1959-07-03

Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. Prime Minister announced in the house on March 24, a commonwealth education conference is to be held at Oxford from July 15th to the 29th. The Canadian delegation to the conference will be led by Hon. George A. Drew and will include representatives of the university community and officials. The detailed list of delegates is being released to the press later today.
The house will recall that at the commonwealth trade and economic conference in Montreal last September consideration was given to various ways in which the commonwealth could be strengthened through increased co-operation in the field of trade and economic relations generally. One of the problems which received particular attention at that time was how we could help our less developed partners in the commonwealth to carry forward their economic development programs to the point where they would be able to achieve self-sustaining economic growth.
I need not reiterate today the steps taken by the Canadian government at that time to expand our economic and technical assistance to the underdeveloped countries and territories of the commonwealth. I do want to remind the house, however, that it was recognized at Montreal that apart from capital and technical knowledge, education in its broadest sense also had a vital part to play in the process of economic development. It was also recognized that our expanding commonwealth called for a continuing community of experience and values which a wider sharing of educational opportunities and facilities was best able to assure.
It was decided, therefore, at Montreal to bring into being a commonwealth scholarship program under which some thousand scholars would, in due course, have the opportunity of studying in countries other than their own. Canada undertook to be responsible for one-quarter of the total places
to be provided under the program, and the United Kingdom .for one-half. It was agreed that the detailed formulation of this scholarship program should be left to be worked out at the conference which is being held at Oxford later this month.
It was also decided at Montreal that the mandate of this conference should include a review of existing arrangements for commonwealth co-operation in the educational field. The house will appreciate that this is a very wide and complex mandate and the present intention, therefore, is to concentrate on two matters which are known to be of particular concern to the underdeveloped countries and territories of the commonwealth, the supply and training of teachers, and facilities for technical and scientific education.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that these are fields in which Canada is prepared to provide a greater measure of assistance within the framework of our existing technical assistance programs. As the house is aware, these now encompass all the less developed areas of the commonwealth, and there is thus no need for Canada to set up new programs for dealing with these problems.
There is perhaps a further word I should say about the Commonwealth scholarship program. In the view of the Canadian government the awards to be made under the program should be such as to attract men and women of high intellectual competence who are able to benefit from a period of study abroad and who may be expected to make a worth-while contribution to the national life of their own countries and to the commonwealth association as such. It is the view of the Canadian government that in such an interchange each commonwealth country has something to give and something to gain. I am glad to be able to assure the house that in this view the government has had the wholehearted support of the Canadian university community.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, when the announcement was made some months ago of the proposal to establish this commonwealth scholarship fund, we welcomed it and we welcome the information the minister has just given as to the implementation of this imaginative and constructive commonwealth idea. In working it out from the Canadian point of view as it concerns exchanges on educational matters, no doubt the
5408	HOUSE OF
Commonwealth Scholarship Program government will wish to keep in close touch with the Canadian provincial authorities regarding it. I would also venture to express the hope that in this exchange of scholarships it may be possible to encourage scholars to go not only to the United Kingdom and to Canada but to some of the newer members of the commonwealth which are probably older in civilization and culture than we are, and which have a good deal to give in the way of educational exchanges of which we in the western world are not always aware. I hope this Oxford conference will be able to carry this idea one stage forward. If and when it comes into complete operation it will be a memorial of which the late secretary of state for external affairs who had something to do with initiating this idea, would have been extremely proud.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, we are extremely interested in the announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this morning, for three reasons particularly; first, that commonwealth strength, unity and development are essential for the freedom of the world; second, we endorse wholeheartedly the plan and the proposals. At this point I should like to say that this plan and these proposals are right in line with the policies advocated by this group throughout the years. The advancement of education and understanding throughout the whole commonwealth is a cement that will be of lasting quality.


