1959-07-04

Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in announcing to the house that earlier this week, on July 1, I signed on behalf of the government of Canada an agreement with the government of the province of Quebec under the provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act. Hon. Paul Sauve, minister of social welfare and of youth of the government of the province of Quebec, has signed the agreement on behalf of that government. With the completion of this agreement the Unemployment Assistance Act is now in effect in all 10 provinces of Canada.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER OF QUEBEC AND COMMENTS ON AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. May I ask him if he has been officially advised that the premier of Quebec will attend the conference on Monday?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I have had no official advice. I do not know if the Minister of Finance, who has been looking after this matter, has received any communication. If there was one it would naturally be to him.


Lionel Chevrier: I would have directed my question to the Minister of Finance in the first place, but because of his absence I directed it to the Prime Minister. Here is the Minister of Finance now, and perhaps I could direct the question to him.
In the absence of the minister I was asking the Prime Minister, and perhaps the minister will take it as directed to him, whether or not he has now been officially advised that the premier of Quebec will attend the conference on Monday?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
66968-9-347i


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister whether he has received any comments from the government of Quebec on the proposed agenda for the conference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand not, Mr. Speaker; that will be reserved, presumably, for the conference on Monday.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a further question. Is it still the intention of the federal government that the meeting will be nothing more than a study group or seminar and that no important decisions will be taken to modify the present fiscal arrangements?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That question, put in that form, completely misrepresents the scope, purpose and effect of this conference. This, Mr. Speaker, in the view of the government is a very important conference, and the importance which the government attaches to it is reflected in the preparations that have been made for it and in the broad and comprehensive scope of the matters that are to come before it.
As I have endeavoured to indicate on previous occasions, one of the difficulties that have beset the plenary dominion-provincial conferences in the past has been that each side, the dominion government on the one hand and the provinces on the other, has come to the conference with preconceived ideas and positions. There has not been a comprehensive study of the whole tax structure of this country so far as it affects both the dominion and the provinces.
This has been badly needed and it has been badly needed not simply on the basis of a dominion study but on the basis of a co-operative study. We have a federal system in this country under which provincial governments are sovereign. They have their rights; they have their powers, and they have heavy responsibilities. The federal government has its powers, its rights and its heavy responsibilities as well. The view of the government has been that if we are going to do anything effective on a long-term basis in this country to help governments at all levels to work effectively together in relation to fiscal problems, there must be a comprehensive study, and it must be undertaken on a co-operative basis.
It is our hope, Mr. Speaker, that at this conference we will be able to bring about something that has not been effectively done

Inquiries of the Ministry before in the realm of dominion-provincial fiscal relations in this country; in other words, a comprehensive co-operative study of those common problems with a view to achieving long range comprehensive understandings and arrangements in regard to them.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: A supplementary question. Will such a study at this conference include the possibility of providing a winter works program for the coming winter to take care of unemployment, or will such a contingency be beyond the scope of this conference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that type of study is one falling within the sphere of the labour departments of the federal and provincial governments. It is not strictly a matter pertaining to fiscal problems between the various levels of government, but there are many questions 'associated with common undertakings on the part of the various levels of government that obviously do relate to the fiscal problems within dominion-provincial relations.


Hazen Robert Argue: I take it the minister's answer is that no particular study of the unemployment question will be dealt with?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I did not say
that. I was asked by the hon. member a specific question in regard to a winter works program, as I took it, for next winter. A similar question was asked yesterday of my colleague the Minister of Labour, and he dealt with it. If my hon. friend is asking me about a particular program for next winter I cannot say to him categorically that it will be studied at this particular conference. But in regard to fiscal relations, fiscal problems, as between the levels of government, certainly there is no desire on the part of the federal government to curb or restrict the extent of discussion. I do, Mr. Speaker, wish to emphasize the comprehensive nature of the studies that we are prepared to undertake jointly with the provinces in this field, because we do attach the greatest importance to it.


Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the comprehensive nature of the conference to which the minister has referred, is he able to inform the house whether all the premiers will be in attendance at this conference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have already informed the house, Mr. Speaker, as to the number of premiers who will be attending. We have been informed that there will be five premiers in attendance at the conference, three of whom are treasurers of their
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1
own provinces, and two who are coming with the provincial treasurers of their provinces.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the important and comprehensive character of this conference, as emphasized by the minister, does he not feel that we would have been justified in setting aside a day or two days to discuss these special problems before the conference was held?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if any subject has been discussed in this House of Commons until it is worn threadbare it must surely be the subject of dominion-provincial fiscal relations at this present session. It was initiated by the opposition in an amendment to a supply motion back on February 9. If I am correct in my calculation, no fewer than 10 days of the present session have been devoted to a discussion of this problem in all its various forms. What would have been accomplished by one more day of debate on it I do not quite understand; but I do point out to the hon. gentleman that the subjects, as I mentioned previously, that were submitted to the provinces for their approval, as subjects coming within the scope of review and discussion at the conference, were confidential. Until the conference releases that list from that restriction it is still a confidential document. I hope it will be possible early in the conference to make that comprehensive list available to the public, but we would have to have the permission of the provinces to release it.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the minister forgotten that on most of the days he referred to he kept raising points of order to prevent any discussion of the conference?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do recall raising points of order where those points of order were fully justified.
[Later:1


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: wonder if the Minister of Finance would tell us whether any other members of the government besides himself will be attending the dominion-provincial conference next week?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps that question should more properly be directed to the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I may say that in the preparations which naturally have taken place leading to the convening of such a conference,

and with respect to the various matters which will come before this conference, the Department of National Revenue must necessarily participate to a considerable extent, and in the circumstances the representation on the part of the federal government at the ministerial level will include both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, prompted by a number of persons who are quite concerned I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to an item in the Montreal Star of June 26 which quotes an R.C.M.P. officer as saying:
We couldn't push them around as if they were a street mob, as a lot of them were very influential people.
The officer made that remark when replying to a question with respect to certain disturbances at a recent public function. In view of the disturbing implications of such a statement, would the minister assure the house that the R.C.M.P. have instructions to enforce the law on all occasions, regardless of the pomposity, prestige or pocketbooks of the persons concerned?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, my attention was drawn to a reported remark attributed to a member of the R.C.M. Police to the effect that the hon. gentleman has outlined in his question. I have not been able to ascertain that such remark ever was made by a member of the R.C.M. Police, and I would be very surprised indeed if it was, because I think the record of the way in which the police have handled their responsibilities in connection with the royal tour, under circumstances which are not always easy, indicates quite clearly that special efforts are being made to do their job with due regard for their responsibilities under the law to Her Majesty and to the public who may be interested in seeing the Queen on the occasion of her tour.



REQUESTED DELAY IN DEPARTURE FROM HALIFAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: I have a question for the minister in charge of the royal tour arrangements. Could consideration be given to delaying the departure of the royal couple from Halifax harbour on the Britannia so that instead of departing late Saturday night they could receive a royal
Inquiries of the Ministry send-off on Sunday morning by several hundred boats, hundreds of church bells and tens of thousands of people-in short, so that we in that area could de-Joyce properly?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: The program of the royal tour has been firm for some time. I will be glad to look into the suggestion made by the hon. member and see if that could be done, though I am afraid it could not, because as I say the arrangements were worked out with the Queen some time ago. But I will look into the matter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, arising out of a very strong press release issued by the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture, Hon. I. C. Nollet, in which he says it is imperative that a federal-provincial conference, including representatives of farm organizations, should be convened immediately before final approval is given to the legislation covering crop insurance and agricultural credit. Is the Minister of Agriculture prepared to call such a conference so the views of the provinces and the farm organizations may be obtained before this legislation is finally dealt with?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this press release to which the hon. member has referred. I have seen a press release which quotes the minister of agriculture of Manitoba as saying that he is very well satisfied indeed with this legislation. As far as calling a conference is concerned, the result, as the hon. member knows, would be that this legislation would not be implemented at this session of parliament. I think it is essential that the crop insurance plan and the improved credit plan which are covered by the two bills should be implemented and put into effect as soon as possible.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, since the present crop season is well under way, could the minister explain how a delay of a few weeks, or even some months, could affect the implementation of the crop insurance scheme?
As a further question I would ask whether in view of the minister's answer he is prepared to have this legislation go before the agriculture committee in order that witnesses from the provinces and farm

Inquiries of the Ministry organizations may be called before the committee to comment, in the instance of crop insurance, on legislation which is really in the provincial field?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as far as this latter question is concerned, the hon. member asked the same question when the legislation was under consideration and I have nothing to add to what I said at that time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister inform me now when he will be prepared to say whether this important legislation will be referred to the committee on agriculture, or is he just stalling?



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REPORTED WASTAGE OP WATER IN INTERNATIONAL SECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister comment on the statement made by the president of the New York state power authority, Robert Moses, to the effect that many millions of gallons of water which could be used for the development of power are going to waste in the international section of the river because of lack of decision by an international body of which Canada is a member?


George Harris Hees: I would not want to comment on the reported statement by a civil servant of another country regarding an important matter of this kind, but I can say that this matter is being discussed between representatives of the province of Ontario and the federal government at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister be in a position to make a statement with regard to those discussions?


George Harris Hees: I will, when the discussions have been completed.
(Translation):



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (Si. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Can he tell us why, at the conclusion of carillon recitals from the peace tower of the parliament buildings of Canada, R.C.M.P. officers fail to stand at attention at the playing of "God Save the Queen" and "O Canada" to the consternation of listeners present on the hill?

(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that what has been stated by the hon. member has taken place, but I will make inquiries and if there is anything which requires to be drawn to the attention of the police authorities I will be glad to see that it is done.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the proclamation in Newfoundland of the Meat and Canned Foods Act as related to fish and shell fish, and the Fish Inspection Act, as announced by the minister yesterday, may I ask what changes are likely to result in fish handling and processing in the province of Newfoundland?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I will be glad to take this question as notice and answer it later.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if he has received a letter from the minister of mines and resources of Newfoundland regarding the difficulty being experienced by the people in Canning's Cove in the operation of the preference in employment in Terra Nova national park. If so, has the minister made any reply?


Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker. I might say to the hon. member that since he contacted me a couple of weeks ago I have been in touch with the superintendent in the park. Additional employment has taken place. There were a number of men hired there, but additional men were taken on to bring the staff up to full complement. It was not a large number, but I think this will help a little.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appreciate what the minister has said.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the

minister a question totally unrelated to the one I put to him a moment ago. On June 10 I asked the minister whether an agreement had yet been concluded with the government of Manitoba for federal assistance for a large highway program which I believe would start at Gypsumville and go north to the Hudson bay railway, or somewhere in that area, between the lakes. I wonder if any progress has been made.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the two governments have agreed on the roads in question, involving a distance of some 800 or 900 miles. The province is already working on certain of the roads, but an agreement has not yet been signed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is this part of the roads to resources program in Manitoba?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does that, then, limit the federal contribution to $1,500,000 a year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the federal contribution is up to a maximum of $1,500,000 a year and a total contribution of up to one-half of $15 million over the period of the contract.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources arising out of the question raised by my friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. Have any agreements under the roads to resources program been signed with any of the provincial governments?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker; one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has an agreement been signed with the province of Newfoundland?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether there was any foundation for the report that the premier of France found it necessary to summon the Canadian ambassador in order to protest the appearance of
Inquiries of the Ministry two Algerian rebels on a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television program. The hon. member requested, if the report were accurate, that I tell the house what stand was taken by the Canadian representative in respect of this matter.
The only publication that I have been able to find containing a report of this kind consisted of a letter published in the Globe and Mail, written by someone who obviously is not very friendly to France. The facts are that there was no such thing as the premier of France finding it necessary to summon the Canadian ambassador before him. There were protests made to the Canadian ambassador in Paris and also made in Ottawa by the French ambassador to Canada. In each case it was explained that the C.B.C. has an independent status in this country, so it is not just a matter of course that programs of this kind could be stopped by the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact then, is it not, that no action was taken by the government in respect of the request for these two Algerians to appear on the C.B.C.?


Howard Charles Green: The protests were drawn to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue, who reports to parliament for the C.B.C. Apparently protests of this kind have been made on earlier occasions by different countries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he took any action in this matter?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minisler of National Revenue):: As I explained in another place, before the parliamentary committee, -and I brought in the name of the official- I received a telephone call from Mr. Norman Robertson, the Under-Secretary of State, who in the absence of his minister that day called me personally and said that the two protests 

I believe that was the word he used-one in Paris and one of which he knew personally made by the French ambassador here had been brought to the department. He was passing this information on to me for such action as I thought was proper under the circumstances.
As a result I called the C.B.C. office and contacted Mr. Bushnell, the acting president, directly. I told him the message I had received from the Under-Secretary of State and advised him that he should take such action as the corporation saw fit in view of the nature of these protests.

Supply-National Defence (Translation) :



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (SI. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General a question? Is the minister aware that there is a gasoline price war on in Ontario, and that gasoline prices are down 18 cents a gallon? If so, does he intend to take advantage of this situation to lay in a supply of gas for use in his American "scooters"?
(Text):


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, to one of the most remarkable questions that has ever been asked in this house, I can only say no.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Secretary of State if he would, on Monday or Tuesday, indicate to the house which orders of the house have not yet been complied with and how soon we may expect them to be complied with, in view of the nearness of the end of the session.


Hon. Henri Couriemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will do that with pleasure.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Royal Canadian Air Force-
221. Operation and maintenance, $546,991,000.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, just before the house rose last night the Leader of the Opposition asked for some information regarding the procedures which had been followed to enable the government to reach a decision as to the plane which would be selected to re-equip certain squadrons of the air division of the R.C.A.F. in Europe. I explained briefly last night the procedure and the methods which had been followed. I should like to repeat that today and elaborate a little so as to give the Leader of the Opposition all the information I have at my disposal.
It will be recalled that the F-86 had been in operation in Europe for some time, and it was therefore becoming obvious that sooner

or later this aircraft would have to be replaced. About a year and a half ago a committee of experts in the R.C.A.F. was set up to investigate the various alternative planes which were then in existence or which were even on the drawing boards at that time.
That committee of experts has been carrying out examinations ever since that date. It has been a continuous exercise in which every possible endeavour has been made to ascertain the most suitable aircraft to be employed by the air force. Of course a final decision could not be reached until early this year, when the exact role which the air force would be required to carry out in Europe became clearer.
The committee of experts repeatedly reported to the chief of the air staff, who kept personally conversant with every examination and test made. The chief of the air staff kept me informed periodically as these examinations and evaluations were continued. He also kept the chiefs of staff committee informed of their progress.
Gradually certain types of aircraft were eliminated by the R.C.A.F. because they did not meet the operational requirements which were set out. All examinations made by the R.C.A.F. experts were based purely on military and operational grounds. As the R.C.A.F. was reaching a conclusion, meetings of the chiefs of staff were held almost daily on this matter so there could be combined recommendations made by the chiefs of staff committee.
Subsequently those recommendations were submitted to the cabinet defence committee. When they were submitted to the cabinet defence committee, and in fact before they had been submitted, the closest touch was maintained with the officials of the Department of Defence Production; and while the recommendations from my department were based entirely on military and operational grounds, the Department of Defence Production officials also took into consideration the various matters connected with the production of these types of aircraft, the way in which they could be produced here in Canada, and went into details regarding costs, etc., of the different types which were under examination. Finally, after the cabinet defence committee was prepared to make a recommendation to cabinet as a whole, the matter was considered by cabinet as a whole.
It might be of some interest to hon. members opposite to know some of the types of aircraft which were examined. I will just mention a few of them. Actually nearly 20 or more types of aircraft were given an examination of some kind or another, but

some of the principal ones which were given an exhaustive examination were the F-102 Convair, the F11-1F Super Tiger Grumman, the Blackburn NA-39 and the Blackburn 109, the Northrop 156, the McDonnell F-4H and the McDonnell F-101C, the Lockheed 104, the French Mirage made by Marcel Dassault, the Republic 105, the A-IIIJ North American and the CF-100 and F-86 to see whether they could be converted to the role.
Among the criteria which were set out in order to enable a just assessment to be made was suitability to the role which was given to us when General Norstad visited Ottawa a few weeks ago. Of course the serviceability of the aircraft had to be given high consideration, and the availability; when could this aircraft come into service? Then on the economic side, the cost and the amount of work which might be provided in Canada had to be considered. Could these planes be manufactured under licence or would they have to be bought outright? There was the question of production sharing, how much work could be carried out in Canada on other projects which were being carried out by some of these companies. Would they share the production with our own industry in making parts for some of the aircraft which might be used by the United States air force or by civilian operations?
In fact I can say that the decision was based on military, operational and economic grounds. A question was asked yesterday, could not a larger type of aircraft-mind you, the size of the aircraft governs the cost -have been used in fewer numbers than a smaller aircraft which would, for each copy, cost less than a larger one? It was emphatically stated that from the military and operational requirements point of view those requirements could not be met with a fewer number of aircraft. In fact, for a strike reconnaissance role rather small aircraft are preferred.
I believe this gives some indication of the extended and exhaustive studies which were made. Yesterday we were told we should have reached this decision months ago. Why was this decision not taken last December? No sooner had we been accused of being dilatory in that respect than we were told we had selected the wrong aircraft. I can assure hon. members that this government does not apologize for having taken considerable time to make a thorough examination so as to be certain that the taxpayers' money was being spent to the best advantage. As a result of this prolonged examination the cabinet did come to the conclusion that they would reequip the air division with the Lockheed
Supply-National Defence 104G, the "G" being the mark of that particular series or family of aircraft. I am satisfied that the taxpayers' money is being spent to the best advantage by the purchase of this particular aircraft.
This is a proven aricraft. It is supersonic. It is a small aircraft with a very high performance. It can also be refueled in the air, so it could be deployed in Europe or in any other part of the world in order to carry out its strike reconnaissance role. There are various types of this family of aircraft already in operation. They are in operation with the United States air force on this continent, in Europe, in Turkey and in the Far East. I emphasize the fact that they are in operation in Europe and the commander in chief of the European forces, General Norstad, has expressed satisfaction with this type of aircraft, and has indicated to this government that the re-equipment of the air division squadrons with the "G" variety of the 104 will be entirely acceptable to him.
The other day in speaking here I mentioned that it has been noted that the Federal Republic of Germany is also re-equipping its squadrons, which today are equipped with the same aircraft as our squadrons, the F-86, with this F-104G for a strike reconnaissance role. As a matter of fact we have been in close consultation with the Germans for a number of months on this matter. We have had teams of the R.C.A.F. in Europe in order to find out how the independent assessment made by the Germans was progressing, and which aircraft they were going to accept. It would be interesting, I think, to hon. members to learn that as late as March 31 a contract was signed between the government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the company concerned for the acquisition of a number of these aircraft. Even more recently, only last week, we had officers of the R.C.A.F. in Paris conferring with their German colleagues, and the latter expressed satisfaction that the German air force had in this particular aircraft.
Now, of course, the advocates of other types of aircraft will naturally belittle the type which has been successful. An unsucces-ful competitor will naturally feel disappointed that he has not received an order. I might say that for months I have been subjected, as have the officers of the R.C.A.F. and the Minister of Defence Production, to daily visits from the representatives of these various companies. They have enlarged upon the benefits of their own particular aircraft. I have at all times endeavoured to take a detached point of view in order not to be prejudiced in favour of one or the other type of aircraft. I have listened patiently to all their representations. These have been recorded; they have been examined again and

Supply-National Defence again by the officials of my department and the officials of the Department of Defence Production.
I must say some of the statements made by the hon. member for Trinity yesterday were exactly the same as some of the statements which have been made in my office. But we had the facilities for testing the accuracy of those statements, and they have been tested.


