also be appreciated.
In the meantime, if you wish your officials to obtain further details as to the agreement we might propose, they might contact Mr. J. D. B. Harrison, director of the forestry branch of this department. I have asked him to work out the detailed terms of a possible agreement under the general terms mentioned above.
Yours sincerely,
Alvin Hamilton.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 6, 1958