Howard Charles Green: In my statement, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that a list of the delegates would be given to the press later today. I have here a list which I think is complete; there may be one or two others. Perhaps the house would be interested in having the names given this morning. The leader, as I have mentioned, is Hon. George A. Drew, high commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom. Then there are O. E. Ault, director, economic and technical assistance branch, Department of Trade and Commerce; G. F. Curtis, dean of the faculty of law, University of British Columbia; W. T. R. Flemington, president, Mount Allison University; C. R. Ford, director of vocational training, Department of Labour; Abbe Jacques Garneau, secretaire general et moderateur, Universite Laval; Henri Gaudefroy, directeur, ecole polytechnique, Universite de Montreal; J. W. Holmes, assistant under secretary, Department of External Affairs; L. D. Hudon, Department of Finance; F. C. A. Jeanneret, chancellor, University of Toronto; J. F. Leddy, dean of the college of arts and science, University of Saskatchewan; J. R. Mallory,


professor of political science, McGill University; J. B. Marshall, awards officer, national research council; T. H. Matthews, executive secretary, Canadian universities foundation; W. L. Morton, professor of history, University of Manitoba; D. C. Munroe, director of the institute of education, McGill University; G. C. Mclnnes, Canada house, London; and Lewis Perinbam, general secretary, world university service of Canada.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it has to do with the announcement he made under motions. The minister indicated the list of Canadians who would constitute our representation. He also indicated that the list was not complete as yet. I wonder whether any consideration could be given by the minister or the government to having a representative of either the Canadian teachers' federation or any one of the provincial teachers' federations on the delegation, since education will be one of the major topics of the conference.


Howard Charles Green: On checking the list again I find the probability is that it is already complete. There may be one or two additions, but the delegation is to leave within the next two or three days. There would be great difficulty in adding other representatives. However, I shall be glad to take the hon. member's suggestion under consideration.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether there is 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 two Algerian rebels on a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television program. If that report is accurate, would he tell the house what stand was taken by the Canadian representative in respect of this matter?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I had better take that question as notice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of a telegram I have received from William H. Marsh, president of district 26 of the united mine workers, in which he states that 100 working men in the Caledonian mine who are otherwise eligible for unemployment insurance cannot obtain it because they have made less than 24 weekly contributions. In view of the fact that this is one of a series of telegrams from Mr. Marsh complaining about unemployment conditions in this area and lack of unemployment insurance benefits, I wonder whether the minister could say what action, if any, the government is contemplating in this connection.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned it is quite plain, and there is no intention of diverging from the act in this respect.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the government or any department of the government made a survey of unemployment conditions in this area? Is the government considering any action that might relieve an extremely difficult unemployment situation?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, speaking for the government I may say that the Department of Labour itself, through the national employment service, is continually in touch with the situation and is doing everything possible to alleviate it in the form of other placements, if that is necessary. However, I think this is a temporary situation. I am not fully aware of nor have I all the particulars, but I will certainly look into the matter to see if there is any way in which help through our national employment service can be extended to these people.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which is a follow-up to a very similar question I asked him on May 28. Can the minister say whether any further consideration has been given to the disallowance of the controversial Newfoundland labour legislation, which I suggest is repugnant to our concept of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The matter of disallowance is receiving continuing consideration. I believe under the constitution the period is set within which a decision must be made, and the constitutional requirements in that regard will be met.


Erhart Regier: May I ask a supplemental question of the Minister of Justice in this regard. Is the minister in a position to indicate to the house the nature of the replies he has sent on behalf of the government to the representations that have been made in regard to this matter of disallowance?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall the replies I have sent to all the representations, but my recollection is that in general they have been to the same effect as the statement just made by the Prime Minister.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: On Wednesday last the hon.
member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville asked me a question with regard to the lease of a site south of the central Vermont railway station in St. Jean.
A resolution from the city of St. Johns regarding certain lands in the area has just been received in my office, having been apparently dispatched under cover of a letter from the city dated June 26. Neither I nor my officials have as yet had an opportunity to study this matter, but it is receiving immediate attention. I have no record of having received any recent representations from the junior chamber of commerce of St. Johns on this matter.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: 
Mr. Dupuis:: I thank the minister for his question. What may have happened on this answer.	occasion, of course, I do not know.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Yvon Dupuis: I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he has an answer to the question I asked him yesterday about the hymn "O Canada"? He was supposed to answer my question today. Is the answer ready?
(Translation):


Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) that the Department of the Secretary of State had nothing to do with the ceremonies which took place here the day before yesterday, and I am unable to tell him what department is responsible for the arrangements.


Yvon Dupuis: The Secretary of State, who was present at those ceremonies, must have noticed that "God Save the Queen" was played three times but that "O Canada" was not played either before or after the ceremony.


Henri Courtemanche: I understand this was done as a tribute to the Queen, as Her Majesty was present on the hill.


Yvon Dupuis: Could the minister answer my question, i.e.: Why was "O Canada" not played at the beginning or at the end of the trooping of the colours?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Is this not the same question the hon. member asked yesterday?


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State says he does not know because he is not responsible. The reason I asked the minister to answer my question is-


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the Secretary of State to say that he would provide an answer.


Yvon Dupuis: Could I ask the Minister of National Defence if he has an answer to that question?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Would you mind repeating the question?


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the minister did not hear "O Canada" and did not hear the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville. I would like to ask the minister why we did not hear "O Canada" before or after the ceremony of the presentation of colours the other day in front of the parliament buildings?


George Randolph Pearkes: When Her Majesty arrived the royal salute was given, which is laid down as being certain bars of "God Save the Queen". No national anthem as such was played until the conclusion of the ceremony in the evening when "O Canada" was played.


Yvon Dupuis: That is a very poor answer.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norlhumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has a final decision been reached in regard to the dates of the lift period of the Mira-michi salmon drifting season; and what is the position of the set net fishermen in this connection?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, an order in council has been passed putting back the lift period for drift salmon netters in New Brunswick. I am not certain of the exact dates but I think the lift period will begin the 20th. In any case, it has been put back to a later time to meet a request which was made on behalf of the salmon drift netters in that area by their association, and also in response to representations made to me from other sources, Hon.

Mr. Pichette of the New Brunswick government and probably some others. This, I believe, will meet the situation. There is no change as far as set net fishermen are concerned.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to add to the answer I gave a few moments ago to the question by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi in order to be more specific. Drift netters are now allowed to continue fishing for salmon until July 20. I think this is what I indicated earlier. From July 20 to August 3 will be the normal summer lift period. Fishing can again be carried out from August 3 to August 15. No change has been made in the summer lift period for shore nets, since those were not damaged to any great extent in the recent storm. Their lift period will, as usual, commence on July 6 and continue to July 20. Fishing may again be carried on from July 20 to August 15.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and ask him if he is able to give the house any information regarding the reported crash yesterday of a Canso aircraft at Prince Rupert?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have just received a report from the Royal Canadian Air Force that a Canso aircraft with a total complement of nine persons aboard was on an authorized mercy flight from Sea Island, Vancouver to Prince Rupert. At Prince Rupert a normal landing was initiated. However, preliminary investigations indicate that the aircraft struck a submerged object which caused it to veer sharply to the left with the result that the front nose section broke off. Immediate assistance was provided from ashore. However, it was not possible to locate Nursing Sister Flying Officer Kerr who had been occupying a seat in the front section of the plane. Latest reports indicate that Flying Officer Kerr is still missing, but all other persons are accounted for.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Can I ask the minister whether the airstrip at Prince Rupert presently being constructed is sufficiently complete to allow it to be used for emergency landings?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport): I will check on the state of construction of that airstrip and let the hon. member know.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. According to a press report in the Toronto Star, last winter at least two confidential documents blasting the talks and public affairs branch of the C.B.C.'s French network were prepared by a group of Quebec Conservatives and submitted to the government. My question is this. Has the minister received a letter from Quebec members criticizing the public affairs department of the French network?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I saw that statement in the newspaper yesterday, and to the best of my recollection I never received such a letter. It may be-and I am checking on this-that it was sent through the office automatically to the C.B.C. because, as I said in another place yesterday, I forward all letters commending or criticizing the broadcasts to the C.B.C., and it is possible that such a communication was received and sent down. I will check on this, but I do not have any knowledge of the letter myself.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Would the minister check and give us an answer?