Mr. Hellyer:: It is too bad you did not use them.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am quite certain that no matter what plane this government had selected for re-equipping this air division, because of the variety of excellent planes I have already mentioned today the opposition would have chosen some other one. It would not have mattered in the least what plane we would have taken, they would have chosen some other plane-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


George Randolph Pearkes: -and would have bedevilled us.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I understand the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is quite correct, Mr. Chairman. The statement the minister has just made is without any foundation whatsoever.


Mr. Drysdale:: What is your question of privilege?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are other planes which this government could have chosen.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member is just making a contradiction. That is not a question of privilege.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the minister made the allegation that no matter what plane the government chose we would have said they should have chosen some other. That is not so. It is a reflection on the integrity of the opposition, and it should not be allowed to stand on the record.


Charles Edward Rea: Will the hon. member please take his seat. It is a question of argument, not a question of privilege, in my opinion.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I made that statement. It is a statement of fact. Naturally the opposition would have done that; they would have chosen some other plane and advocated, just exactly as the representatives of the various companies advocated, the strong points of the other one. You can take your choice. These are all good

planes. They have certain characteristics which are or are not capable of meeting the military requirements or the economic requirements. These have, as I say, been thoroughly examined and tested during the past few months.
We have also considered how quickly pilots who were accustomed to operating the F-86 could be trained to operate a new plane which was acceptable. That has been shown, and our pilots have already flown the F-104, not the 104-G but the other models of this aircraft. They have already flown it and they have demonstrated their ability to change very quickly from flying the Sabre jet, the F-86, to flying the 104.
With respect to some of the utterly erroneous, exaggerated and irresponsible statements made by the hon. member for Trinity, I would like to call attention to some of these facts. He says this aircraft was grounded two years ago. Has not practically every aircraft which is in operation today been grounded at some time or other? I recall that the Comet II was grounded a number of years ago for a very long period. Is the hon. member going to stand up and say that the Comet IV of today, which is regarded as the best aircraft of its type anywhere in the world, because a previous mark or type of that aircraft was grounded a few years ago, is of no ruddy use?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not say that.


George Randolph Pearkes: I know you did not; you said that about the other plane, but for exactly the same reason-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I said that the faults had now likely been corrected.


George Randolph Pearkes: Of course you did.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Of course I did.


George Randolph Pearkes: But you said, as one of the reasons that the 104-G was no ruddy use, that it had been grounded two years ago.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not say it was one of the reasons.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then the hon. member went on discussing at considerable length the qualities of the original 104. The original 104 was designed, as he said correctly, for the purpose of aerial combat. It attained great distinction in being able to fly at great height, and was regarded as one of the superior aircraft of that period for its particular mission at that time. But that is not the plane we are getting. We are getting the advanced edition of that particular family of aircraft, one which is having special characteristics introduced into its

framework and over-all picture in order that it can carry out the attack reconnaissance plan.
The hon. member did say that the faults which had been discovered during the period of development and in the early operational stages have now been corrected. We are taking advantage of the fact that this aircraft has been proved. We are not in the position of having to pay large sums of money for the development of this aircraft, or to wait for a number of years until it has been thoroughly tested. It is a tested and proven aircraft, stable in frame and absolutely operational, sound for the role for which it is designed.
Then the hon. member referred to the fatality rate and the accident rate. In my office I heard the same figures quoted that the hon. member mentioned, and then I call attention to the fact that fatality and accident rates are never released by any government. We never release any fatality percentages or rates, nor does the United States. These were figures which were given-


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister
whether he has read the hearings before the congressional defence committee on this particular point of fatality rates?


George Randolph Pearkes: These fatality rates, as I say, are not released officially.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister saying that the Americans do not under any circumstances release fatality rates?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am saying that the Americans do not release officially the fatality rates or accident rates as between different types of aircraft.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You do not release them.


George Randolph Pearkes: The figures may be expressed by individual officers, but there is no official statement on that matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Pretty official from the men who fly them.


George Randolph Pearkes: It may be pretty official in the hon. member's eyes. Judging by the utterly irresponsible statements the hon. member was making yesterday I think he would believe that anything which is in print is official in that regard.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We will see who is irresponsible.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will give you the rates.


George Randolph Pearkes: I can say without any fear of contradiction by anybody who has the facts that the accident rate, even in the early days of the first 104, was not abnormal. You cannot
Supply-National Defence fly aircraft without having casualties; there are bound to be casualties, but it is quite wrong to suggest that this aircraft is not airworthy and has any higher accident rate than other aircraft. Therefore I repeat, the statements which were made last night were inaccurate, they were misleading and were stated without any real sense of responsibility. They are purely hearsay evidence by prejudiced personnel.
In closing, I do not think I can do better than refer to a very well-known book, which I am sure all hon. members here have read. I refer to "Pilgrim's Progress". It may be remembered that when Mr. Valiant for Truth was nearly reaching the celestial city he met three men, one of whose name was Wildhead, who approached him and endeavoured to persuade him not to proceed by telling him of the terrible dangers and difficulties which he exaggerated, and he urged him to turn back. Then you will probably recall that Mr. Valiant for Truth remarked about this adventure in these words:
Who so beset him round
With dismal stories,
Do but themselves confound.
I think the dismal stories which were advanced last night by the hon. member for Trinity have utterly confounded him in the eyes of all those who know what they are talking about.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister no doubt thinks that by his quotation from "Pilgrim's Progress" he has knocked the stuffing out of our case, that perhaps some questioning in regard to this decision of the government is required. We on this side do not question the detachment or the desire of the minister to make the right decision, and we do not question his right to insist that this was the right decision and was the best plane; that the other planes were inferior and this was the right one. Therefore I should think he would want to show us the same consideration when we do question the possibility of this being the right decision. It is our duty and it is our right to criticize him, and I hope we can do so without the minister imputing motives to us of the kind he has already suggested.
We will have a good many questions to ask the minister, and by his replies he may be able to show that this is undoubtedly the best plane, the most economical plane and the best in every way; but we are going to ask him these questions and we will expect the detailed information in reply to those questions which will, at least in his view, confirm the decision he has made.
Before we begin to ask these questions of detail regarding capability, performance and

Supply-National Defence all that kind of thing, I would like to make some more general observations and ask him some more general questions which will provide the foundation, I hope, for the subsequent questions. I would ask the minister if he could explain in some detail, because it is a very important matter, the nature of the new role that is now being undertaken by part of the Canadian air division attached to the NATO forces in Europe. It is a new role; it is bound to be a difficult role, a role of responsibility. Perhaps it is a new departure in our participation in NATO military activity in Europe, and I think the committee would like to know something about it.
The minister has called it a strike reconnaissance role. He has also, I think, referred to it, or it has been referred to, as a strike attack role. We would like to know exactly what this change involves as far as the remaining squadrons-I think four CF-100 squadrons, although I may be wrong in that figure-are concerned. The minister said last night that they will continue the role they have been performing in Europe. Perhaps the minister will explain to us how they will be able to carry out that role in the future. They will no doubt be functionally detached from the new squadrons and will be carrying out the old role in new conditions of capability of attack. But we are more interested at the moment in the picture of the new strike attack or new strike reconnaissance role and what it involves for the R.C.A.F.
We are also interested, as I know the committee will be, in the conditions under which this new NATO role will have to be carried out. I understand, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong, that the headquarters of six of the twelve R.C.A.F. squadrons are located in France; the others are in Germany. I believe it is the case, and again the minister will correct me if I am wrong, that France has not seen fit to integrate her own air forces with the NATO forces under NATO command. Also, France in the exercise of her sovereign rights has not found it possible to facilitate certain plans of the United States as part of European NATO forces for the storage and use of nuclear weapons which the United States consider to be an indispensable part of the NATO forces and which indeed, as was pointed out yesterday, General Norstad has said is the capability on which all NATO planning and tactics are now based.
As a result of this stand taken at the present time by France-perhaps France may reverse her decision-the United States air forces contemplate leaving the NATO air fields in France for other sites where these difficulties will not be encountered. Therefore


the minister might tell the committee in some greater detail than he did when I asked him a question about this the other day what will happen if the United States feels it must make that decision. I suppose the result would be that the only foreign squadrons-by "foreign" I mean non-French squadrons- left in France would be those of the R.C.A.F. I believe it is also true that at the present time the Canadian air units depend for their logistics and their supply on the United States military pipe line. They get their ammunition, their aviation fuel and their rations through that United States pipe line.
Therefore I ask, because I think the question is particularly pertinent at this time when we are contemplating the re-equipment of Canadian air squadrons in France, how these squadrons could be maintained economically if all this was cut off, quite apart from the fact, although this is not strictly relevant to this particular question but perhaps I might mention it, that this whole system of NATO infrastructure will be very seriously affected, communications, the oil pipe line and all the rest of it, if the United States squadrons feel that they have to leave France. Surely this is an important thing to know before we discuss in detail the nature of the decision reached by the government to re-equip these squadrons, and perhaps the minister would be good enough at this time to deal with these two somewhat background subjects.


George Randolph Pearkes: First of all, dealing with the new role, it is that of strike reconnaissance. I explained in some detail when I was speaking the day before yesterday what that role was. I pointed out how the Russian ground troops are in considerable numbers along the Russian border and in satellite countries. If the Russians started a war those troops would very likely move through to overrun the countries of western Europe.
It is desirable in the first place to have reconnaissance aircraft which are fast and able to get information as to the movement of columns so those columns can be engaged either by those aircraft or by other means at the disposal of the commander; for instance, by missiles such as the Lacrosse which we will have in our own brigades in the not far distant future. I think that is a fairly obvious role. It is necessary to have this reconnaissance work carried out; and it is essential, now that the means of engaging aircraft have been made more effective, that these planes be small and fast.
In addition there might be targets of opportunity. One might find that there would be a moving column of armoured fighting vehicles. It would be difficult to attack such

a column with missiles because it would be moving; it would be much easier to use missiles against ground and stationary targets such as airfields. So in addition to the reconnaissance role which would be performed by this aircraft it would also have the power to attack targets of opportunity as they arose.
If we were to go one step further and take a longer view, this is all part of the contribution to the deterrent which makes it quite obvious to the Russians that it is not worth while launching their attack through western Europe because we have the means of locating and attacking their columns if they advance; and if we are equipped with the latest weapons of attack, the destruction to advancing columns might be very, very heavy. So it is as part of our western deterrent, part of our endeavour to preserve the peace, that we are equipping these aircraft and having them prepared for this new role.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the minister leaves that point, may I ask him whether it is part of his argument-and I think he has just said this; perhaps he would elaborate on it-that missiles are less effective against moving targets than this type of strike reconnaissance plane?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think my words were that it might be more difficult for missiles to attack a moving target. Obviously there is more flexibility with aircraft than there is with a missile in its present state of development, when it is designed as a ground to ground weapon.
Regarding the maintenance of the squadrons which are in France, it is perfectly correct that at the present time we have the headquarters of the air division and six squadrons located on French soil. The other six squadrons are located on German soil. There are alternate air fields selected for these squadrons so that in a period of operations or in an emergency these squadrons could be moved to a different air field. It would not be a very difficult matter if it were found necessary, in the hypothetical situation which the Leader of the Opposition presented, to move the six squadrons which are in France to German air fields and double up there or occupy other alternate fields; or it might be necessary to move them somewhere else.
So far as we know at the present time however, it would be the intention of the Americans to maintain their pipe line to their French bases. The bases will probably remain, and there are other aircraft of the United States air force in France which would not be equipped with nuclear weapons. So
Supply-National Defence that at the present time, while we are looking into the various possibilities and thinking about this matter, no firm decision has been reached as to what would be necessary, and it is not necessary to make a firm decision until we know exactly what course will be taken by the French government and by the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I might complete that part of my question by saying I devoutly hope, as I am sure the minister does, that this contingency will never arise and that the French and United States governments may be able to solve their difficulties with regard to this important problem of the control of NATO atomic weapons. But I assume that if the difficulty does arise and the United States has to make arrangements to take most of its squadrons out of France, the Canadian squadrons could if necessary, be moved to other air fields; or, if they were kept in France, they would still be on a United States pipe line even though it might be a little more difficult and expensive than the present arrangement.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct. No decision has been reached, nor could it be reached, to move them at the present time. I think it would be most undesirable to move them now, because I share the hope expressed by the Leader of the Opposition that the two governments principally concerned will be able to reach a satisfactory agreement.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister would be good enough to let the committee know whether the Lockheed F-104 was in fact the plane he recommended as his selection to the cabinet defence committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I cannot disclose, and I do not intend to disclose, the discussions which took place in the cabinet defence committee, and I am not going to say whether I recommended it or whether anybody else recommended another plane. The matter was thoroughly discussed, and on military, operational and economic grounds the selection was made. It was a cabinet decision. Naturally all members of the cabinet thoroughly endorsed that decision.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether the chiefs of staff recommended more than one plane to the cabinet defence committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: The chiefs of staff made an appraisal of the value of several planes, and the pros and cons were considered by them with respect to each of the different types and they made a recommendation.

Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could the minister tell us if in that evaluation the chiefs of staff gave a priority on the basis of their rating?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think it is a time-honoured policy which has been followed by this and the preceding government that the recommendations of the servants of the government are not disclosed in public. I do not think it is right to ask me to say whether the chiefs of staff recommended this or that plane. If I were to say today that the chiefs of staff did recommend a certain plane it may be that at some future time the government would have to take a decision which was not entirely compatible with the recommendations of the chiefs of staff. The opposition would then say, "Well, you did say that the chiefs of staff made this recommendation," and we might be in a difficult position. I say that the military and economic information was placed before the cabinet and that the decision of the government was based on military and economic grounds.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I did not ask the minister to tell me which plane the chiefs of staff committee recommended. I merely asked if they had given a priority, one over the other, on the basis of their evaluation. It may be a time-honoured custom not to make public the recommendations of governmental advisors, and that is probably an excellent principle which has long been held, but it is an equally time-honoured and a most important proviso that ministers of the crown, when asking for sums of money from the public purse in such astronomical amounts as $1.7 billion, should give this committee enough information on which to make an intelligent decision. That the minister is not doing.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am quite prepared to go this far. I can tell the committee that the chiefs of staff did make a firm recommendation for a certain plane.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has laid down a principle to which I certainly take no exception; that civil servants, whether they are military or civil, should not be brought into parliamentary discussions as justification for any action of the government one way or the other. That is a principle which has not been invariably observed in the last year or so. I would mention to the minister that earlier in this session the Prime Minister quoted a recommendation, or an approval or decision, of the chiefs of staff as justification for certain actions being taken by the government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would give the committee for its information the number of hours that

each of the following planes was flown by R.C.A.F. pilots for evaluation purposes. Perhaps the minister would like to make a note of the planes:
French Mirage
Grumman Super Tiger F-ll-F
Blackburn NA-39
Northrop 156-F (or any other mark)
Lockheed F-104G
Republic F-105


George Randolph Pearkes: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I would not have that information readily available, and it will have to be acquired.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister said that one consideration-and I am sure it was an important one in the minds of the government in this decision-was the availability of the aircraft in question. Can he inform the committee whether other aircraft under consideration were equally available as the one that was quoted?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, Mr. Chairman, some could have been purchased outright.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could tell us the maximum climbing incidence for the F-104?


George Randolph Pearkes: These are technical details which are considered classified regarding aircraft, and it is unreasonable to expect me to disclose here in public all the technical details regarding aircraft we are acquiring in order, if necessary, to fight the battle for the defence of Canada and of the west. Surely if we give all these technical details to a potential enemy his task is simplified. I do not think I should be called upon to answer such questions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the NATO military authorities had what I could perhaps call a competition, though that may not be exactly the right word, to decide on a suitable strike fighter for NATO use in what was, I think, a most praiseworthy effort to agree that there should be one plane for this purpose only, and that as a result of this examination or competition, or whatever you wish to call it, the NATO military authorities chose a Fiat designed strike fighter as the best developed yet for this purpose.
I believe the minister said this plane was considered. If it was, would he tell us what efforts were made to test its capabilities and why, when it was considered by NATO as the best strike fighter designed for that purpose, it was not possible to go along with that decision? There were United States planes considered by NATO at that time when agreement was sought to be reached in NATO concerning the best strike fighter available for NATO use.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, Mr. Chairman, efforts have been made over many years to standardize the various types of equipment which are used by our NATO partners. No one can claim that those efforts have been very successful. There are conflicts between the different nations, making it extremely difficult for one type of equipment to be accepted by all nations.
The type of aircraft to which the Leader of the Opposition referred was the G-91. That was an aircraft for the direct support of troops. It had a role different from that which is being given to the squadrons of the R.C.A.F. in their strike reconnaissance. It was designed for direct tactical support of ground troops.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps this is a matter of semantics, but this plane is always referred to as a strike fighter. We talk about the present F-104 as a strike fighter and reconnaissance plane. I take it then that the roles of these two planes are quite different in the NATO organization?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is my understanding. They have two different roles.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In order to confirm the statement I made earlier I wish to say this. When the minister said we should not ask him whether the chiefs of staff recommended this or that, or whether they made recommendations, I recall that on February 23, 1959, in discussing the CF-105 the Prime Minister quoted the advice of the chiefs of staff and their view that this aircraft to all intents would be obsolete by the time it became available for squadron services as the reason for the government making the decision it did.


George Randolph Pearkes: If the Prime Minister thinks it is advisable in certain particular cases to make such a statement, that is his prerogative.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence, in commenting on my remarks last night, has reflected on my motives and my integrity in putting them forward. I attempted to raise a question of privilege, but without success. I state now categorically that I have no motive whatsoever in putting them forward except to see that Canadian taxpayers shall get the best value for their dollars, and that if R.C.A.F. airmen are going to be stationed in Europe to help protect us in a hostile world they shall have the best possible equipment available.
The minister started his rebuttal by saying that all the information was at his disposal, and that he had a committee of experts of the Royal Canadian Air Force who had been
Supply-National Defence working for months on the problem of selecting a new plane to re-equip the air division. He later went on to list some of the major choices among the 20 that were evaluated by the Royal Canadian Air Force. Yet when we asked him this morning how many hours each of these planes was flown by R.C.A.F. pilots he is not able to give that information off the cuff and does not have it in the records before him.
I wonder whether he has any other information on the evaluation which he can give us. Surely there is something not classified that he can tell the committee which at least would be partially reassuring to us. He told us that early this year it became clear what role the R.C.A.F. air division would be called upon to play, and apparently at that time the R.C.A.F. experts were able to weed out from the long list of planes they had been examining all those which were not designed or fitted for the strike reconnaissance role, and from that time forward all they had to do was concentrate on those planes which were particularly suited, through design or modification, as strike reconnaissance aircraft.
He told us that the chief of the air staff was kept fully informed by the evaluation teams. We are sure that is the case, and we would expect that the minister would be kept fully informed by the chief of the air staff. What we have not received any assurance on whatsoever is that either the advice of the chief of the air staff or the advice of the minister was taken by the government.
He told us that the R.C.A.F. evaluation was based on purely military and operational grounds, as of course it would be, and that a recommendation was finally made to cabinet defence committee. But, of course, that is classified information. We cannot find out what was the recommendation of the chiefs of staff committee. We have no indication whatsoever whether it was the first priority, second, third, fifth or sixth. Finally the minister told us that recommendations were made by the cabinet defence committee to the cabinet. Perhaps the minister would tell the committee if it is true that the decision was just made on Wednesday, the day before this debate began, or whether it was taken earlier.
We are informed that the Department of Defence Production went into the details of production, cost sharing, etc. When Right Hon. C. D. Howe was minister of defence production he always took the view that when the Royal Canadian Air Force or the Department of National Defence set the specifications for the equipment they required and told defence production which piece of

Supply-National Defence military equipment they wanted, then the only role of defence production was to go out and get it. As a matter of fact, once Right Hon. C. D. Howe told the house facetiously that if the Department of National Defence put in a request for a gold plated piano he would have no recourse but to go out and buy it. Yet we are told today and expected to believe that the Department of National Defence went to the Department of Defence Production hat in hand and said, "We would like an airplane. Here is a whole list of airplanes. Which one would you like to buy for us?" How can that be called a military decision? How can that be called a decision based on the interests of the fighting men in Europe who have the responsibility of protecting life and limb for Canadians and all the people of the western world?
Then we are told by the minister that this plane is suited for the role, that its serviceability was a high consideration and also its availability. Let us consider some of the facets of this plane. Let us consider its suitability for the role. I told the committee last night that this plane was designed as a high altitude air superiority fighter, and the minister has not denied that fact this morning.


George Randolph Pearkes: That was the original type, not the plane we are getting now. The plane we are getting now was never designed for that purpose.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder whether the minister would tell us exactly what the differences are between the original type and the type we are going to get. The minister and the committee should well know that you cannot have a plane which is designed to fill properly these two roles, high altitude air superiority fighting and low altitude reconnaissance and strike fighting.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have said that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You cannot design a high speed truck for highway use which is any good to you in the mud. Similarly you cannot take a mudder, put it on the highway and expect to get any speed out of it. It is precisely the same thing with aircraft. You cannot design an aircraft which works equally well at high altitudes and low altitudes. Certainly the R.C.A.F. knows that, certainly the defence department knows that, but perhaps the cabinet and cabinet defence committee do not know it.


George Randolph Pearkes: What utter nonsence you are talking. There are two planes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just wait until I am finished you can answer then. This aircraft has one of the smallest wing areas and one of the

smallest and thinnest wings of any aircraft in use today. What is the United States evaluation of it. The United States put in an order for 700 planes and later reduced it to 300. The United States are using them at the present time, but the only reason they are using them is that they have got them. If they had to order again they would not order them.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: How do you
know? Substantiate these things.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister has made no effort to give us any information which would substantiate the government's decision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am trying to give you some facts and you will not even listen. This plane, as I told the committee last night, has an engine which at the present time is the least reliable among the planes of the United States air force inventory. Consider this, Mr. Chairman. At high altitudes, of course, it does not make any difference, and the Lockheed Corporation boasts that the engine is almost powerful enough to pick the plane up without wings and hurtle it into the air. After you get to 50,000 or 60,000 feet, where it was designed to operate, what difference does it make whether your engine conks out when you can press a button, out you will go, your parachute will open and you will drift silently and gently down to somewhere? Consider, however, the strike reconnaissance role of an aircraft hurtling through the air at low altitudes of a few hundred or a few thousand feet when the engine ceases to function. The pilot has no time whatever to do any thinking. This aircraft, which has very small and very thin wings, under those circumstances will just plummet to the ground like a dead pigeon.


An hon. Member:: Just like your argument.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is among the most impractical of all aircraft to operate at low altitudes where there is high air density.
Then the minister went on to talk about the economic side. Before we leave the evaluation of this aircraft, I may say that we took from what the minister told us this morning that it had been considered by the R.C.A.F. experts all along. Let us check back on some of the records available. First of ail, Mr. Chairman, here is a clipping dated May 20 of this year. It is from the Globe and Mail and was written by their Ottawa

bureau. It is talking about the new role of the R.C.A.F. in Europe as a strike attack force. It says:
Latest entry for consideration by the government as the aircraft with which to re-equip Canada's air division overseas is the French Mirage mark III- a single seater, delta-winged jet which flies at twice the speed of sound and can work as an interceptor or strike attack aircraft.
The article goes on to talk about the Dassault Company which manufactures this plane. Later in the same article there is this statement:
Other aircraft being considered by the government include the British Blackburn NA-39, the Grumman Super Tiger and the Northrop 156. This latter aircraft, cheapest of the group, is not highly regarded by the R.C.A.F. which also has suggested the Blackburn is too slow for post-1960 conditions.
This is May 20, and there is no mention whatever of the Lockheed 104 as a possibility for the Royal Canadian Air Force.


William McLean Hamilton: No
mention in that particular press story.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I beg your pardon?


William McLean Hamilton: No
mention in that particular press story.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is right.


William McLean Hamilton: You
are basing your argument on newspaper stories.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not on that story alone and certainly not to the extent the Prime Minister did in connection with Avro, when he used a whole series of press clippings; government by press clipping. In an article on May 14 headed "New Fighter for Avro", in the Toronto Daily Star, we find this:
A new plan for joint production by the A. V. Roe Company of a U.S. designed strike-attack interceptor-the Republic F-159D-to re-equip U.S. and Canadian fighter squadrons in Europe has been put before the Canadian government.
The article goes on to talk about the possibility of production sharing for that aircraft, but makes no mention whatever of the F-104. They never heard of it for this role. Then the following night the Toronto evening Telegram, the government's chosen mouthpiece in Toronto, which has its own direct pipe line to the cabinet, in an editorial entitled "Planes for NATO Force"-


George Randolph Pearkes: I must correct that statement, Mr. Chairman. No newspaper in Canada has its own pipe line to the Canadian cabinet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How naive do you think we are?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think that interjection deserves any comment. This newspaper, which
Supply-National Defence as I said is the government's organ in the city of Toronto had this to say in talking about the air division:
The choice, if made, could be between a British jet plane, the Blackburn NA-39, and an American plane, the Republic Thunderchief 105-D. Inclusion of the Thunderchief represents a new factor in the R.C.A.F.'s and the government's problem.
There is no mention whatever of the F-104 as a possibility. Another article which was a bit earlier, March 4, in the Toronto Star,
says:
The new hope for Avro stems from the decision by R.C.A.F. planners that the U.S. Grumman Super Tiger, a 1,500 mile per hour ground attack plane, is the best plane to replace the aging Sabres now used by eight of the twelve R.C.A.F. squadrons in the air division in Europe.
The R.C.A.F. recommendation in favour of the Super Tiger is now before the federal cabinet and there is a strong possibility the government may approve it.	,
Further along the article also says:
At Bethpage, Long Island, a spokesman for the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Company said today in an interview that his firm expects to hear of a Canadian decision within a month.
This, Mr. Chairman, was on March 4 that he expected a government decision within a month, yet the decision was just announced this week choosing an aircraft which had not been mentioned during all these months. It would not be possible that the aircraft could have been considered during all these months or it would have been included in the newspaper stories because these newsmen have access, through all sorts of channels, to information that even the members of the house do not have.


George Randolph Pearkes: I stated categorically that this aircraft had been under examination for a year and a half.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister has just compounded confusion by saying that this plane had been under consideration for a year and a half, yet he told us a few minutes ago that it was not until the end of last year that he knew what the role of the R.C.A.F. fighter division would be. If it was considered for a year and a half, it was considered as a day air superiority fighter and naturally would have been under consideration in that regard, but not as a strike reconnaissance plane. This is the reason it is not mentioned in any of these articles which have appeared in the press from time to time.
Here is an article which appeared on May 14, 1959 in the Globe and Mail, a newspaper which is not usually unfriendly to Conservative governments. The article refers to a visit here by General Norstad, the supreme commander in Europe of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There is mention of

Supply-National Defence a luncheon in Toronto and then of the decisions which the government would have to make. It says these are:
1.	Whether to equip the Canadian brigade group in Europe with nuclear weapons.
2.	Whether to change the role of the R.C.A.F. squadrons in Europe from interception to that of strike attack and tactical ground support. This would mean re-equipping most or all of the 12 squadrons with between 200 and 300 new strike attack aircraft, at a cost ranging between $200 million and $400 million.
Of the two issues, the future of the air division in Europe is considered the more pressing largely because a negative decision on the part of the government would virtually put the R.C.A.F. out of business in a few years time.
The article goes on to say:
R.C.A.F. evaluation teams have been visiting aircraft plants in the United States and Britain since last fall in a search for an aircraft to replace the Sabre in Europe. Recommendations were submitted to the government about two months ago, listing at least three aircraft in order of R.C.A.F. preference:
1.	The Grumman F11F, or Super Tiger, to be produced by the Grumman Aircraft Company at Long Island, N.Y. This is a low-level attack aircraft, originally designed for aircraft carrier use, which could be modified to carry the radar needed for high level interception work as well.
2.	The Blackburn NA-39, a naval aircraft built by the Blackburn and General Aircraft Company in Yorkshire, England. R.C.A.F. reservations about this aeroplane are understood to be that it is somewhat slower than its competitors.
3.	The Northrop N-156F, built by the Northrop International Aircraft Company at Hawthorne, California. Its main advantage appears to be its cost-about $1 million complete against just under $2 million for the Super Tiger.
All three aircraft, it is understood, could be built in Canada under licence-
Then later in the article we find this:
Another proposal, however, developed only last month as a result of negotiations between Avro and the Republic Aircraft Corporation at Farmingdale, New York.
The proposal, as laid before defence minister Pearkes. defence production minister O'Hurley and Prime Minister Diefenbaker, was that if Canada would order Republic's new strike attack interceptor, the F-105D Thunderchief, for the air division in Europe, Republic would supply Avro with certain tooling at nominal cost, would agree to Avro making most of the airplane at Malton, and would also buy Avro-produced components for Republic's production of Thunderchiefs for U.S. air force requirements.
The article continues, Mr. Chairman, but there is no mention whatever of the F-104 Lockheed day fighter and air superiority fighter. It is not until just recently, Mr. Chairman, that we have any mention of the Lockheed at all; not until June 23, 1959 when the lobbying starts on parliament hill, that we hear of the Lockheed 104. In late June, months after other possibilities had been mentioned frequently-and I have here an article from the Ottawa Journal written by

Dave McIntosh, entitled "U.S. Plane Builders Converge on 'hill'"-the real lobby begins. The article states:
The firms include Lockheed, Grumman, McDonnell, Northrop, Republic and the Convair division of General Dynamics.
Far from all these top-wheels in the aircraft business get to see a cabinet minister.
If they are extremely lucky-and this requires careful sounding out in advance through junior officials-they get in to see Prime Minister Diefenbaker.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, members of parliament and the Canadian people begin to get in on the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation lobby. My, Mr. Chairman, you will never know the pressure that was put up by that corporation. They have sent to members of parliament copies of advertisements they have run in Canadian periodicals for the purpose of influencing both government members and the public at large. Here is a picture of the F-104 with its dainty gossamer wings, and below it are some statements about it which are not factual; they are misleading in many respects.


Mr. Morton:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Can he tell us to which members of parliament these advertisements were sent?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know.


Murray Douglas Morton: I have not seen any.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I got one with a note asking me to phone them if I had any questions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They sent them out by the hundreds.


An hon. Member:: Did you ask for them?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not ask anyone, they were quite gratuituous.


Mr. Palleil:: The member for Trinity is the only one who received them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In its own flowery description of this aircraft it says:
Lockheed's all-weather, multi-mission Starfighter is the world's outstanding fighter plane. Holder of the world's speed, altitude and seven time-to-climb records, the F-104 was recently purchased by West Germany for their own-and NATO's-use as a fighter-bomber, interceptor, superiority fighter, and advanced reconnaissance plane.
Now, Mr. Chairman, anybody reading this who knows anything about airplanes would stop and say, "This advertisement should be taken out of the paper" on the basis of the proposed new legislation having to do with misleading advertising. The advertisement goes on:
In addition to increased range and flexibility, the F-104 can be deployed to any combat area in the world within twenty-four hours. It is capable of delivering a wide variety of weapons, day or night, in any kind of weather.

Supply-National Defence
That, Mr. Chairman, of course is mis- a page from the Lockheed Star, the official leading as well.	publication of the Lockheed Aircraft Cor-
I continue:	poration. It says:
Despite this the F-104 is the most economical fighter plane currently available for U.S. defence needs, in terms of initial purchase price and maintenance and operating costs.
How can a plane which has to have its engines changed more often than every 100 hours be the most economical fighter plane to maintain? It just does not make any sense at all. In the minister's own words of a few moments ago, it is nonsense.
The advertisement continues:
Never before has a single airplane done so many things so well. The F-104's performance and versatility are unmatched by any other operational aircraft, either flying today or programmed for the 1960-65 time period.
If you read the evidence before the United States house appropriations committee, Mr. Chairman, you know this statement is not in accordance with the facts, and I hope the cabinet defence committee did not make its evaluation from reading this advertisement.
Never before has a single airplane done so many things so well.
This is repudiated categorically by the evidence before the United States appropriation committee.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Will the hon. member permit a question? Has he had consultation with those other aircraft firms?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I shall mention that in just a few moments if the hon. member will contain his soul in patience. I hold in my hand another very classy looking advertisement. This deal, Mr. Chairman, may not have benefited the Canadian taxpayer directly. It may not benefit the R.C.A.F., it may not keep our NATO forces as strong as they should be, but it has been a bit of a bonanza for the newspaper publishers. This advertisement shows a Starfighter flying high with German markings.


Mr. Hanbidge:: Are you going to put that in as Exhibit A?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is Exhibit B. The next advertisement, Mr. Chairman, is even more subtle. Here Lockheed had their public relations people right on their toes. This lobby was grinding out its effort to secure the Canadian order. It is a picture of the F-104 against the background of a crown, in three different poses, appealing to our sympathy for royalty. How clever; how timely; how subtle can an aircraft lobby be? Then we were told by the minister about the selection by the federal German republic. I hold in my hand
Plans, patience, performance sell Germans.


An hon. Member:: What is the date?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know. There does not seem to be a date on it. If you read this through, Mr. Chairman-and I would suggest that the minister should-you will have some very serious doubts about the way in which the F-104 was evaluated for the German air force. You will see that the impression that was given was that of a prestige weapon. I read this:
What impressed the Germans most about our fighter?
One executive of the company asked another. The reply was:
"Low time to mach 2," is Colman's quick reply.
Then, Mr. Chairman, there is something else which is very interesting. The minister told us today we picked this plane because it has been adapted for some new role as a strike fighter, yet here it says:
Out of talks grew a new idea. The Germans didn't want an of-the-shelf airplane. They wanted an improved model, with more all-weather capabilities, more electronics.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock I was discussing the choice of the F-104 by the West German government, and I was quoting from the Lockheed Star, the paper of the Lockheed aircraft plant, where it describes some of the tests and evaluations made by the German officers before recommending acquisition of the F-104. I would like to quote, if I may, a few paragraphs from it which will give the committee some indication of what characteristics the West German government were looking for. It says:
This visit earned a return from the Germans in December. We were ready then with our biggest weapon-the F-104 itself-and a set of U.S.A.F. clearances that gave the Germans their first chance to fly a Mach 2 airplane with wings so small they almost doubted it would do all the things we claimed for it.
"And this was the turning point," says Colman. "We took drastic steps this trip that paid off big."

Supply-National Defence
Later, Mr. Chairman, it says:
A pair of F-104's was ferried to Edwards. First on the agenda was a flight and landing demonstration by company pilots.
Grumman was first. The F-UF dropped down in typical carrier-landing fashion. The fighter stopped in an impressively short distance. But a wheel locked and a tire blew in the process, taking the edge off the performance.
And Lou Schalk did even better with the Star-fighter. He made a gentle landing, not even using the drag chute, and pulled up neatly with a 455-foot shorter roll.
Then Col. Albert Werner flew the F-104; Maj. Walter Krupinski the F-11F. Object was to race to 50,000 feet.
Col. Werner took the F-104 to 35,000, accelerated to 1122 mph, and nosed up to 50,000 feet. He completed his mission-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sorry to advise the hon. member that his time has expired. Shall the item carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister just one or two questions. The first is as to whether this particular plane, the F-104G, was recommended to him by these technical and military advisers as the plane most suitable for discharging the new role of the air division in Europe? Perhaps the minister would deal with that question first.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition gave the answer this morning when he said that it was not the policy of the government to express or to declare anything about the advice they receive from their military or civilian chiefs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I said that that principle which the minister has enunciated is a reasonable one, but I also pointed out to the minister that when we were dealing with a situation which is partly responsible for the position we face today the Prime Minister gave a decision made by the government based on technical information which he had received from the chiefs of staff as justification for that decision. Therefore I thought it quite fitting in similar circumstances to ask the minister whether the technical and military advisers of the government-I am not mentioning them by name or position-had recommended this plane as the most suitable to the minister for the function which it was to perform. If the minister cannot answer that question, and certainly the Prime Minister answered it or volunteered an answer to it, would the minister tell us whether he has recommended this plane to the cabinet as the most suitable plane for the role in which it is to function?


George Randolph Pearkes: The cabinet was given all the information possible regarding this and other planes, and in view of the information
[Mr. Hellyer.l
that they received the cabinet made the decision to re-equip the air division with this aircraft.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister made quite a point this morning out of the fact that the plane he suggested we were talking about, the F-104, was not the same as the plane which has been accepted by the government for re-equipping the air division, the F-104G. He gave the impression that the F-104G is a different type of plane, that something had been done to it which made it more suitable to discharge its function than the F-104, and that our criticisms of the F-104 and the criticisms we levelled generally were based on the F-104 and did not apply to the F-104G. This is a very important point because if in fact the F-104G is something new and was tested as such-that is to say, as an F-104G- surely the committee should know what are the changes which have removed the disability under which the earlier version, the F-104, operated. Perhaps the minister could tell us what these changes are to the F-104G which have made it a more suitable plane for the purposes we have in mind?


George Randolph Pearkes: There have been very material changes made in the F-104 as originally designed, developed and produced. In the new version of the F-104, which is the F-104G, those technical changes were made in order to make this plane capable of flying at high speed at low altitude, and to provide additional safety to the pilot flying this aircraft at low altitudes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the minister said, as he did this morning, that this plane along with others was tested by R.C.A.F. and other Canadian pilots before the decision was made, can he give the committee an assurance that it is the most modern version of the plane, the F-104G, which was actually flown and tested by Canadian pilots with the changes which he has just mentioned?