An hon. Member:: He just said he would.


Alexis Pierre Caron: He said he would check on it but he never said he would give an answer.
May I direct a further question to the Minister of National Revenue? We are told that Rene Levesque was forced to discontinue his very interesting program "Point de Mire". Can the minister give any reason for the discontinuation of this program?


An hon. Member:: Look at the date and find out what happened.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Perhaps whoever said that would rise in his place and speak and not just sit there.


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not hear the name of the program to which the hon. member referred, but whatever it might have been I have no explanation to make and no knowledge of why any change was made.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I direct a question to the Solicitor General.
5412	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Solicitor General a question. Has the program "Point de mire" with Mr. Rene Levesque, been discontinued by order of the C.B.C. or by order of the Conservative members for Quebec?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker!


Alexis Pierre Caron: What does the minister
mean by "absolutely not"? "Absolutely not" what?


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Solicitor General a question. Can the minister inform this house whether he has received protests from hon. members on the government benches, against certain C.B.C. commentators, more particularly against some commentators on the French network who, according to those hon. representatives, do not always favour government policy?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure how the hon. member relates his question to the administrative responsibility of the Solicitor General. It seems to me it should have been directed to the minister through whom the C.B.C. reports.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On the point of order, the Toronto Star yesterday carried an article to the effect that the Solicitor General had received certain representations and that he had transmitted those representations to the C.B.C. management. This is why I addressed my question to the Solicitor General. I wanted to find out whether he had received the representations referred to.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having received any representations mentioned by the hon. member.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the Solicitor General check and find out whether he has received them?
(Later:)


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is there any truth in the rumour that the member for Roberval would like to take the place of Rene Levesque on "Point de Mire"?



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. I sent notice to him


earlier. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a proposed merger of two of Canada's largest integrated timber processing companies, namely MacMillan and Bloedel Limited and Powell River Company Limited? Can the minister indicate whether this proposed merger will be reviewed by the combines investigation branch in order to determine whether the merger or steps leading to it contravene the combines laws?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My
attention has been drawn to the report of the proposed merger and the matter, in accordance with the usual practice, is being looked into by the combines branch. The usual practice to which I refer is that all mergers of companies of this size and nature are automatically inquired into to see if there is cause for formal inquiry.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO COMMUNICATION FROM QUEBEC ON CONFERENCE AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received any news from the Quebec government about the agenda which is to be submitted on Monday next?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker. I gave an answer to that question yesterday, and as far as I know there has been no communication received since I answered that question yesterday.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have another question. Since yesterday has there been any official news about the premier of Quebec coming to the conference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no further information on that subject which interests my hon. friend so much.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on July 1 the hon. member for Kootenay West asked a question which also contained a request for the maintenance of a historical record in respect of the parliament buildings. I now have an answer from the Department of Public Works, as follows. Collection of information is taking place with respect to the carvings and other historical aspects by the Department of Public Works. In addition,

public archives has made a survey of public and other records that are available for such a history, and I am now informed that they will obtain any further information of a historical nature which Sergeant Closs is able to give. The hon. member will recall that he mentioned Sergeant Closs. I wish to thank the hon. member for his very useful suggestion.



NORTHLAND NAVIGATION COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that British Columbia members of the house have received telegrams this morning from the provincial federation of labour relative to the strike in Vancouver involving the Northland Navigation Company, is the minister yet in a position to make a report on the investigation which he told us was under way?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no word on the investigation that is going on.