George Randolph Pearkes: No. The R.C.A.F. pilots who flew the F-104 were flying an earlier version of the F-104 than the G. The G is the modified version that can carry out the low flight role which is required of it by the air division.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the committee to understand that the model F-104G which is the version of the plane considered suitable for the role which is now to be entrusted to the Canadian air division has not been flown or tested by Canadian pilots?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct. It has not been flown by Canadian pilots.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If I may resume where I left

Colonel Werner took the F-104 to 35,000, accelerated to 1,122 mph and nosed up to 50,000 feet. He completed his mission in 4 minutes, 57 seconds. No call from Major Krupinski. After 6 minutes, officials called him.
"Wo sind Sie, Krupinski?" he was asked.
"I am still at thirty five thousand, trying to accelerate past one point three," came the reply.
The next day, the late Jake Holliman provided the clincher. With a navy simulated mirror-type landing aid, he touched down in the first of hundreds of prevision spot landing demonstration that he later did almost daily for observers.
The Germans came away convinced.
Later on the article says:
Out of talks grew a new idea. The Germans didn't want an off-the-shelf airplane. They wanted an improved model, with more all weather capabilities, more electronics.
And here we have just received confirmation from the minister that what the Germans want is a redesigned F-104. After all we have heard about this country not being in a position to develop a new weapon system we embark on another program of redesigning which will enable an aircraft not designed to do strike reconnaissance work to do the job which it was not designed to do.
The important thing about strike reconnaissance is not its ability to get to 50,000 feet fast. I should like to quote from Aviation Week of June 29 in further illustration of the German requirements in this matter:
General Brohon, who said It was Impossible for France to expend the capital outlay needed to do the job, also called on the U.S. to provide his divis-sion in particular, and France in general, with an effective replacement aircraft to carry out the division's primary mission-reconnaissance. He would like most, he said, to see a reconnaissance version of the Lockheed F-104 developed by the U.S. and supplied to him under mutual security funds. Without such a replacement for the Republic RF-84F aircraft within the next two years, he added, his division would represent a "waste of human capital" rather than an effective combat force.
There are some other interesting observations in this magazine. For example:
Paris-Spectacular demonstration by the Swedish Saab Draken and some inspired flying by French and British acrobatic teams saved this 23rd international aeronautical salon from being just another air show.
Then it goes on:
Biggest disappointment was the Lockheed F-104B demonstration, flown by Lt. Col. James Jabara. The plane made only a takeoff, a single flyby and a landing.
The minister went on to talk about availability, and subsequently he told the committee in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition that other aircraft were equally available. And then he gave us the same kind of mixed assurance as we were
Supply-National Defence given earlier when the Avro Arrow decision was made. He said the decision was based on a combination of factors-on cost, on what work would be done in Canada, on the military value, on the degree to which Canadians could participate in production-sharing, and so on. We know these are important, Mr. Chairman, but surely if we can afford to do anything at all in defence matters we should do it well. As the minister said, other production-sharing arrangements were available to us. If I may, I should like to quote from the Toronto Telegram dated May 14, which reads as follows:
Ottawa	(Special)-The federal government's
choice of an aircraft to replace the F-86 Sabres for the Canadian air division abroad is between the Blackburn NA-39 and Republic's new strike attack interceptor, the 105-D Thunderchief . . . The choice has been narrowed to the Blackburn or Republic planes because the advantages of Canadian production of either of these are overwhelming as compared to others.
The article goes on to say:
Should the Blackburn aircraft be chosen Prime Minister John Diefenbaker could then implement in a dramatic way his "Commonwealth policy" expressed so forcibly last fall in his Albert Hall speech in London.
And the article ends as follows:
In meetings between the Prime Minister and Mundy Peel, president of the Republic Corporation, and John S. D. Tory, Q.C., vice-president of A. V. Roe Canada Limited, the Republic Corporation undertook that Canadian-made parts would be included in the American plane for the U.S. Air Force squadrons.
The planes for Canadian use would be the same as to air-frame but would be powered by the Canadian Iroquois engine.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly urged the necessity for Canadian participation in U.S. armament production and this latter proposal would allow him to implement this policy as well as reactivate the Orenda and Avro plants at Malton.
This decision, based on the grounds of military effectiveness, of production sharing and of cost, has, we feel, unfortunately placed military considerations in an inferior position. And then the minister in reply to my assertion last evening that a smaller number of other types of aircraft would do the job of the F-104, said: Emphatically no; we need more aircraft for the strike role. In reply to that, if engines need replacing every 100 hours, half the aircraft will be in the hangars and not available when required. Canadian airmen like to fly; they like to get in enough practice to become efficient in the handling of their aircraft, and they are bound to put in these hours of practice regularly if they are to be able to fly their aircraft confidently at low altitudes and concentrate on the fire power that these planes carry. Surely, when this state of efficiency has to be attained you

Supply-National Defence cannot afford to have half your aircraft in the hangars. What good would they be, moreover, in the event of a sudden attack?
And so we were told this morning that as a result of prolonged examination the cabinet came to a conclusion and selected the F-104G; yet we have been told this afternoon that the F-104G has not been test flown or evaluated by the R.C.A.F. We have not been told, and I ask the minister this question, if the F-104G is a plane in being or whether it is just a plane on paper.
The minister told us that he was satisfied that the taxpayers' money was being spent properly. He went on to tell us that the F-104 had a very high performance and that it was a stable aircraft. Of course, it is a stable aircraft at high altitudes where it was designed to fly. Of course, it can do ordinary manoeuvres satisfactorily. But I asked the minister a few additional questions with reference to it. I asked him this morning what its maximum climbing incidence was and he said he could not tell me because the information is classified. I understand, however-and obviously I do not have this information from personal knowledge but from sources which I believe to be reliable -that if the F-104 has to climb too sharply the pilots cannot retain control of the aircraft. This characteristic is most essential in a strike reconnaissance plane. There are all sorts of possibilities where you have to have almost unlimited manoeuvreability and particularly the ability to make a very sharp ascent and reverse.
Let me read from Aircraft, Canada's aero trade magazine, issue of June, 1959, about another aircraft and how it works. This article is entitled "Thunderchief Testing", and reads as follows:
Officials have revealed that the Mach 2 Republic F-105 Thunderchief is completing 18 months of tests of a new bomb-releasing method. The tests, conducted at the U.S.A.F. Air Proving Ground Center Eglin AFB, Florida, ranged from tree-top level to 40,000 feet.
The new method is in answer to the problem of getting a bomb clear of a bomb bay when the vehicle is travelling at speeds up to Mach 2. At these speeds, if a bomb were merely released as was done in world war II bombers, the bomb would either be forced back up into the bomb bay or else would roll back along the underside of the fuselage doing damage to the aircraft structure.
To prevent this from happening, Republic has designed a pneumatic device which fires the bomb out with 30,000 pounds of force. To test the system initially, a special rig was constructed duplicating a full-scale bomb bay system. More than 100 "bombing runs" were made while elaborate electronic and recording equipment made minute evaluations of each ejection.
One of the features which I should have thought would be essential for strike reconnaissance is the ability of the plane to deliver
[Mr. Hellyer.j
satisfactorily a bomb load either of a conventional or nuclear type. It is obvious that when one of these bombs is being released, and particularly those of the nuclear variety, the pilot of the aircraft has to get his plane away from the scene very quickly in order to avoid being blown up with the explosion. This requires a very strategic manoeuvre and puts great stress on the aircraft. If the F-104 is not designed to do that and is not designed to be able to perform the skip bombing operation, it is not satisfactory for the R.C.A.F. as a strike reconnaissance plane.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: What about a delayed action fuse?


Mr. Lambert:: He has never heard of that.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: No one put that in his notes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Some hon. gentlemen who are making interjections were asking this morning about the propaganda which had been distributed by the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, copies of which I understand all hon. members have received.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All those to whom I have spoken in the last hour received copies.


William Moore Benidickson: It went into the waste baskets of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can only conclude that either hon. gentlemen opposite did not take time to read their mail or else the Lockheed corporation considered that only members of the opposition should receive it in the realization that government supporters are mere ciphers.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Where did you get the other information? You have not answered that yet.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister went on to tell us that the R.C.A.F. teams had been in Europe finding out how the German evaluation of the F-104 was coming along. Why in Europe? Why would the R.C.A.F. teams go to Germany to evaluate the F-104 when the Germans have not even commenced production of this aircraft yet. There are no airplanes to evaluate. What possible information could the R.C.A.F. experts get by going to Europe when there is no flying aircraft? The minister then went on to say that it was only natural that the unsuccessful aircraft companies would be disappointed and would try to belittle the successful contender. This was an inference that some aircraft company or companies had some connection, directly or indirectly, with the charges we have made. Let me state categorically that they have not.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Where did you get your information?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have not discussed the matter of the re-equipping of the air division overseas with any member of any aircraft company nor with any servant, propagandist or employee, directly or indirectly, of any aircraft company.


Frank Charles McGee: What about the fellow who wrote your speech?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wrote it myself which is more than the hon. gentleman can say about his remarks. It may not be good but at least I am trying. I got my information from sources which I believe to be thoroughly reliable.


Norman Platt Lambert: The Toronto Star"!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think that the sources of my information are just as reliable as those available to the minister even though, as he says, he has the facilities for checking the accuracy of the facts; but he then comes into the committee and explains that unfortunately he cannot give the facts to us. We suspect that the reason for this is that some of the facts would confirm the statements we have made in this committee.
With reference to what I said last night about the fatality rate of the F-104, I got that information directly from Washington from a person who has first hand knowledge of the information and who is in a position to know and know accurately.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It happens to be a United States aircraft.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister said this morning that R.C.A.F. pilots have flown the F-104 and that it was an easy transition from the F-86 to the F-104. It would be, of course, because they are similar aircraft. They are both day fighters designed for the same type of high level interception. We were told that we were taking advantage of the testing that had been done by others and that we would not have to do the development. Despite this, we were told just a few minutes ago that in fact the version the R.C.A.F. expects to buy has not been tested nor evaluated by us. Surely this means we will become involved in a period of redevelopment and redesign, a period of indecision in which we will not know for sure whether or not the new mark G will be a successful aircraft. In any event we on this side of the chamber believe that no redevelopment or redesign of that aircraft short of a complete redesign-in other words, a new aircraft- would fit it properly for the role of strike reconnaissance which the R.C.A.F. division overseas has now been assigned.
Supply-National Defence
In conclusion I wish to repeat what I have said before, that those of us who sit on this side of the chamber have a responsibility too. We are here to serve the Canadian public as are members on the government side. We try to do our job and our job is made more difficult by the fact that we do not have employees of the state to dig out facts and do our research for us. Consequently we have to work, as those of you who have sat on this side know, even more diligently than some members on the government side.
All the information we have been putting forward in respect of this plane has been put forward sincerely. It has not been the result of representations on behalf of anyone having anything to do directly or indirectly with the aircraft industry. Surely the minister could have shown us the consideration this morning of accepting as sincere the remarks that we put forward. When he was on this side of the house he put forward some very startling and peculiar ideas indeed and at that time we did not accuse him of being irresponsible. Irresponsible, Mr. Chairman? All I can say is that with respect to all the charges I put forward last night, namely that this aircraft was not designed for the strike role, that its engine is not satisfactory and that the casualty rate is high, the minister has shielded himself behind the veil of official secrecy while at the same time branding me by innuendo as being utterly irresponsible.
I feel that this is not fair and I know that on reflection the minister will realize that those of us on this side of the house have a responsibility to do our best to protect the taxpayers who elect us and to make sure that our fighting men overseas have the best equipment available from a military standpoint and that that consideration should be paramount unless there is some other very serious objection. We will continue to do this, and I assure the committee again that if we had felt this aircraft was a proper choice we would have applauded the government for making the decision, however tardy it was. However, I repeat, as I have said before, that we feel that the decision was ill-considered, that it was made hastily even though tardily just in time to have some bit of factual information to put before the committee when it began its deliberations on Thursday.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to repeat at any length the arguments already advanced by me in support of the decision reached by the government but there are one or two points which have arisen during the speeches made by the hon. member for Trinity. He is accusing the government of having made a hasty decision.

Supply-National Defence He says that nobody knew anything about the Lockheed or ever had any idea that we would consider the Lockheed aircraft until there was pressure put on the government or on the air force within the last month by a so-called high pressure advertising campaign. I should like to quote Hansard of March 2 when I made a speech on these matters. As found near the bottom of page 1515 I said:
Another problem we have before us is the possibility of having to replace the Sabres of our air division, the F-86.
Then I went on at some length to indicate some of the aircraft which were being inspected, and about half-way down the first column on page 1516 I used these words:
On the 14th and 16th of January yet another team went to the Lockheed aircraft company at Burbank, California.
I think that shows that this was not something which was suddenly thought up by the government in response to pressure exerted during the last month.
Then I must say just a word as to the engine, about which the hon. member has grave doubts. This is a comparatively new engine with high performance characteristics particularly well suited to the air division requirements. The engine is being installed in the new B-58 Hustler bomber, in the McDonnell F-4H all-weather interceptor and in the Convair 880 jet airliner and other new aircraft. I have no doubt at all of the excellence and reliability of this engine.
Reference was made to the fact that the engine has to be overhauled every 100 hours. That is a situation which applies to almost every new aircraft engine. By the time the engine is placed in the 104G's and made available to the R.C.A.F. I am assured that it will be able to run three or four times that many hours without being tested.
The only other point I want to refer to has to do with the conclusion the hon. member drew, and these were his words, that "military requirements held an inferior position to other considerations." I want to make it crystal clear that I deny that emphatically and I wish to say that the aircraft meets all the requirements which are laid down for the aircraft to carry out the role assigned to the squadrons in Europe.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just told us that an air force team went to Burbank, California, in January of this year and that he had so advised the house on an earlier occasion. This is just one more instance of the minister taking things out of one context and putting them into an entirely different context. I remember very clearly this statement at the time we were criticizing the manner in which the CF-105 Avro Arrow

had been cancelled. The argument was not going as well for the government as it should have even though they had a lot of press clippings which supported them. The minister rose and in reply to a question as to what had been done to try to find work for the people at Avro and Orenda who had been thrown out of their jobs so abruptly he read off a list of about 20 different places that R.C.A.F. and other service teams had visited from time to time in the previous few months. He gave the impression at that time that these visits had been made for the purpose of trying to find something else of military value, before the cancellation of the Arrow was announced, which could be manufactured by the employees at Avro and Orenda. Yet in reply to a question which I put on the order paper the minister told the house that on not one occasion of these many was an employee, an executive or any other person representing Avro invited to go along in order that they might discuss with the officials of these various companies their capabilities and the things that they were best able to do.
It is completely obvious that these trips were not made for the specific purpose of trying to find something for the employees of Avro and Orenda to do before that abrupt cancellation was made and it is obvious today that this statement has been picked out of context to try to demonstrate that the government was then considering the Lockheed F-104 as a strike fighter when in fact the list he then read included a number of places which had not developed strike fighters and consideration was being given to planes and equipment of all types. Can you blame us, Mr. Chairman, for questioning the information which is given to us in the house and for demanding that we be given proper information and real facts on which to base our judgment before voting these huge amounts of money?
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to stray a moment from the field of missiles, of plain or supersonic aircraft, to deal with a matter which is of particular interest, not only to my constituency of St. Jean, but also to the province of Quebec and to all of Canada, since it concerns the navy, the army and the air force, that is the Royal Military College of St. Jean.
I should like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that last year, on the occasion of this vote, I asked the minister if he could not find some way to let the Royal Military College of St. Jean give students there the opportunity of completing their course in St. Jean, instead of being forced to go to Kingston for that purpose.

I want to say to the minister that we, in St. Jean and in the province of Quebec in particular, are proud of the Royal Military College which with the Canadian military colleges of Kingston and Royal Roads has completed the trio of such institutions in Canada.
In 1952, the Liberal government gave the province of Quebec a bilingual royal military college, at the opening of which, in 1952, the commander at the time, Colonel Lahaie, who has earned quite a wide reputation in our province, stated that he hoped and that he was sure that five years after the opening of the college, that is in 1957, we could have in St. Jean a military college which would allow its students to take the same course as that given at Kingston.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this is 1959 and the Royal Military College of St. Jean still does not provide a complete course. I must say to the Minister of National Defence that, at the present time, I rise not only on behalf of the taxpayers, voters and citizens of the province of Quebec, but in my own name- and, since he is president of the Royal Military College, I am a little ill at ease in reminding him that he is the chairman of a college where students cannot take a course of studies or training.
Mr. Chairman, we have at the Royal Military College of St. Jean all the qualified staff we need to allow Canadians who attend the college to complete their course. I think it is unfair that French-speaking Canadians who start their training at the Royal Military College of St. Jean, and who stay on for three years, be forced, often after getting top marks among the cadets, to go to Kingston to complete their education in English. And there, quite often, because of their lack of knowledge of the English language, they fall to the bottom of the class of cadets who complete their studies at Kingston.
Mr. Chairman, since the Canadian government has provided a royal military college for the city of St. Jean, and the province of Quebec, I think this government must by all means enable students who attend this college to take their full training there.
May I point out to the Minister of National Defence the statement made in this house in 1952 as recorded on page 3941 of Hansard, by the Hon. Brooke Claxton, then Minister of National Defence, in which he indicated 66968-9-348
Supply-National Defence that the intention was to place the St. Jean military college on an equal footing with R.M.C. in Kingston.
Mr. Chairman, what is keeping this government from carrying out the intentions of the former government?
We have at St. Jean every facility to teach the full curriculum to our cadets. In the first place, we have a first rate president, in the person of the Minister of National Defence. We have an excellent commander, in the person of Group Captain Archambault, who is to be commended for doing an exceptionally fine job. We have, as director of studies, Colonel Charles A. Chabot, a man of outstanding reputation. We also have Squadron Leader Lanthier, a Kingston graduate, not to mention our devoted secretary general, Mr. Denis Dion, and all the distinguished professors devoted to the training of the cadets.
We have everything at St. Jean: a splendid site, the best of teachers and the best of college presidents. In fact, the only thing we lack is an opportunity for the cadets to complete their studies. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Minister of National Defence, who is president of our military college, would answer my request and tell us why we, in St. Jean, should not expect to see our royal military college at long last offer a complete course of studies, just as R.M.C. at Kingston.
I also ask the minister to tell us why Canadian citizens of French culture attending the royal military college at St. Jean are being forced to go to Kingston for the last two years of the course. Such students may find themselves at the bottom of the class when placed in an English environment, after leading their class at St. Jean.
When a bilingual military college was to be established at St. Jean, it was to be in the best interest of this country. I am convinced that the Minister of National Defence will not let this opportunity slip by to give the Royal Military College of St. Jean a complete study course so that the graduates of that college could be in the same category as the English speaking cadets in Kingston.
I shall not insist upon the matter, because I know how the Minister of National Defence is interested in anything having to do with the military college of St. Jean. I became aware of that interest during the visit he made there last year at the graduation ceremony. I also realized it this year when he came, accompanied by the hon. Solicitor
5488	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence General (Mr. Balcer), and if the teachers of that military college really have all the qualifications and abilities which the minister has recognized, we only need a quick decision by the minister. I would like us to be assured, as from next September, that those cadets who are now under the impression that they have to go to Kingston to complete their studies, will learn the great news that they will be able to continue their course in St. Jean, where they began their studies.
Before concluding these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few words. Quite recently, the minister informed me that it had been decided to demolish two buildings on the college grounds, which had been designated as surplus. At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the minister that the two buildings he mentioned are historical sites in St. Jean. They are the remains of old Fort St. Jean and, to my mind, it would be in very bad taste to destroy them.
I am pleased to remind the house that the first fort at St. Jean was built in 1666; it was replaced by a second one in 1748, by a third in 1778 and by a fourth in 1839. The present fort, as well as the buildings which it is proposed to destroy, go back to 1839. I wanted to draw the minister's attention to that matter.
In my opinion, it would be unfortunate to demolish those historic buildings, even if it is proposed to replace them by more modern ones. Historic buildings going back to 1839 cannot, in my opinion, be replaced in 1959. It would be really unfortunate if the minister should decide to remove those buildings which have stood there for more than 120 years.
I know the minister will have a serious investigation made about the matter, and I can assure him that the great majority of the resident students of the Royal Military College of St. Jean, and of the people of St. Jean, that is 99 per cent of them, are opposed to the destruction of those buildings, as well as the whole population of the province of Quebec, and of Canada as a whole.
Mr. Chairman, I now close my remarks. However, I should like the Minister of National Defence to tell us why he has refused for so long to give the province of Quebec, and most particularly the Royal Military College of St. Jean, a course of study as complete as the one now being given at Kingston.
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the minister's mind back from the College St. Jean to the F-104. I do not


apologize to the committee for having something more to say about this matter, because, as has been pointed out, it represents a very large expenditure of the taxpayer's money, some $200 million or more; but more important than that, of course, is that it will be equipment for the R.C.A.F. in a new and difficult role which it may be asked to undertake for NATO and for Canada at a time when NATO tactics, and indeed NATO equipment, are in a state of flux. Therefore, we naturally on this side are worried about the implications of this decision. I would like to ask the minister one or two more questions, and I think they will be new questions. It is, of course, a fact-and I do not think the minister has disputed this -that the F-104 A, B, C, D, E, or F, has been developed in the United States as a high altitude, high speed aircraft. It has the world's speed record, and it was designed originally at least, the minister will agree I am sure, for a purpose not directly related to that which it will be performing with the R.C.A.F.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not even indirectly related.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If that is a fact, it was bound to arouse our anxiety and indeed our suspicion that this might not be the aircraft best equipped for the purpose we have in mind. We ask ourselves, how can this type of aircraft be suited for the strike fighter, strike reconnaissance role, at low altitudes, and the minister has replied that we are now considering the F-104G. The impression he has left in our minds is that this is a new model designed for this purpose to remove the deficiencies of the earlier models; but he has told us at the same time that this re-designed or this remodelled F-104F, the F-104G, has not been tested in the air by any Canadian pilot. Now, our worries about this plane have been increased by the evidence that we have been able to secure. Last night I asked the minister whether it was a fact that the United States-and this is a United States plane-has equipped its own tactical squadrons in Europe with Republic F-105 fighters, and the minister said in reply that some squadrons of the U.S.A.F. are being equipped with Republic F-105 planes. I would like to secure from him, if I can, information as to whether these replacements in Europe by the F-105 are replacements of the F-104.
The fact is, and the minister has not denied this, that the United States air force had already decided at the very time they were deciding to purchase these planes to reduce its own commitments for purchasing this plane from, I think, 700 to 300 or 400. This

is being done by the United States government, which should know a good deal about this plane, at a time also when it has signed new contracts, I think up until 1963, for the purchase of the F-105.
In connection with the testing of these planes, the minister said that the F-104G has not been tested in the air. I woud like to ask him whether the Grumman Super Tiger or the Republic F-105-I will just mention these two planes-has been tested or flown by the R.C.A.F.? When? For how many hours? Were they actually tested in the air in the form in which they were offered to the R.C.A.F., in the form in which they would be used by the R.C.A.F. if they had been purchased? In other words were those other types tested by the R.C.A.F.? Were they flown by the R.C.A.F.? When, and for how many hours?
I know there are economic considerations involved in this, Mr. Chairman, and the minister has indeed indicated that. I wonder whether he could give the committee any information about the unit prices for the F-104G. We remember in the debate on the CF-105, that in connection with prices we had a great deal of difficulty in getting the exact information on this point. The Prime Minister told us last February that the price of the CF-105, on an order of 100, was $7,810,000, and we learned from the Minister of Defence Production a couple of months later that, far from it being $7,810,000, it was $3,750,000. Perhaps the minister will give us some specific and definite information about the cost of these particular planes which it has been decided to buy from the United States.
I should also like to ask him whether any aviation company, apart from the Lockheed company, whose plane it has been decided to buy, whose planes were under consideration, including the Republic company, had expressed a willingness to use the Iroquois engine not only in their own aircraft for use in the R.C.A.F. but also for their own aircraft produced for use in the air force of the United States, because surely that would have been an important consideration in the mind of the government if in fact that proposal and that suggestion had been made.
Then I would also like to ask the minister whether this F-104G, this new model, improved version, which has not been tested by any Canadian flyer, has any all-weather or night flying capabilities?
When the question of the equipment of the United States air force was under discussion by the subcommittee of the committee on appropriations of the house of representatives this spring-and I am quoting 66968-9-348i
Supply-National Defence from page 536 of the evidence-the president of a company called Electronics Communications, Incorporated, who was a vicepresident of Westinghouse company before that, and who is a great expert in this field, was asked by the chairman of the committee: "What about the 104F?" They were discussing various types of planes, and Representative Flood went on to say, "Which has been slowed down, too"? He was referring to the cut in the order, and Mr. Godsey, who was the witness, said:
Sir, I have very little faith in a weapon or weapons system with limited capability. If you cannot use it at night or in bad weather then you have left yourself wide open to attack in those periods when you can do nothing.
Perhaps the minister will give us the information as to whether there is any allweather night flying capability of this model, the F-104G?
Then finally, at this stage, can the minister give us any indication of where this plane is to be manufactured in Canada and under what conditions? The minister mentioned this morning that the company would be given-I do not know what the proper expression is-a production fee for manufacturing this plane in Canada. Can the minister indicate how much money will be involved in this production fee to be given by the manufacturer for the privilege of manufacturing this plane for the common defence to the United States company which is the producer of the plane in the United States?
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the minister might be good enough to deal with those particular questions.


George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps I could help the Leader of the Opposition if I told him the various types of the F-104 which have been developed. The first, the F-104A, was an interceptor. The second one, known as the F-104B, was an interceptor with a dual seat, a trainer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister repeat that, please?


George Randolph Pearkes: The F-104B was a dual trainer. The F-104C was a tactical fighter and bomber with special bombing equipment. The F-104D was the same as the F-104C but with dual flight so that it could be used as a trainer. The F-104E and the future G, the more sophisticated editions of the C type, have both navigational and bombing equipment. That will answer the question regarding the ability of this aircraft as an all-weather aircraft, in that it has navigational equipment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the minister leaves that point, might I ask a supplementary question.

Supply-National Defence Which of these particular models, if any, were tested by R.C.A.F. or Canadian flyers, and for how long?


George Randolph Pearkes: The 104C was the type which was tested by our pilots. The Leader of the Opposition asked questions about the cutback in the 105 as far as the United States air force was concerned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The cutback was in the 104.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, I am sorry; I said 105. That is in the fighter version of the 104 because there is not the same requirement for the fighter version of the 104 and the cutback is principally in that version.
A question was asked about the 105, and I made the statement yesterday in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question that I understood that some squadrons of the United States air force are being equipped with the Republic F-105. That is correct. Some of the squadrons of the United States air force in Europe are being equipped with the 105. There are also squadrons being equipped with the 104. The 105 is a much larger aircraft, and being larger _ it is also more expensive and more sophisticated and has a slightly different role from that of the 104. It is a larger aircraft capable of greater distance reconnaissance, having more navigational instruments and greater power. It is, as I say, a more expensive aircraft, and therefore in the inventory of the NATO forces there would be a requirement for both the larger type of reconnaissance aircraft and the smaller type, and we are contributing the smaller type, the 104. Had we selected the Republic it would either have cost us a great deal more money to have supplied the same number of aircraft, or it would have made it necessary for us to reduce the number of aircraft in spending the same amount of money and no reduction in the number of aircraft would have been acceptable to the commander of the forces in Europe.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister some other questions. I do not know whether he has forgotten them, but has he any figures for the cost of the plane, or where it is to be manufactured?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think when it comes to the question of cost and the actual contracts which are being made, those remarks should be addressed to the Minister of Defence Production. His estimates follow as soon as these estimates are finished.


William Moore Benidickson: With respect to the relationship between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production, I would take it that the defence department will indicate to the Department

of Defence Production its requirement in the matter of delivery. The minister in his original speech, when introducing his estimates on page 5352 of Hansard for July 2, said:
Some two years will elapse before new aircraft will come into operational service, and by that time the value of the F-86 will have diminished in comparison with other aircraft in operation. Failure to take a decision now, therefore, would peopard-ize the effectiveness of the R.C.A.F.'s contribution in the future and undoubtedly would cause serious alarm and harm to the alliance.
I think that language is something all can understand, but I thought the phrase "some two years will elapse" under the circumstances, when necessity and obsolescence is emphasized, was rather woolly, shall I say. Can the minister indicate whether or not in his requisition to the defence production department he indicated the minimum time that he would like to have this aircraft available for operational purposes? The minister indicated that he thought Canadian aircraft would be operational about the same time as those selected by the Federal Republic of West Germany, which of course is under licence proposing to manufacture this plane in Germany itself.
Another thing with respect to the timetable impresses me. We were told that the government made a commitment at the annual meeting at NATO of defence ministers, finance ministers and foreign affairs ministers, in December, 1957. It was agreed that one of the Canadian commitments was to re-equip the Canadian air division in Europe. That is more than 18 months ago and the minister uses the phrases "some two years will elapse". The phrase in the document that is referred to is the minimum force needs from 1958 to 1963. Surely they were not contemplating when they used the words "minimum force" something that seems to lack a definite timetable to the extent this program does. They did not mean that we would get delivery at the end of the five-year period or after the five-year period, and I wonder if the minister has real confidence that these squadrons would be actually operational on the basis of his present plans, even before expiry of this five-year period, which was referred to as something that Canada agreed to in December 1957.


George Randolph Pearkes: Naturally, we should like to get these aircraft as soon as possible. I think we might set approximately two years from the time the contract has been signed; it will take from 18 months to 24 months to have this complete and, after that, start to issue them to the squadrons so that they can come into operational use.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister said that licensing arrangements had not been completed with the Lockheed company. Does he know whether the authorities of West Germany have already completed their licensing arrangements to manufacture?


George Randolph Pearkes: I understand that the contract has been signed on March 31 of this year, but that some of the first of the aircraft will be constructed in the United States and sent to West Germany and the balance will be completed in West Germany.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I understood the minister to say that it would take between 18 months and two years for the first planes to be delivered. Will there be any provision in the contract for an alteration of the terms, if required to be changed because of changing conditions with regard to NATO arrangements in Europe? We are now entering upon a large scale commitment which will extend over a period of 18 months to three years or more. Conditions change swiftly. Would the government be committed to all the terms of this contract if the conditions of Canadian participation in NATO affairs in Europe change?


George Randolph Pearkes: As the hon. gentleman knows, the terms of the contract are worked out by the Department of Defence Production. That question should be directed to my colleague.


William Moore Benidickson: I was about to point out to my colleague the Leader of the Opposition the actual phrasing of the minister's estimate as to the timing as reported at page 5352 of Hansard. He said there: "some two years will elapse before any aircraft will come into operational service." We recall from our inquiries last year in the estimates committee that there is a marked time lag between the arrival of the first aircraft off the production line and the moment when training and testing has been completed; a very long time lag before it can be said that an aircraft comes into operational service. Last year, as I recall it, the minister used the phrase "squadron operational service". I do not know whether he had in mind the same type of availability as he did when he used those words last year.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, I think that in from 18 to 24 months these aircraft should be with the squadrons in Germany.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A few moments ago I asked the minister a question which he overlooked in the replies he made to other questions. I asked him particularly regarding the testing of some of the other planes which were under consideration and I mentioned particularly the Grumman Super Tiger and the F-105.
Supply-National Defence Were they tested by Canadian pilots in the form in which they would have been used if a decision had been made to purchase them?


George Randolph Pearkes: I cannot say they were actually tested in the form in which they would have been delivered to the R.C.A.F. had a decision been made to adopt that particular type of aircraft, because it might have been necessary to have had some improvements or changes made, but I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that a most thorough examination was made of many of these different types of aircraft, and it was only after the most prolonged and careful consideration that a decision was reached. I cannot say more than that. I have said it before, and I repeat it, and will repeat it again and again.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I asked the minister this morning if he could give us the number of hours during which each of the various types of aircraft had been flown by R.C.A.F. pilots during the course of the evaluation. I wonder if the minister has that information available now?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, I have not got that information here.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Leader of the Opposition has just asked a question in an endeavour to ascertain whether these aircraft were flown as they would have been delivered to the R.C.A.F. May I put the question differently. Were the Grumman Super Tiger and the Republic F-105 both test-flown by R.C.A.F. pilots?


George Randolph Pearkes: I cannot say definitely that the latest types of those aircraft were, but the most careful evaluation of their capabilities was made.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could the minister give us any assurance that any types of those aircraft were flown?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am told that it is very
definite that the Super Tiger was flown by Canadian pilots.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Was the Republic 105 also flown by Canadian pilots?


George Randolph Pearkes: That, I could not say.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister give us this all-out, unequivocal assurance that these planes were properly evaluated in every respect when in fact they have not all been flown by R.C.A.F. pilots? It is precisely this lack of information which makes us aware of the fact that we cannot really rely absolutely on the decisions which the government makes. We cannot rely on the meagre facts which are made available to us, and we have to ask questions in order to find out

Supply-National Defence the situation. We were assured that a complete and thorough evaluation was made, and the only thoroughly satisfactory method by which a plane can be evaluated has not been used in the case of at least one of these aircraft. How can the government or the department rely on an examination which has not included an on-the-spot evaluation by a pilot in its own air force or in its own employ-someone they trust implicitedly. Surely the minister could give us some information which would set our minds at rest that more exploratory work has been done than he has asserted this afternoon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A few minutes ago the minister said that every step was taken to insure that the decision which was made by the government was the right decision, and now he tells us that one of the planes under construction, the F-105, was not, as far as he knows, even test flown by any R.C.A.F. pilot.


George Randolph Pearkes: There are many ways of obtaining information about aircraft other than by actually flying them, and if some of the other qualifications do not meet the requirements, is there any necessity to go to the extent of flying the aircraft? Very complete information is available from all United States officials.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Are we to infer from that that the government or its officers or technicians looked at the F-105 and decided that it was of such a type and quality that it was not even thought desirable to bother about test flying it for this particular work?


George Randolph Pearkes: The experts of the R.C.A.F. made a thorough examination of the capabilities of the Republic 105, and that aircraft was not selected after the evaluation placed upon it by the R.C.A.F. As I pointed out earlier this afternoon, the reconnaissance features of the 105 are different from the requirements which were given to us for the plane to re-equip the squadrons in Europe.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it is becoming clear where we stand at least in respect to these two particular planes. The F-105 was examined and tested and as a result of that examination it was considered not worthwhile testing in the air by Canadian pilots for the purpose it was meant to perform. The F-104 was examined, I think the minister said that it was the F-104C, an earlier version, and it was decided, after the examination, it would be test flown in the air by Canadian pilots. That was done. Presumably it was decided as a result of this and the other investigation that that particular plane would require changes. Presumably those changes have been made in a version,

the F-104G. On the basis of flying an earlier version it was declared not satisfactory because the changes had to be made. It was then decided to spend $200 million producing a changed version which has not been flown or tested at all.


George Randolph Pearkes: Of course, the decision was not made merely on the basis of the flying of the aircraft. All the capabilities of that aircraft were available to the experts when they carried out the evaluation. Such decisions are reached on the sum total of the considerations. I have confidence in the ability of our air force personnel to make a recommendation in this respect. I have confidence in the advice that they give us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have the greatest possible confidence in and respect for the advice the minister would get from his Canadian advisers because I know there are no more highly qualified advisers for any minister of defence in any country, but I would have more confidence in the wisdom of the government in making this official decision if these advisers had had a chance to fly the plane which was decided on by the government as the one suitable for re-equipping the Canadian air division and on which we are going to spend $200 million.
I quite agree with the minister that flying is not the only way of testing a plane and that there are many other considerations that have to be examined before the plane is taken into the air, but I cannot believe it would be wise to make a final decision with all that is involved in terms of money and in terms of service to the R.C.A.F. without having the model it was decided to produce flown by the R.C.A.F. personnel.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could tell us when the F-104G was first flown?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I have said several times that the F-104G has not been flown.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The F-104G has not been flown. In other words, the minister is asking us to buy a pig in a poke?


George Randolph Pearkes: Do not be so stupid.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to have an answer from my hon. friend about the College Militaire Royal de St. Jean. I know that the minister is the president of that college and I know how he loves the institution. I am surprised that he did not give me an answer to the question I asked him a few moments ago.


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall be very pleased to give the hon. member an answer. Another hon. gentleman rose before I had an opportunity to reply.
The policy as far as the service colleges are concerned is that there are three colleges which give the first two years of the course, the Royal Military College at Kingston, the College Militaire Royal de St. Jean and the Royal Roads at Esquimalt in British Columbia. The first two years of the course may be taken at any one of those three colleges but because of the additional facilities particularly in the nature of laboratories and equipment for engineering study, and in the extra staff that is maintained at the Royal Military College, the last two years of the college course are given at the Royal Military College.
In order to make quite certain that French speaking boys are thoroughly acquainted with the English language they may take an extra year at the College Militaire making three years. There is one year which you might call a pre-college year in which they have the opportunity of becoming completely bilingual. I am very proud of the work which is being done at the College Militaire at St. Jean. Everything the hon. member has said regarding the efficacy of that college I heartily endorse. The present policy is that the cadets complete the last two years of their four-year course at Kingston for the reasons I have given, the additional equipment, the extra staff and the fact that they are now able to obtain a college degree at Kingston.


Yvon Dupuis: The minister knows perfectly well that French Canadians can speak English with considerable fluency. I cannot speak English very well myself and when I wish to be persuasive and completely understood, I speak French because I feel I speak better and more convincingly in French. It is the same for the cadets who go to the College Militaire. They might be good in English and they like English-I may even say they love it-but when there is an examination to pass, even with their love of the English language, they are placed at a disadvantage in relation to the English speaking persons who write the examination.
In order to be completely understood, I will now speak French to the minister to prove to the minister that we French speaking Canadians are better in our own language than in English.
(Translation):
I would point out to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) that, while it is true that there are preliminary courses given at Royal Roads, just as there are at St. Jean, which have to be completed at Kingston, students at Royal
Supply-National Defence Roads, being English-speaking, are not up against the same language difficulties as the French-speaking students attending the St. Jean Royal Military College. A Frenchspeaking student can like English and be able to speak it well enough to be understood, but if he is transplanted into another college where absolutely everything is done entirely in English, he is automatically placed at a disadvantage in relation to his Englishspeaking fellows.
The very aim of the Liberal party, in setting up a bilingual college, was to remedy this situation of inferiority in which Frenchspeaking students attending R.M.C. at Kingston found themselves.
I am sure that the minister understands my point perfectly. He understands it so well that every year, when he comes to visit our military college in St. Jean, every year as he said just now, he marvels at the good work that is done there and every year the case I am now submitting to you is submitted to him from several quarters.
We have at the Royal Military College of St. Jean the required teaching staff to allow the students to finish their course. We have all departments there, that is: English, chemistry, military studies, French, history, geography, economics, mathematics, philosophy, physics, military instruction, sports and physical culture-all this without even mentioning the basic course in the general program, engineering. All that is found at St. Jean, but the minister persists in his refusal to authorize the Royal Military College of St. Jean to give those students an opportunity to complete their course in the same institution. It is inadmissible and unacceptable that French speaking students be submitted to such discrimination.
I am proud that the powerful Minister of National Defence is head of that college. But it is the first time, Mr. Chairman, that a college president shows so little interest in the advancement of his institution. I trust he will reconsider the things I just said and that he will put an end to such discrimination against our people.
I also hope that he may rise and tell us, before the next election: "As Conservative Minister of National Defence, I have continued the work begun by the Liberal party". I would like to keep my remarks above politics, but I have to remind the minister that the Hon. Brooke Claxton, then minister of national defence, and Colonel Lahaie said that they wanted to put the Royal Military College of

Supply-National Defence St. Jean within five years on the same footing as the Royal Military College of Kingston. Five years later that is in 1957, the Conservative government came into power. Putting political considerations aside, I ask the present Minister of National Defence to pursue what was started so efficiently under Liberal rule.
I am convinced that the Minister of National Defence very much appreciates what is done at St. Jean and that he likes to come and visit us. But he would be quite embarrassed if he were to come back to St. Jean for the graduation ceremony and tell certain people: "Well, as Minister of National Defence I have not taken upon myself to give you what you are rightly asking for and I cannot allow those students to continue their course here." For, when those students go to Kingston to finish their course they never succeed as well, because their language is French. Teachers at the St. Jean Military College are just as capable as those at Kingston, and there is no valid reason why this state of affairs should continue. It is unthinkable that the Minister of National Defence and the present government should deny the students at the St. Jean Royal Military College an opportunity to complete their studies there.
I know the minister is perfectly aware that this is detrimental to our people. I shall therefore be surprised and disappointed if he does not change his present attitude in the near future.
(Text):


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, this morning the Leader of the Opposition asked the minister what was to be the ultimate role of the other four squadrons in the air division and what plans the department had for replacing their equipment. The minister has not answered that question. We feel he should answer it and give us some indication at least of what the department's thinking is. It is not enough just to have one isolated decision made available to us. We "should have some indication of what the department's policy in defence matters really is.