Harold Edward Winch: As soon as information is available will the minister make a statement to the house?


Michael Starr: Absolutely.

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



DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
214. Departmental administration, $3,380,550.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to follow up a matter which we discussed yesterday, the question of the use by Canadian forces of tactical nuclear weapons, in order to find out if possible exactly where we stand in respect of this vitally important question. It becomes a matter of immediate importance in view of the fact that the R.C.A.F. is soon to be equipped in part with missiles which will have a nuclear capability, and our brigade group in France will presumably be equipped with weapons which have the same capability.
I should like to draw to the minister's attention, if he has not already seen it, an article in the London Times of April 13 by their defence correspondent which is entitled, "Latest Trend in Atomic Weapons". The author of the article is obviously a man who writes with both knowledge and authority. He has this to say in the article in question:
It is an uneconomic business to make small weapons of this kind-
Supply-National Defence
Small atomic weapons.
-since low yields can only be produced by using fissile material as inefficiently as possible.
Perhaps I might interpolate there to say that my information is that not only do low yields require inefficient use of material but, relatively speaking, the lower the yield the greater the fall-out; in other words, the smaller the atomic weapon the dirtier, as the expression is, the weapon. The article goes on to say:
Why then are the Americans making smaller instead of bigger bangs for a buck? The impulse comes from the military requirement for atomic weapons which can be used in air defence, and at close range on the battlefield-
Then again in the article:
With the advent of nuclear parity making total war suicidal, public opinion is finding it easier to envisage limited war. The question is, could atomic weapons be used in a limited war without its spiralling into a total nuclear war? Theoretically, it is the way in which atomic weapons are used-tactically, against an enemy's armed forces in the field, or strategically, against his war effort as a whole- that ought to matter, and not the power of the weapons used. But in practice the public and the politicians are likely to find it easier to contemplate the use of small weapons than of big.
I know the dilemma this involves, which we mentioned yesterday. The minister said, and I do not take issue with him, that it would be an intolerable position to send Canadian forces into action not having the most effective arms that can be secured. I am talking now about tactical weapons. But as this writer points out, the danger would be that the use of these tactical weapons on the battlefield might spiral into the final use of the ultimate weapon.
The minister himself, as I mentioned yesterday, has more than once expressed the fear that this would happen. Therefore before you can arm any unit with even the smallest atomic weapon you have to contemplate the possibility of the use of that weapon degenerating into the use of the larger nuclear weapon. This writer concludes his very interesting and important article as follows:
A most careful balance will therefore have to be kept between atomic and conventional weapons, however attractive the former may seem at first sight. Our aim-
Presumably he means the United Kingdom aim.
-in equipping our forces with tactical atomic weapons ought to be primarily deterrence: first, to deter an attack from taking place at all, and, secondly to deter an enemy from exploiting his superior numbers, if he does nevertheless attack. The actual use of tactical atomic weapons ought to be considered a last resort, not so much for fear that it might lead to total war as for doubt about the outcome of a limited atomic war.