George Randolph Pearkes: I said they were continuing in their present role.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: But for how long? The plane is obsolescent now by the minister's own statements. Surely he does not plan to leave them there indefinitely. That is something I am sure he could not contemplate.


George Randolph Pearkes: They will continue in their present role as long as SACEUR has a requirement for them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will there be a division now in function between the two parts of the

air division, one being the strike fighter reconnaissance role and the other continuing the present role? Will that mean a division in the chain of command inside the division? Will the four CF-100 squadrons be in a different tactical air force from the other eight squadrons?


George Randolph Pearkes: No. There is one squadron of CF-lOO's with each of the four wings, two in Germany and two in France, and under present plans there is no intention of changing that distribution.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I think we now have as clear a picture as we are likely to get of the role and activities of the R.C.A.F. I can only express my great anxiety over the decision which has been made to reequip our air division in Europe, a decision which has been made after a good deal of consideration no doubt by the government over many months, a decision which seems to have been based not on any actual flying test of the plane that has been picked by Canadian pilots, although there are a good many test pilots with a lot of experience who would have been available apart from the R.C.A.F., but based on considerations which do not require, so the minister says, that kind of test.
Anyway, the minister says that the decision has been made and we must all hope that this particular plane, whatever doubts we may have about its suitability for this role, will turn out to be a suitable plane for the important and responsible new role that the R.C.A.F. is being asked to perform in Europe. I take it that it will not begin the performance of that role for a good many months because the minister has said it will be about 18 months before the first planes are delivered to the squadrons in Europe. Presumably during that period of 18 months or more these squadrons will continue to carry on as efficiently as they always do, with the F-86.
In the future, however, they will have a new function to perform while, on the other hand, the CF-100 squadron will carry on, the minister has said, the function which they have been performing over the years in Europe with efficiency and distinction, as a result of which the Canadian air division, I think, now has the reputation in the NATO forces of being as efficient, as effective and as well trained as any air unit in all of the NATO forces. Nevertheless, it must be quite clear to everyone that the CF-100, while not entirely obsolescent, is becoming less effective as the months go by in the face of the air menace which the NATO forces will have to counter in Europe if there ever is an outbreak of war.

Then, Mr. Chairman, there will be the nine CF-100 squadrons in Canada integrated into the North American air defence command and playing their part as manned interceptors with United States squadrons under NORAD which are or will soon be equipped with planes more modern and more effective than the CF-100 is at the present time. I have already stated my view that the government should be giving a most searching examination to the possibility of a new role for the R.C.A.F. on this continent. It has been suggested in some press quarters that in making the proposal to the government for this kind of re-examination I have been advocating the drastic reduction of the R.C.A.F. The minister will know that it not what I said, even in the question which I asked him. What I do advocate is an examination in order to see if there should not be a drastic reorientation or reorganization of the role of the R.C.A.F. in the defence of Canada, in the defence of the alliance and in the defence of peace.
I have no illusion about the importance of the R.C.A.F. in any form of defence because it is bound to be of the very greatest importance and I think it would be very silly on the part of anyone who believes in collective defence, who believes, as I do, in Canada playing its full part in collective defence and paying its full share of the collective insurance premium, to think that the R.C.A.F. will not have a very important role to perform. But I have suggested that perhaps that role, under new conditions, will have to be altered in the future and that perhaps there are other ways in which the R.C.A.F. could operate effectively, and perhaps in a more Canadian way. I mentioned that we could make our armed units more mobile and air-transportable, but that this would take a good deal of reorganization of the R.C.A.F.
The minister replied to that suggestion yesterday by saying he felt that it would be unwise at this time to use the resources of the R.C.A.F. for that particular purpose, beyond that which it performs now. I am not an expert in tactics or strategy, and if that is the considered view of the minister and his advisers that it would be unwise to make that change at this time, that is how it has to stand. But I do believe that this particular role of continental air defence, operated as it is being operated now by CF-lOO's, is going to make a less and less important contribution to collective defence in the months and years to come. I do not see how, if we are going to continue to play that role, we can avoid the decision of reequipping the nine Canadian squadrons of the R.C.A.F. in Canada, because the minister 66968-9-349
Supply-National Defence has confirmed the information we have received from many other quarters that in the course of time the bomber will be less and less effective and the missile will be more and more effective. None of these aircraft, even the F-108 which may be in operation a few years from now, will be of the slightest use against missiles. This being the case, perhaps we should be looking ahead for a new role for the R.C.A.F. in common defence.
This was all I had in mind when I mentioned this matter. I have expressed the hope that the government would give that kind of re-examination of defence policy and defence planning, and not prolong indefinitely the kind of operation which has been performed with distinction and efficiency by the R.C.A.F. in the past, but which may not be a realistic participation in Atlantic defence much longer. I would have thought, I thought and I still think, that if we could have had a committee to go into this whole question of the role, not only of the R.C.A.F. but the other armed forces in the common defence, to which we could have called witnesses, we would have been in a better position to make the right kind of defence decisions in this parliament than we are now. I think we have had a vindication of that view this afternoon in the kind of discussion we have had about the $200 million to be expended for airplanes for the air division overseas.
However, Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure that whatever role the government may give the R.C.A.F., whether or not it is the most effective role in the present circumstances -and we have some doubts about that-it is bound to be an important role and it is bound to be carried out with efficiency and devotion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Before we carry this item, Mr. Chairman, there are a few further questions we have to ask. On the first item, I think it was, I asked the minister about the R.C.A.F. and civilian employees at Avro and Orenda. He said the question would be answered when the air force officials were in front of him.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. As stated in Hansard for May 27, there were 50 Department of National Defence civilians and 47 service personnel at Avro and Orenda. They were employed as follows: Against the Arrow contract, 37 civilians and 12 service personnel; against the CF-100 contract, 13 civilians and 35 service personnel. As of June 30, the position is as follows: Against the Arrow contract, 20 civilians and no service personnel; against the CF-100 contract, 13 civilians and 35 service personnel. The D.N.D. civilian employees still at Avro and Orenda against the
5496	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence Arrow contract are being reassigned as fast as their work relative to the termination of the contract is completed and new employment can be found for them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could tell us which air force division the radar defences on the British Columbia coast come under.


George Randolph Pearkes: All the radar defences are under the air defence command with headquarters at St. Hubert.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Do we have any combat operations centres in Canada which are not manned primarily by Canadians?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes; there are a number of radar stations which are not manned by Canadians and there are the squadrons on the Labrador coast which are made up of United States personnel.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could the minister tell us if there was a combat control station on the British Columbia coast which was recently taken over by the United States because we did not have satisfactory equipment for handling the signals coming in from our radar stations, and were not able to process the signals quickly enough for the NORAD command? Consequently, we had to allow the United States to take over that station because of the equipment not being replaced?


George Randolph Pearkes: So far as I know, there has been no change made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suppose this is the item upon which we ask any questions we may have to ask on the early warning systems. I should like to ask the minister one or two questions on this very important part of our continental defence system, because however we may feel about the relative importance of continental defence as a protection for communities and areas, and as a protection of the bases from which the deterrent can operate, the fact remains that either of these two aspects of continental defence will be ineffective unless we have an efficient early warning system. This has been the reason for spending the millions and millions of dollars that have been spent by both countries on the three lines, the Distant Early Warning line, the Pinetree line and the Mid-Canada line, the expense of which has been shared between the two countries.
We know now that while these lines are, I think, reasonably effective in giving warning of an attack by bomber aircraft-reasonably effective because it is idle to think they will ever be 100 per cent effective, they are mechanical after all-which was the original purpose otherwise they would not have been


built, they are not of any value at all in respect of giving warning against attack by intercontinental ballistic missiles. The government of the United States, therefore, proposes to spend billions of dollars on a ballistic missile early warning system, in spite of the fact that growing bodies of expert and political opinion in the United States are questioning the wisdom of these astronomical expenditures. Even if they are successful, they will only give about 15 minutes, though that 15 minutes may be very important. I gathered from the minister's remarks yesterday and the day before that Canada is not going to participate directly in these expenditures, and I think if that is the decision it is a very wise decision. We do not know where it is going to lead us in terms of expenditure and in terms of mechanical results.
However, I am worried also about a growing body of technical criticism against the effectiveness of this whole continental effort, because it is continental, whether we participate in it in one form or another. As I mentioned in the statement I made the other day, criticism has been made of this effort by a man who, the minister will agree, is as great an expert in the field of radar as anyone alive, namely Sir Robert Watson-Watt, who is the man perhaps as responsible for the victory in the Battle of Britain as any other single individual because of what he did in the 1930's to make radar detection possible. He has been saying in the United States and in Canada that we are wasting our money and wasting our effort in attempting to secure an early warning system that will be effective in any real sense against the new methods of attack. He is quoted in the press of May 27, 1959 as saying:
-that the present radar defence system is "far advanced toward obsolescence". The British radar expert also contended in this article that the new extension of the DEW line, the ballistic missile early warning system (BMEWS) which uses three stations each with a five thousand mile radar sweep to give a 15-minute warning against ballistic missiles, is "at best, a very expensive way to get a still inadequate warning".
I wonder whether the minister can give us some information which will be a little more reassuring as to the value and effectiveness of all the work that has gone on and is likely to go on in this vitally important field of early warning.


George Randolph Pearkes: I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that this is a vitally important field, and we must endeavour to obtain those early warnings both for the protection of our own people and for the protection of the retaliatory forces in the United States.
The DEW line and the other systems were never designed to be effective against a missile; they were designed to be effective

against the bomber. Innumerable tests have been carried out on these lines and they have proved extraordinarily effective in locating the type of target which we believe the Russians would be able to use against this continent in the form of manned bombers. Improvements have been and are continually being made in the actual instruments which are being used on the DEW line. The DEW line has been extended out into the ocean now linking up with the similar warning systems in Europe. I think I can say definitely that a very high degree of reliability can be placed in our DEW line and warning system in giving information about the approach of hostile bombers.
With regard to detection stations which are being erected by the United States-not in Canada-Canada is not making any direct contributions toward those. We are having research work done in order to detect objects which are in the atmosphere, and the results of the experiments and research work which are carried out are passed on to the United States; but there is no direct expenditure in these estimates toward the construction or the maintenance of the BMEWS systems.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am glad to get that information from the minister, but, it is reassuring only to the point where it confirms that we shall have some warning against bombers if they ever were loosed against this continent; perhaps enough warning to scatter to the hills. But against missiles, in spite of all the work that may be done in the future, the best we can really hope for is about 15 minutes. That will mean much from the point of view of getting a retaliatory force into the air. It will not give much comfort to the 200 million people on this continent that they have 15 minutes to escape destruction and grope for survival while the retaliatory force is on the way to the enemy and putting the 200 million people in that country in the same position. That is about the best we can hope for if we ever allow this sort of thing to happen.
Can the minister give us some information about the actual administration and operation of the DEW line? He said that it is now under the operational control of the R.C.A.F. Can he tell us how many R.C.A.F. officers there are in the DEW line and what they are controlling? It has been suggested-among others, by the Prime Minister-that the situation in the DEW line in regard to protection of Canadian sovereignty is much better than it was a couple of years ago. Has the minister any information on this point? It is my own view, and it is confirmed by the information I have been able to receive in answers to questions on the orders of the 66968-9-349J
Supply-National Defence day, that there is no change whatever in the last two and a half years in the legal and jurisdictional position of control of the DEW line, and that the rights of sovereignty which were reserved for Canada in the original agreement-and they are there in black and white-have been sufficient during the years to ensure that our sovereignty is respected. Perhaps the minister can give me some information about operational control of the DEW line.


George Randolph Pearkes: There are four main centres in Canada of the DEW line as well as a number of satellite installations to those four centres. Satellite installations are mainly automatic. The information obtained either from the main station or from the satellite stations is filtered through into an operational room at these four main centres. Until January 1 of this year the United States air force officers had the operational control of those control rooms; they were in charge of those rooms. As the information came in, it was filtered through to them, and they made the decision as to what information would be passed back to NORAD or to the air defence command of Canada. Since January 1 the R.C.A.F. officers have taken over those control rooms, and there is a United States liaison officer only at the control rooms. Our sovereignty is respected in full in those Arctic stations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister
whether he feels a bigger role could be played by the R.C.A.F. in the Arctic areas in the field of reconnaissance, supply, and all that kind of thing, or is the R.C.A.F. doing everything that the government feels should be done now.


George Randolph Pearkes: The R.C.A.F. and the Department of Transport are principally responsible for the supply of all the Arctic stations. They are doing the major portion of that. Some civilian companies do supply some of the DEW line stations. Of course, the DEW line is operated and maintained under contract. It is the Federal Electric Company which operates that line, and the contract is with the U.S. air force, and they are paying the contractor. Under the agreement, Canada can take over the running of that line at any time Canada feels it is desirable to do so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It costs $65 million a year.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the Leader
of the Opposition has mentioned the difficulty of developing a warning system which will give us any warning of intercontinental ballistic missiles. If, however, a warning system can be developed which would give us a few minutes, there is the very urgent

Supply-National Defence and important matter of developing a defence against those missiles. Of course, it is commonly recognized that the western world must develop an anti-missile missile, and the United States is engaged in that development work at the present time.
There is another possibility, however, and I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of March 19, 1959, with reference to three high level explosions which were performed by the United States some time last summer with the idea that an electric shield or radioactive shield would be formed around the earth's atmosphere. I realize this would be highly classified information, but I wonder if the minister could tell us anything at all which would indicate if these tests show any promise of a military application in the defence against intercontinental ballistic missiles?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sure the hon. member knows it would be quite impossible for me to disclose the results of tests which were carried out by an ally in another country.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My next question will be directly referring to the Royal Canadian Air Force, Mr. Chairman, and the minister will have a clear conscience in dealing with it as fully as he sees fit. Can the minister tell us if the hazard or jump pay for the Royal Canadian Air Force has been eliminated?


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not know whether that is the case or not, but I will get the information shortly.


William Moore Benidickson: After that reference to the jump pay I wonder if I might get back to the question of the new role of the R.C.A.F. in Europe and our NATO relationship. Presumably our new equipment would be such that if the French persist in their decision about changing the agreement with the United States with respect to atomic warheads being under their own direction and storage, it would inevitably involve a transfer of the Canadian squadrons out of France. If that is so, would the cost of re-establishing bases for Canada be at the cost of Canada, or would that be within the general infrastructure of NATO itself?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think I answered that question earlier when I pointed out that there are alternative bases in France and Germany, and that if it is necessary as a result of international developments for the squadrons of the R.C.A.F. to move out of France, there are places where they can go to. But they are not equipped with nuclear weapons at the present time and will still be supplied through the United States pipe line.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he could give me a list of the R.C.A.F. establishments in the province of Newfoundland?


George Randolph Pearkes: May I refer the hon. gentleman to the white paper wherein he will find all that information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister give us the details about what the R.C.A.F. has at Gander?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. At Gander there is an aircraft control and warning unit with a ground observer corps detachment, and an R.C.A.F. movement bureau.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: I wonder if I could call the minister's attention to the fact that the huge airport at Gander seems to be used very little by the R.C.A.F., to the extent that I believe they have very limited facilities and very limited equipment there. In view of the general belief that in the event of hostilities submarines will play a very important part, Gander's geographical position, which places it east into the Atlantic for several . hundred miles-1 would say, closer than any other airport-must make it an ideal place to base the R.C.A.F. spotter planes. At the same time I would like to mention that Gander, despite its huge runways and other facilities, does not have a large hangar capable of servicing a modern jet aircraft.


George Randolph Pearkes: I thank the hon. member for bringing that information to my attention, and we will look into it further.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have two or three more questions-


George Randolph Pearkes: Might I reply to the question about risk pay. There has been no discontinuance of this for air crew nor jump pay for para-rescue personnel.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would like to ask the minister if I understood him correctly earlier when he told the committee that no F-104G had been test flown? May we draw the conclusion that no F-104G has not in fact been produced in its entirety as yet?


George Randolph Pearkes: I understand that the F-104G has not been flown yet. There are certain improvements and strengthening to the wings which are being carried out. The F-104G is an improved version of the F-104C which has been flown frequently and thoroughly tested.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister satisfied, however, that it will be thoroughly stable on the basis of the wing modification which he is talking about but which has not yet been tested in actual flight?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am assured by the technical staff of the R.C.A.F. that there will be a stable platform so far as the F-104G is concerned.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Were we also correct in assuming that the R.C.A.F. did not consider the possibility of using the F-105 Thunderchief?


George Randolph Pearkes: The R.C.A.F. carried out a thorough investigation on the F-105 Thunder-chief, but for the reasons I have already given this aircraft was not selected for the re-equipment of the air division.


Mr. Peters:: I would like to ask the minister how the developments are coming along in the matter of getting an international agreement, or even a continental agreement, on calibrations for bullets and other types of weapons, in particular between the United States and Canada, and if there has been any agreement on that matter?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the hon. gentleman is referring to the standardization which I have already referred to in this debate. There is an effort by the NATO council to get as great a degree of standardization as we can. I am pleased to say we have a Canadian officer who is acting as chairman of that standardization committee of the NATO forces. Some progress is being made, particularly in the field of small arms, but I cannot be too enthusiastic about it and I cannot say that everybody is adopting the same weapons for all the branches of their national forces, because they are not doing so. The national interests clash in this respect, and to achieve standardization is difficult.


William Arnold Peters: With regard to the plane we are buying from the United States, for instance, the Lockheed, will that be equipped with cannons and other weapons which will be interchangeable with those used by the United States air force?


George Randolph Pearkes: They will be interchangeable with those of United States air force squadrons armed with the same equipment, in exactly the same way as they will be interchangeable with those of German squadrons equipped with this particular type of aircraft. This was one of the considerations which caused the government to decide on the 104.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the minister if in the case of the Garand rifle the bore is of a Canadian calibre or not? I understand that the service is being re-equipped with this type of weapon.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is not the Garand rifle; it is the FN rifle, which is made in Canada and which is equipped with ammunition
Supply-National Defence made in Canada. Certain of our allies use that calibre. It is really based on a Belgian rifle.


William Arnold Peters: Does it use .303 ammunition?


George Randolph Pearkes: It does not use .303 ammunition; it uses ammunition of another calibre.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could tell us what is the authorized strength of the R.C.A.F.?


George Randolph Pearkes: Fifty one thousand.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask a question with regard to this matter of Bomarc missile bases and the establishment of these bases. Is Canada giving any consideration to relocating these particular bases so that the point of contact will no longer be over the major cities of western Canada? I think it is well understood that the United States have most of the Bomarc bases on their territory, and the only two which are situated in Canada are parallel with the United States bases. Geographically, Canada dips down below that parallel, so we have two of the bases in Canada on roughly the same parallel as the United States, which leaves us in the position that if there should be an attack, Canadian cities, rather than being protected, are going to be near the points of contact; if the range is to be 200 miles, the cities of Winnipeg, Regina and Vancouver would be among those exposed. In these circumstances, has some consideration been given to recommending to the United States that they should use a missile with a much longer range or that the sites of these bases should be changed so that the point of contact would not be over major Canadian cities? It seems to me it is going to be of little comfort to the people who are living in these cities if they know that the point of contact is somewhere over their heads and that instead of being defended, the fallout alone would probably be sufficient to eliminate them in the event of attack.


George Randolph Pearkes: The range of the Bomarc B, the type of Bomarc missile which will be fired from the stations along the Canadian border, will have a range very considerably greater than the one mentioned by the hon. member and will give protection to all the major cities of Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister would tell us if there are any trades and professions in the R.C.A.F. which are not up to strength -doctors, engineers, and so on.


George Randolph Pearkes: No, I am informed that the R.C.A.F. is well up to strength in all its branches.

Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Was the total ceiling for the three forces increased in the last two years and, if so, to what extent?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, there has been no change since 1955.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Am I correct in thinking that the ceiling limit was 120,000?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct, without cadets and apprentices.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And your figure of 120,800 at the end of December of last year included cadets?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is right.


William Arnold Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Defence what happens to the CF-105 now? What are we going to do with it? Does it become a museum piece, or can we get some value out of the planes that we built?


George Randolph Pearkes: That aircraft has been declared surplus by the Department of National Defence and is now for disposal by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation which is administered by the Department of Defence Production. The responsible minister will be able to inform the hon. member as to the disposal which is being made of this aircraft when his estimates come before this committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That reminds me about a question which I did raise earlier with regard to the possible use of the Iroquois engine in any of these planes that were under consideration. I think the question was whether in connection with any of the other planes which were under consideration it was indicated that they might use the Iroquois engines, and I believe it was said that one of them could use this engine not only in its Canadian but also in its United States production.


George Randolph Pearkes: The possibility of completing the development of the Iroquois and the possible use of this engine in some other aircraft was considered, but the Iroquois has not been completed to the stage when a firm decision could be made to use that engine within the time limit required.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Earlier the Leader of the Opposition asked the minister about the cost of the new plane and its engine, and the minister referred us to the Minister of Defence Production. With deference, I do not think we should be asked to turn our attention to a minister who is not responsible for the appropriation but who is merely responsible for the actual contractual arrangements and the purchase of the aircraft. This air force appropriation includes any expenditures which will be required for the aircraft, its


engine and its armament and I think we have the right to expect the minister to tell us what these proposed expenditures are.


George Randolph Pearkes: Five million dollars are
provided in these estimates for expenditures this year connected with the requirements of the air division. The total contract is being worked out by the Department of Defence Production and the minister from whom the hon. member should obtain the information which he is seeking is the Minister of Defence Production.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not agree. There is a
later item of $1 which gives the Department of National Defence the right to make forward commitments. Surely we should know what the forward commitments are. We should not be asked to sign a blank cheque which is what the minister is proposing at the present time.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister indicated that the state of development of the Iroquois engine was not such that it could be considered for use in the program that has been outlined with respect to the purchase of this new aircraft. I take it from his remarks that the development work has not ceased. What is in the estimates with regard to the Iroquois engine?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no item in this estimate for the further development of the Iroquois engine.


William Moore Benidickson: The work ceased at the same time the stoppage of the aircraft occurred?


George Randolph Pearkes: It has ceased unless the company is carrying on itself.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In the white paper there is mention of certain expenditures with regard to the Avro Arrow and its components amounting to $50 million or $60 million. What are those sums for?


George Randolph Pearkes: Charges for cancelling the contract.


William Arnold Peters: Across the country there are large numbers of what we used to call emergency landing fields with which nothing has been done for some time. These come under the jurisdiction of this department. These used to accommodate the landing of Tiger Moths and even planes of the size of Norsemen and Ansons. The weeds are growing profusely in these fields. Is it the intention of the department to turn these back to the municipalities from which they were purchased? These fields are grass runways used as emergency fields supplementary to other major fields.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the hon. member is referring to fields which were used by the

Department of Transport or the Department of National Defence during the war and have since been declared surplus, some of which have been taken over by the Department of Transport and others of which have been declared surplus and are no longer considered operational.


William Moore Benidickson: Reference has been made by the minister to an item in the over-all estimates of $50 million-odd that is available for expenses resulting from the cancellation of the Avro Arrow aircraft. These estimates were prepared last fall and were tabled in the house in January. How would the government at that time have any idea that it would require $50 million-odd for the purpose of the cancellation of this contract?


George Randolph Pearkes: When it was announced that the development of the Arrow would not be proceeded with it was decided that this provision would be made in the estimates to carry on after March, when it was decided to go on until such time as the supplementary estimates could be put through. The decision turned out not to be to continue, and that money may be used to cover cancellation charges.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is something that
worries me about all of these estimates and that is the disproportion between expenditures for equipment and other expenditures. The expenditures for equipment this year are a lower percentage of the total estimates than they have been in previous years. In a day of technological advance, at a time when every manufacturing organization is increasing the ratio of capital to manpower, we find that the Department of National Defence is following a reverse pattern and spending more money on overhead expenditures and less money on equipment. Surely if the department is going to maintain all these people, telling us that they are necessary to continue with our share of the defence of the western world, they should be equipped. We are not at all satisfied that the ratio of equipment being supplied to our men is getting smaller and that the other expenditures are getting larger. We call this to the minister's attention and feel that if he is going to return next year and ask for this much money he should have established a better proportion between the expenditures on equipment and other expenditures.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
222.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $249,313,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister two questions. How
Supply-National Defence touch of this total sum is being spent in Newfoundland and how much in the Atlantic provinces?


George Randolph Pearkes: As far as construction in Newfoundland is concerned there is an expenditure of $465 million for station development at Gander. Oh, I am sorry. I should have said $465,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was becoming interested at this point.


George Randolph Pearkes: The figures are as follows:
Location	Amount	Purpose
Torbay	 $ 290,000 Station development.
Gander	 465,000 Station development.
Goose Bay	 473,000 Station development.
Goose Bay	 100,000 Houses and schools.
At Gander a drill hall and recreational hall have recently been converted to a combined mess and quarters for the airmen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked for the global expenditures, not just construction. I suppose there is nothing else but construction in Newfoundland but I assume in the Atlantic provinces generally that there are some other expenditures besides construction.


George Randolph Pearkes: Construction in the Atlantic provinces as a whole amounts to $13,979,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister give the amount of the total vote, not just construction? This includes land and major equipment. I am interested in the total expenditures in the Atlantic provinces.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am afraid we do not keep our books in that way, so far as the procurement of equipment is concerned.


Mr. Dumas:: Can the minister tell the committee if his department has received a request from the town of Val d'Or asking that it contribute to the cost of paving that part of the road from the subdivided part of the town of Val d'Or to the military airport and the air force establishment?


George Randolph Pearkes: We have had such a request, I believe, and the matter is under consideration at the present time.	.


Armand Dumas: Is there any amount provided in the estimates for this work?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no special item included in the estimates for that.


Armand Dumas: In view of the fact that the road is used extensively by the R.C.A.F. I should like the minister to give further consideration to the matter and recommend that his department participate in at least some of the cost of paving the road to the airport.
5502	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Chairman, this item for construction or the acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment is in the amount of $249,313,000. Last year's estimate for the corresponding item was in the amount of $317,605,000. When I look at the details of the estimates on page 314 of the blue book I find under the item "major procurement of equipment" that aircraft and engines comprise some $164,817,000 while last year's estimate under this heading amounted to $246,929,000. In other words, the total decrease in the amount asked for in the estimate appears to be taken up in the one subheading, aircraft and engines, and it represents some $82 million in that one subheading alone. I presume that a great part of that reduction results from the cancellation of the Arrow contract. I wish to ask the minister this question. Does the procurement of the Lockheed aircraft which we have been discussing earlier today envisage any added expenditure over and above that forecast in these estimates?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, it is not the intention to put in any supplementary estimate for any further expenditure connected with the F-104. The expenditures envisaged this year are included in these estimates.


George James McIlraith: In this item.


George Randolph Pearkes: In this item.


William Moore Benidickson: On this very point, following my last question and the question of the hon. member for Ottawa West, the amount asked for in the blue book of estimates tabled in January was about $165 million. How much of that was for aircraft and engines with respect to the CF-105?


George Randolph Pearkes: The total amount for fighter aircraft was $46,750,000.


William Moore Benidickson: I may be confused on terms, but the minister referred to appropriations for fighter aircraft. My question was directed specifically to appropriations for the CF-105 which we more normally call an interceptor aircraft.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am told that for this fighter aircraft $45 million is shown in there for cancelling the 105.


William Moore Benidickson: That was not my question. I want to know the total amount anticipated to be spent on the Arrow aircraft, which is part of the $165 million.


George Randolph Pearkes: Forty-five million dollars.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When that item was
brought before us in January there had been no cancellation of the contract. Can the minister tell us what that was for when it was put there?


George Randolph Pearkes: I understand that less than 10 months ago-I am sorry that the hon. gentleman was not here-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been here all the time but I did not understand.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sorry if his attention was otherwise directed. The amount of money was made available either to continue with the development of that aircraft after March and before the estimates could be dealt with or for the charges which would be incurred because the contract was cancelled.


William Moore Benidickson: I understand that but I want to follow that up with this question. This estimate was presumably submitted to treasury board in December and was submitted to the House of Commons in January of 1959. It would have had regard to the Prime Minister's statement of September when he said that the cabinet was giving consideration to the question of continuing or discontinuing the Arrow program. But the decision to cancel the Arrow program was actually reached six weeks prior to the estimated time of decision given by the Prime Minister in September. As I understand it, he intended to make the announcement at the end of March and he made it about the middle of February.


John Whitney Pickersgill: February 20.


William Moore Benidickson: Can the minister give us a brief summary of what utilization has been made of this $45 million? How much of it was spent on the normal progress of development of the aircraft and the engine up to the time of cancellation, how much has been spent for cancellation charges and how much additional does the minister expect he will still have to pay with respect to cancellation obligations?


George Randolph Pearkes: This amount of money would have been spent had the development of the Arrow gone ahead after April 1. Because the aircraft was cancelled on February 20 none of this money was spent between then and March 31. This money is available to meet charges involved in cancelling the contract, and as far as I know at the present time it is adequate to cover expected charges for cancellation.


William Moore Benidickson: We are now more than three months into the current fiscal year. Has the minister any information as to how much of this $45 million has already been disbursed for cancellation obligations?


George Randolph Pearkes: We do not know the exact amount because the process is still going on and the bills will be received through the Department of Defence Production.


William Moore Benidickson: Negotiation in this respect is under the Minister of Defence Production?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct.


George James McIlraith: I want to ask the minister if this is not to some extent misleading in that in this part of the estimates we are dealing with expenditures for the procurement of equipment for the Department of National Defence. I always had the impression that expenses with respect to the termination of contracts appear in an item in the estimates of the Department of Defence Production. Is that not correct?


George Randolph Pearkes: I understand that is not correct. The amount for the cancelling of this aircraft is included under this item.


George James McIlraith: Then what has the item for termination of contracts under the other department covered in past years? What I want clarified is the change in accounting methods.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am told that there is no change from the methods used previously and that as far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, which has to pay the bills for cancelling contracts, the money is always provided under the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I recall meetings of treasury board to which I was invited when estimates were being presented. Each department came forward with many big black books containing complete details so that if any questions arose at treasury board concerning the general items that appear in the blue book of estimates they could be answered. I recall also that the same books are usually brought by the minister to the house for the same purpose of giving explanations in detail of individual items in answer to questions asked in committee of supply.
I wonder if the minister would be able to give the committee the information that would be in that book explaining the $45 million item. There would be a text alongside the request for $45 million indicating what its purpose was and the likelihood of being able to spend it, and so on. Has the minister now, as is the usual practice, got these sheets in front of him, and can he read to the committee what the explanation was and indicate if an explanation was requested at the treasury board meeting?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no further information that I have available, other than what I have already given. There is the $45 million for this purpose and there was a million and a half which was included to wind up the CF-100 program. This accounts for the balance of the item, in addition to the
Supply-National Defence amount which I stated a few minutes ago as being available for the procurement of an aircraft to replace our F-86.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the minister knows, I was a member of treasury board for several years, and what I would really be interested in knowing is what explanation was given to treasury board as to why $45 million rather than $50 million or $60 million, was needed? Evidently the fate of this aircraft was uncertain, as was indicated last September, and how did the department arrive at the $45 million, what was the basis of their calculation last December, before they knew what they were going to do?


George Randolph Pearkes: There was $5 million on development and $45 million in the other respect. This was arrived at on the basis of experience as an estimate of what the charges might be. It was purely an estimate at that time. There was some information available as to what might be the charges, and this preliminary sum was in either for the purpose of carrying on until a supplementary estimate could be presented or until the cancellation charges were made. It would appear at the present time it was a fairly accurate estimate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister talks as though in December there was an estimate on the basis of the contract being cancelled, and that is the point I am trying to settle. In December the country did not know and parliament did not know and, according to the best evidence that we have been given, the government did not know whether it was going ahead with this plane or whether it was going to cancel it. The explanation the minister gives seems to indicate that the minister knew in December it was going to be cancelled.


George Randolph Pearkes: Surely, I have explained several times it was a provision made for either alternative, to cancel or to continue; that was the basis upon which this amount was estimated.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Before the item carries, Mr. Chairman, the minister referred the other day to runway extensions for Canadian air bases to make them more suitable for temporary or other use by the United States air force fighter squadrons. I wonder if he could tell us if there is any money included in this vote for extension of runways to facilitate their use by United States air force fighter squadrons?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no money in these estimates for any special extension of runways. There is the usual money available for the maintenance of runways.

Supply-National Defence


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether there has been any increase in United States air force activity in Canada since his estimates were last before the committee?


George Randolph Pearkes: There has been no change or practically no change in the number of United States personnel stationed in Canada. However, as was announced late last year or early this year, facilities are being provided for refueling bases at four airfields for the SAC bombers. The money is being spent by the United States to extend the runways at these four bases so that United States refueling tankers could be placed there, if necessary, in order to refuel these SAC bombers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Defence research and development-
Defence research hoard-
223.	Operation and maintenance, $21,924,603.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the minister should explain to the committee what the present projects of the defence research board are, and why he feels it advisable to reduce the amount of money available to the defence research board for their scientific projects.


George Randolph Pearkes: There has been no reduction in the amount of money made available to the defence research board for research purposes. You will notice, on the other hand, there has been an increase of $1,659,087. There has been a reduction in development, and the money is not being required for development because the Arrow was cancelled.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is true the total amount of money available to the defence research board for development and scientific projects has been reduced, according to page 51 of the white paper, from 4.7 per cent of the total defence expenditure in 1958-59 to 3 per cent in 1959-60.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct, and that is reflected in the blue book on page 43 where, for the research side of the defence research board, there is shown an increase, but there has been a corresponding decrease in so far as development is concerned because the development of the CF-105 is not being continued.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, since we have now begun to discuss these things together, and it is very difficult to separate them, the minister has mentioned that the reduction of $34 million in development-I think that is the figure-is due to the decision not to proceed with the CF-105. Does that account for the whole of this decrease in development?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct; there is no decrease in development shown except for the CF-105.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
225.	Development, $21,565,000.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister did not reply to the question I asked him about some of the major developments which are being carried on by the defence research board. Could he give the committee some information about the things which they are doing and about the future possibilities which may develop from them?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. I did not reply to that because I had given it in considerable detail in my opening remarks the day before yesterday.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I listened very carefully, but I did not hear very much.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the hon. member like me to read this again?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Give some additional information.


George Randolph Pearkes: This covers the main features, plus what is in the white paper. This covers the major developments. So far as research is concerned, the most important projects are those connected with upper atmospheric physics, aerophysics and explosive physics. This research is being conducted jointly with the United States. That is the development of the technique of locating and tracking objects in the upper atmosphere. Other important branches of the research work deal with the detection of submarines, and is a big effort made by the defence research board with their special stations for development of underwater detection in Nova Scotia, Halifax, Shelburne and at Esquimalt in British Columbia. High priority is given to that particular work.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I could not hear too clearly, Mr. Chairman. Did the minister indicate how the board was coming along with the development of the satellite which we had been told would be launched sometime in the future.


George Randolph Pearkes: The government of Canada and the defence research board are working closely with the United States in the provision of certain instruments in connection with a satellite which is to be launched in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
226.	Services and facilities supplied to the Department of National Defence by the Department of Transport, $3,412,659.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister explain to the committee what type of services and

facilities are provided by the Department of Transport to the Department of National Defence under this item?


George Randolph Pearkes: Entirely meteorological services, reporting on the weather conditions which, of course, are of utmost importance for our R.C.A.F. planes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mutual aid-
227.	Contributions to infrastructure and military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the transfer of defence equipment and supplies and the provision of services and facilities for defence purposes in accordance with section 3 of The Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, not exceeding a total of $90,000,000 including the present value of defence equipment or supplies or the cost of services made available by the Canadian forces estimated in the amount of $68,150,000 and provided by appropriations for those forces in the current and former years in respect of which, notwithstanding subsection (3) of section 3 of the said act, no amount shall be charged to this appropriation or paid into a special account;
Provided by this vote, $21,850,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, this is a figure for mutual aid. It shows a decrease of $1,000,000. The figure is now $21,850,000. The minister will recall that a few years ago mutual aid was one of the most important contributions we made to collective defence under NATO. The amount used to be $150 million to $200 million or so in those days. It is now to $21 million. Can the minister give us a breakdown of this $21 million so we will know how it is being spent?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. Of course, there are
three main reasons why there is a considerable reduction. First of all, the forces of our European allies are being built up and are being equipped by their own efforts, and are in a better state of preparedness than they were a few years ago.
The second consideration is that a few years ago we had large surpluses of arms and equipment of various types which we could readily make available to our allies. Now the majority of those surpluses has already been disposed of and the equipment which we now make available to our allies has either to be refitted or even purchased. Since we have urgent need of equipment ourselves, we cannot very well be making equipment and buying equipment to give to our allies.
The third reason for the reduction is the cessation of the training of NATO pilots.
I have here a breakdown which has been prepared in these books. The amount for mutual aid this year is $350,000 as against $1,500,000 last year; that is, the procurement of new equipment to give away to our allies. The transfer of equipment from service stocks last year was $98 million. As
Supply-National Defence I said, that source is rapidly drying up, and we are giving away $60,114,000 this year. NATO air training; the training of the air crews from our NATO partners has dropped by $1 million, from $9 million to $8 million. Then, the contributions to infra-structure- that is, the overhead expenses connected with NATO installations in Europe, of which we pay a percentage-remains at the same $21,500,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has shown that the figure for mutual aid by way of transfer of stocks or new equipment to NATO countries, and by way of air training and contributions to infrastructure, comes to $90 million. Then there is a reduction of $68 million-I am now looking at page 317 of the estimates book-and he gets the amount provided by this vote of $21 million. I wish he would explain to me by what process of budgeting that amount of $90 million is reduced to $21,850,000 in this particular vote.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am informed that the provision for the air crew training is in the service vote concerned, and the transfer of equipment is also in the vote of the particular service. Therefore, you get the figure that I have already given.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That means that our mutual aid appropriation this year, in one vote or another in these estimates, is not $21 million but $90 million.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct. The total for mutual aid is $90 million and it is made up in the ratio that I gave, namely $350,000 for procurement; transfer of stocks, $60 million odd; air crew training, $8 million; infrastructure, $21 million, all of which adds up to the $90 million.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the $60 million just mentioned by the minister, I see in the details "aircraft and engines, $50 million". Under what item of the estimates is that to be found?