Supply-National Defence
I think those views should be very much in our mind as we contemplate the policy to be followed by the Canadian government in this matter. Last February 24, I believe, the Prime Minister stated that the government considered that Canada's forces should be provided with modern and efficient weapons. But he went on to say that it was expedient that ownership and custody of nuclear warheads in Canada, and presumably also in Europe, should remain with the United States. This view of the government is confirmed on page 7 of the white paper, and I quoted this yesterday, where it is said that ownership and custody of nuclear weapons required for Canadian defence forces will remain with the United States.
So I should like to have it more clearly stated than has already been done what will be the exact, precise effect of the negotiations which are now being undertaken by the Canadian government with the United States government on the subject of the use of American nuclear weapons by Canadian forces. The commander of the Canadian brigade in Europe, and he was merely echoing what General Norstad had said more than once, said, and I quoted this yesterday:
Our defence plans are based on the nuclear weapon.
Presumably he is referring to Canadian defence plans in Europe where the Canadian brigade is part of the NATO forces, and if those defence plans are based on the nuclear weapon what is the capability of the brigade in France in respect of those weapons? A correspondent of the Globe and Mail who visited the brigade last March wrote an article from Soest in which he made the statement-perhaps the minister will be able to comment on its accuracy-that there is no such capability now available for the Canadian brigade. That was last March, and I am quoting from this article of March 25 which appeared in the Globe and Mail. It reads:
They-
That is the brigade.
-have no nuclear weapons now. Although they will this year receive one-half a battery of Lacrosse 20-mile, ground to ground missiles (a battery contains four launchers of 12 missiles each), they will not have the atomic warheads for them and do not know when they will get them.
Nor do they have the cross-country armoured personnel carriers and the helicopters need for atomic warfare. The army has asked for them but so far the government has declined to say yes or no.
Again, he says:
The Canadians do not have the atomic weapons to defeat an attack, and there are not enough of them to stop an attack without atomic weapons.

He goes on:
What the brigade needs, according to its officers, are about 400 bobcats (tracked, armoured personnel carriers), 10 heavy transport helicopters, six light reconnaissance helicopters, about six Otter short take-off aircraft, and miscellaneous electronic equipment such as infrared radar. The cost would be about $5 million.
More important, perhaps, the brigade needs a political decision on what kind of war it is expected to fight. If it is to have both a nuclear and conventional weapons capability, then its manpower strength must be increased substantially. If it is committed to nuclear war alone, then it must have the warheads on the spot through arrangements either with the United States or Britain.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is of course an extremely important matter, and I hope the minister will be able to clear up this morning the exact position of our forces in regard to the use of nuclear weapons, and the exact position of negotiations with the United States; what those negotiations are expected to accomplish and whether, if those negotiations are successful, the statement made by the government earlier through the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence will have to be modified accordingly. I refer to the statement to the effect that ownership and custody of nuclear warheads in Canada should remain with the United States.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the Leader of the Opposition made a slight slip in referring to the brigade being in France. The brigade is all stationed in Germany.
Now, regarding the position of the supply of nuclear weapons, it was stated by the Prime Minister in the house on February 20 that problems connected with arming the Canadian brigade in Europe with short range nuclear weapons for NATO defence tasks are also being studied. These studies are continuing and are fast reaching a stage when there can be an exchange of notes of this matter. The negotiations have not been completed at the present time, and I do not think it would be helpful to make any firm statement until these negotiations have been completed. When they are completed, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that if the house is in session a statement will be made in this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I realize that the minister cannot, in the midst of negotiations, make an announcement in regard to the details of those negotiations. My question was a little broader than that. Could he inform the committee whether the purpose of those negotiations-that is all I am asking about-is to put Canada on exactly the same basis as the United Kingdom is vis-a-vis the United States in regard to atomic weapons and the exchange of information with the United States regarding atomic weapons?


George Randolph Pearkes: The Canadian brigade is under the command of the commander of the NATO forces in Europe. I presume that eventually the Canadian forces will be equipped with atomic weapons under the same terms as the other NATO contingents under SACEUR which may also be equipped with atomic weapons. There may be a difference- I say may be-in connection with nuclear weapons which are stored in the United Kingdom as opposed to those which are readily available in Europe under the control of SACEUR for the troops under their control.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I may pursue this matter just a little further, the minister has just said it is contemplated that in due course the Canadian brigade will be in the same position as other members of the NATO forces in regard to the possession, use and control of atomic weapons. I would point out that this would mean, if it were to be taken literally, that all the members of NATO with forces in Europe would have to be in the same position as the United Kingdom, which has already made an agreement with the United States putting the United Kingdom in a special position in this matter. I take it that the minister does not mean that.
The fact surely must be that if the United Kingdom now receives atomic weapons from the United States and those atomic weapons are moved to France or Germany by the United Kingdom for use by its NATO contingent, then the weapons are already under the complete control of the United Kingdom government because of the agreement made with the United States. My question was whether the Canadian position would be the same in respect of any such weapons which might be made available to us by the United States. The minister said we would be in the same position as the other NATO governments. Unless we are in the same position as the United Kingdom we will still be in an inferior position in regard to the control of those weapons.