George Randolph Pearkes: Transfer of equipment from service stocks amounts to $60,144,000. The principal items are aircraft and engines, $51 million. These include seventeen of the tracker aircraft with spares; ten CF-100 aircraft with initial spares; a quantity of aerial engines and spares and supports for the F-86's which are the aircraft which had been previously transferred to Greece and Turkey. There is an item for armament equipment, $6,844,000; ammunition and bombs, $1,700,000.


George James McIlraith: I thank the minister for the information but that was not quite my question. My question was concerning the item

Supply-National Defence of $51 million which he has just indicated to say whether all that amount was spent for aircraft and engines. In what item of the last year or not, but it was approximately estimates is it to be found?	the right amount.


George Randolph Pearkes: This is equipment which, of course, has already been bought and paid for which we are giving away. There is no item in these estimates to procure that additional equipment; it is equipment which is already held by the R.C.A.F. which is considered surplus to requirement, and therefore we can give it away valued at the amount which is quoted.


George James McIlraith: Thank you; that is the point I wanted to have cleared up.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sorry I did not quite gather the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the item is carried, Mr. Chairman, there is an amount of some millions of dollars for the Canadian contribution to infrastructure. I know something of the difficulties surrounding infrastructure of NATO, and I wonder if the minister could give us some indication of how this is working out? We are spending a good deal of money on this and on NATO military headquarters, and we are doing it at a time when I should think the whole infrastructure concept is pretty shaky in the light of the attitude of the government of France toward participation in NATO. I wonder if the minister could say something about that?


George Randolph Pearkes: I believe Canada pays about 6 per cent of the total budget. The budget is prepared by the military commanders and submitted to the NATO council, and it is approved annually at meetings in Paris which usually take place, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, sometime in December. A good deal of the construction work has been completed, and much of this now is maintenance work. That embraces all kinds of establishments which are maintained, barracks and so forth, in the various countries. I saw recently that development is going on in Sardinia where for example they have a NATO bombing range. The expenditures are supervised by the council of the NATO countries. The accommodation we are provided with is being well maintained. The troops both in Germany and in France are comfortably located, and I think I should say that we are now receiving satisfaction from the amount of money which is being spent under this general heading of infrastructure.
The amount which we pay, as I say, is approximately 6 per cent of the total amount, and this is an estimate of what is likely to be incurred during the year. It is the same amount as was made available for this purpose last year. I am not quite in a position
[Mr. Mcllraith.l


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thank the minister for that information. I gather from the amount that the total infrastructure budget of NATO and of the NATO military budget is well above $400 million a year now, which is a considerable amount, and our 6 per cent comes to about $21 million, which I think is a reasonable percentage, and I have no complaint about that. I was wondering whether all the NATO members are maintaining their infrastructure payments according to the percentages laid down, and whether recent developments-I am thinking now about the French withdrawal of some of its forces from NATO, and the possible withdrawal of United States air squadrons from France-will affect the infrastructure concept and the working out of infrastructure in any way? We are spending $400 million a year for facilities which are meant to be at the service of NATO in whatever country they are constructed, and I hope there will be nothing permitted to interfere with that concept.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sure that concept is a correct one and that the council will watch very carefully the expenditure of these moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Defence General-
228.	To authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, total commitments of $2,902,205,282 for the purposes of the foregoing votes relating to national defence, regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,267,298,584 will come due for payment in future years), $1.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, this is a basket item. When we had the administration item up, I waited patiently yesterday morning until one o'clock, and then, being a little late getting back at 2.30, I saw the item had been carried, so may I raise a question which I intended to raise at that time if I had found my turn. The minister will recall that when he was on this side of the house he had a great deal to say about waste and extravagance, and one of the items he used to note invariably I would like to illustrate. On June 20, 1956, page 5221 of Hansard, the present Minister of National Defence, who was then the critic in the opposition on defence matters, said: The minister made reference to the considerable number of civilians who are employed in the armed forces. One of course readily recognizes the fact that there are large numbers of civilians employed

in the various ordnance depots and the dockyards on both coasts. The minister said 55,000 civilians are employed.
Then this is the point which interests me particularly. The minister has now been in charge of the department for two years and his views in 1956, expressed on the same page of Hansard, with respect to national defence headquarters were as follows:
I come now to the question of national defence headquarters. From time to time over a great many years we have questioned the size of the staff at national defence headquarters. We have wondered if it is excessively large. Time and time again we have called attention to the number of officers and men and the number of civilians who are employed there.
I draw my hon. friend's attention to page 45 of the white paper which he tabled in April. He will note there that in each of the two years during which he has been in charge of the department the table indicates that there has been a substantial increase in the civilian strength at national defence headquarters. I wonder if he has actually reviewed this situation in the light of the views he formerly held, and if he could tell me Why it is that this increase seems to go on year by year, the very matter he used to complain about when he was criticizing it on this side of the house.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I will be quite honest; I still wonder. The numbers still seem to increase.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister will recall in days of yore how his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance who I wish were present, used to inveigh against this horrible practice of dollar items. He used to say it was a contravention of every good parliamentary practice, a flouting of the rights of the people and of the privileges of parliament, and so on. He made long speeches about the iniquity of a dollar item, and perhaps the minister will explain the virtue of this particular item.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sure that as a member of the previous administration the hon. Leader of the Opposition is very familiar with the purpose of these dollar items. The reason is that it is a commitment authority, and in defence planning the construction of new equipment, be it aircraft, ships, guns, or the building of certain projects, has to be projected for two, three, four or more years, and one cannot really embark on this general program unless there is some assurance given that under normal circumstances it will be continued.
I might say that the purpose of this vote is to authorize the same system of administrative commitment as in previous years, and it has been going on now for a good many
Supply-National Defence years. In the past this has been done by the wording of a single defence vote, but now that these estimates have been divided up on the recommendation of the parliamentary committee another procedure has to be adopted. The same policy is now being accomplished by this special item, the effect of which is to put a limit on the total commitments that may be entered into without certifying, in accordance with section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, that funds are available to meet those commitments. With the increasing number of items which require to be dealt with, this system of certification has proved to be somewhat cumbersome and unsatisfactory.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was waiting for this little tidbit to come up, and I quite agree with what the minister had to say. I do not know very much about aeroplanes but I do recognize inconsistencies. Would the minister not agree that to continue this is somewhat inconsistent in view of the attitude taken by many of his colleagues when in opposition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister agree that this is as wise and sensible a parliamentary practice as it was in the past?


George Randolph Pearkes: As far as this department is concerned I feel it is a wise and prudent procedure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said he was still wondering about the size of the headquarters staff. Has he thought of getting any advice-and I use the word advisedly-from the Minister of National Revenue?


George Randolph Pearkes: Really, that has nothing to do with this particular item. We have establishment committees which inspect and go over the establishments with a fine-tooth comb.


George James McIlraith: The minister has explained that this item is the authority to make commitments for expenditures in the future. What concerns me, in the light of that explanation, is how he justifies the expenditure under item 222 which is an item for the acquisition of major equipment-the part that is relevant. How can he justify using funds voted by parliament under the designation "acquisition of major equipment" for the termination of the Arrow contract? I raised that question earlier on item 222, and I raise it in connection with the practice which was formerly used in the reconstruction and supply departments and in the Department of Defence Production for providing for liquidation of contracts by votes under those departments. I am mystified as to how the minister can find authority under item 222 for the termination of a contract rather than for the procurement of equipment. I am
5508	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence referring, of course, to $45 million for the termination of the Arrow contract. It seems to me that it should either come under this item 228 which we are now discussing or that the former practice should have been followed. After the minister gave me the answer he did a few minutes ago I took the opportunity to go out, rather hastily to the library, and I find it is a great number of years since there was any expenditure of anything like this size in respect of the termination of a contract. I think the year 1947-48 was the last year in which an item exceeded $30 million. But the item was carried under the reconstruction and supply department and the defence production department until the year ended March 31, 1953, the last occasion I was able to find it, though my inquiries were, as the minister will appreciate, naturally somewhat hurried.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am told by the official present that this is the practice which has been followed in recent years though, of course, such a large amount has not been required on the cancellation of an important contract for a considerable time.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps there is no point in my pursuing the matter further. I could draw the minister's attention to some of the items in various years and he would certainly find the item to do with liquidation of contracts under the estimates of other departments. It may be that there was a change in the practice some years ago. I am content to leave the subject, with the request that the minister should pursue the point further.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to ask the minister if he prefers this new method of putting these votes into the estimates and whether he has any comment to make on the possibility that by dividing them between the three services might accentuate the rivalry between the different branches of the armed forces. I know that we in Canada have been most fortunate in that there has been a very co-operative attitude between chiefs of staff, who have considered themselves to be representative of the Canadian armed services as a whole as well as being representative of their own services.
Does the minister think there is any possibility that adopting this new method of putting these votes into the estimates will tend to reduce this co-operative attitude or to encourage in any way a struggle within the Canadian armed forces to obtain a larger proportion of the total appropriation in any particular vote? I know this is a real problem. Under the old system we had flexibility, and the ability to transfer money from


one service to the other if the need of any one service became more urgent in the course of a year. I hope we will not emulate Washington in this regard and I hope the new system will not encourage any rivalry whatsoever, but that whatever system we do adopt finally will be the one most likely to further the conception of a unified Canadian defence force.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sure this will not cause any rivalry between the forces. The forces knew exactly, before, how much money would be available to them. What this will do is to give parliament a tighter control over expenditure and it will improve the administration in the forces because no longer will there be any pool of money left over at the end which could be easily transferred from one force to another. It will mean that much better estimating will be done at the beginning by the various forces. I should like to commend the committee on its recommendation, which I welcome in this respect, and that is why it has been introduced.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was merely putting my comment forward as a question, and if the minister is satisfied I think we can accept his assurances on this point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General services-
229.	Grants to military associations, institutes and others as detailed in the estimates, $259,175.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this item covers rifle associations, military service associations, military united service institutes and others. Would the minister inform the committee what is the requirement in each case before these organizations can become qualified for grants, and what check is made to make certain that these organizations warrant grants. What standard is used in making these grants? How is it decided who shall receive them and who shall not?


George Randolph Pearkes: There have been no additions made to the grants in these estimates. In fact, most of the grants to these various organizations have been the same for a great many years. All of these associations have to report their financial standing to national defence headquarters at the end of each year. They are checked regarding their particular activity not only by national defence headquarters but by the various commands in which they are situated.
With respect to associations as rifle associations, I think it quite obvious what their objectives are. As far as service associations are concerned they are groups of representatives from all parts of Canada for the particular arm of the service or the particular

force. They meet together periodically and submit recommendations representing, let us say, the militia, or the infantry of the militia or the artillery or the air cadets, whatever the case may be.
The grants to the service institutions are grants which are made to enable those clubs consisting of retired and serving officers, both in the regular and auxiliary and reserve forces, to keep in touch with military developments by means of holding periodical lectures and by inviting distinguished visitors they may like to invite to speak to them on military matters. There is no change in that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They all report annually to your department and so you know they are functioning properly?


George Randolph Pearkes: They all report to the department. Their books are audited and general supervision of their activities is carried out by the respective commands.


William Moore Benidickson: My question is somewhat similar to that of the hon. member for Kootenay West. I am thinking of grants to the united services institutes. The amount of the grants vary. Do these vary in accordance with a fixed scale of contribution based on paid up membership?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is more or less correct. It is based on activities and more or less on the paid up memberships.


William Moore Benidickson: I notice here an unusual feature compared to some other grants to associations made by other departments. It is not too common to make a grant to, shall we say, an organization in one particular city and at the same time make a grant to a provincial organization. That is not frequently done in some of our patterns of grants.
I notice there are grants to individual cities and towns and as far as I can see in the case of Alberta there is just one institute, the institute of Alberta. There are no cities or towns in Manitoba, except one, called the institute of Manitoba, which received a grant. There is another one in Alberta which just came to my attention. I refer to Edmonton. I was wrong in my previous statement.


George Randolph Pearkes: The institute of Alberta is an old established institute which has its headquarters in the city of Calgary. There is a separate united services club in Edmonton. Both receive grants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
230.	Grants to the town of Oromocto, subject to the approval of treasury board, for municipal services including the maintenance and operation of schools and to promote the development of the town, $1,656,000.
Supply-National Defence
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister tell us where Oromocto is?


George Randolph Pearkes: Oromocto is the dependants' town at Gagetown. It is where all the dependants of personnel and the married service personnel live. It is set up under a special agreement that was reached a few years ago. They have a town council. They are encouraged to organize their own services and grants are made by the government in order to maintain this small town for the purpose of looking after the dependants of our service people.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thank the minister for that information. Earlier I asked what construction projects were yet to be completed at the townsite and he told us that the Department of National Defence had no project at the townsite and no relationship to them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister tell us the derivation of this rather unusual name?


George Randolph Pearkes: I understand it is a local Indian name but that answer is given to many unusual names and I would not be entirely certain that it is correct.


Mr. Regier:: This is the only item where I have noticed payments for the education of the dependants of service men listed. I realize this is listed in a number of places but it is not so named. I wish the minister could explain the great discrepancy between the statement made by the Auditor General and the information contained in a sessional paper. When appearing before the standing committee on public accounts the Auditor General indicated on page 58 of the minutes of Wednesday, April 8, that it cost about $11 million a year to pay for the education of the dependants of service personnel. In a report made by order of this house, sessional paper 222, the answer given is that the net operating cost for the calendar year 1958 was $6,279,473. There is a considerable difference there. The Auditor General said it cost about $11 million a year and the minister's office supplied a return showing the cost to be only $6 million.


George Randolph Pearkes: That I am looking into with a view to seeing how the discrepancy arises. I am afraid I have not that information today. I am told that the main difference is between the operating cost and the over-all capital costs.


Erhart Regier: The Auditor General was asked about it at the same meeting and indicated there were practically no capital costs in that year and practically no new buildings erected.

Business of the House


George Randolph Pearkes: We are going back into the records of that year and are trying to check up to see where the difference is and how it is accounted for.


Erhart Regier: I do not wish to hold up the estimates. I shall only express the hope that the minister will either advise me by means of a letter, or otherwise. If not, we may have to take this up again a year later.


George Randolph Pearkes: I thank the hon. member for his courtesy. I shall be pleased to report to him as soon as I have the information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for Monday? While we have had some indications of it already, I wonder whether the house leader would repeat it so that we will have it in the same Hansard. At the same time may I ask him to give all of the business for next week if he can.


Howard Charles Green: Last night I outlined the legislative program for Monday and Tuesday. For

the rest of the week we will be considering estimates. Members should be prepared to take up any of the following departments: defence production, veterans affairs, external affairs, northern affairs, mines and technical surveys, trade and commerce, post office and fisheries.
I point out that we have now concluded consideration of the estimates of seven departments. Those of seven more have been considered in standing committees of the house which, as there are a total of 21, only leaves seven. Two of the 21 are very minor estimates, legislation and privy council, so I am very hopeful that the house can finish its work by two weeks from today.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope the minister's prediction comes true but none the less may I ask if any specific day has been assigned to the estimates of the Department of External Affairs?


Howard Charles Green: We are hoping to open the discussion of external affairs estimates on Thursday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on June 25.

[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. McWilliam: 1.	Will Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, present regimental colours to the Canadian army unit formerly known as the Cape Breton highlanders, during her coming visit to Canada?
2.	If so, where and when will this presentation be made?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minister):
1 and 2. When the itinerary for Her Majesty was drawn up it was realized that there would not be time in many places to carry out the functions and ceremonies requested by many civilian and service agencies and units. Some 10 or more regiments requested the honour of presentation of colours by Her Majesty.
During the royal visit to South Africa of His Majesty King George V a precedent had been set by the presentation of colours to several regiments at one parade. This year several regiments were asked to participate by sending colour parties to certain localities where time and the program for Her Majesty permitted the presentation ceremony to be conducted. One of these occasions was the presentation held on parliament hill on July 1.
In the case of the second battalion Nova Scotia highlanders (Cape Breton) the regiment was asked to send a colour party to one of the localities where presentation was to be made and the offer was declined because they wished to have the ceremony take place when all ranks and relatives could be present.
On the authority of His Excellency the Governor General the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, General B. C. Plow, presented colours to the regiment. A special message from Her Majesty was sent from Buckingham Palace to be read at the parade.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Royal Canadian Air Force-
221.	Operation and maintenance, $546,991,000.
222. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $249,313,000.
Defence research and development-
Defence research board-
223.	Operation and maintenance, $21,924,603.
224. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $7,594,261.
Supply-Items Passed
225.	Development, $21,565,000.
Defence expenditures by other government departments-
226.	Services and facilities supplied to the Department of National Defence by the Department of Transport, $3,412,659.
Mutual aid-
227.	Contributions to infrastructure and military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the transfer of defence equipment and supplies and the provision of services and facilities for defence purposes in accordance with section 3 of The Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, not exceeding a total of $90,000,000 including the present value of defence equipment or supplies or the cost of services made available by the Canadian forces estimated in the amount of $68,150,000 and provided by appropriations for those forces in the current and former years in respect of which, notwithstanding subsection (3) of section 3 of the said act, no amount shall be charged to this appropriation or paid into a special account; provided by this vote, $21,850,000.
National defence general-
228.	To authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, total commitments of $2,902,205,282 for the purposes of the foregoing votes relating to national defence, regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,267,298,584 will come due for payment in future years), $1.
General services-
229.	Grants to military associations, institutes and others as detailed in the estimates, $259,175.
230.	Grants to the town of Oromocto, subject to the approval of treasury board, for municipal services including the maintenance and operation of schools and to promote the development of the town, $1,656,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
231.	Civil pensions, as detailed in the estimates, $2,457.
232.	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, $4,090.
Defence Services Pension Act-
233.	Government's contribution to the permanent services pension account, $51,791,054.
475. 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, $10,000,000.
605. To increase by $1,250,000 the amount appropriated for the purposes of vote 504 of the Appropriation Act, No. 5, 1958, and to decrease by $1,250,000 the amount appropriated for the purposes of vote 505 of the said act, $1.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, July 6, 1959