George Randolph Pearkes: As I have said, I cannot make any firm statement until the negotiations have been completed. It would be quite foolish, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will recognize, for one to make any firm commitment or to give a definite answer to his question until these negotiations have been completed.
Now, I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is confusing the agreement so far as the United Kingdom is concerned with those nuclear weapons which are placed in the United Kingdom for use by the forces
Supply-National Defence of the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom, and not those forces which are actually under SACEUR in Europe.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was not confusing those two things in my own mind, but I am not going to press the minister. He has said they are in the midst of these negotiations and he is unable, while the negotiations are going on, to give the committee information concerning those negotiations in any specific way. I brought this up because of its importance and also because a statement was made in the house-I think it was toward the end of May-that we had already made arrangements with the United States in regard to the exchange of atomic information which put Canada in a special position.
As a matter of fact, looking at that agreement at that time it was clear that Canada was included with West Germany, Turkey and the Netherlands as NATO countries eligible for the information and equipment needed for the training of forces in the use of atomic weapons, but we were not put in the same position as the United Kingdom. I think that was the inference taken from it in some quarters in this country. The minister says it is impossible to tell us at this time whether those negotiations, now going on, will carry this one stage further and put Canada in exactly the same position as the United Kingdom in the use of nuclear weapons of United States manufacture so far as control is concerned. If our forces in Europe are to have atomic weapons it surely is important to know whether our forces are going to have complete control over those weapons. Nothing could be more important than that. If the minister feels he cannot give any further information at this time in respect of this matter because of the negotiations, then I am not going to press him any further this morning.


George Randolph Pearkes: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the remarks he has made and for the concern he feels with regard to who should have control of these weapons. These matters are under very active consideration and are subjects of negotiation with the United States at the present time. The hon. member's views will be borne in mind.


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Defence for his clear expose of the war situation and our state of preparedness to meet a possible attack. I want to congratulate him especially on the fact that for the first time since the last war there is a realistic plan for civil defence. I was much impressed by the statement he made yesterday with regard to the national survival training which is

Supply-National Defence being introduced through all components of the Canadian army. As reported at page 5355 of Hansard he went on to say this:
To date over 750 armed forces personnel have received survival training at the civil defence college at Arnprior and over 1,000 at the joint atomic, bacteriological and chemical school at Camp Borden. The army commands across Canada have conducted numerous courses to provide instructors in rescue operations-
Army headquarters have prepared and issued training directives and provisional training instructions in all aspects of national survival training.
This is a departure from the laissez-faire policy of the Liberals. In 1955, on August 31, at an annual conference held in Edmonton, Alberta by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, experts including Dr. Alvin C. Graves, scientific adviser, Nevada test site operations, Los Alamos scientific laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico; Wing Commander Sir John Hodsoll, chief civil defence adviser to NATO at that time; General Charles Foulkes, then chairman, chiefs of staffs committee, Ottawa, Ontario; and Major General F. F. Worthington gave some extremely enlightening addresses. I should just like to read a few paragraphs so as not to take too much of the time of the committee. At page 5 of this volume-and I may say this is from the library of parliament here-of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities entitled "The New Dimensions of Civil Defence", Dr. Graves states as follows:
People in Canada have a problem which is somewhat different from the problems of the people in the United States. The reason for that is the geometry of the earth and the line-up of the powers of the earth today. The reason is that if an aircraft were despatched to attack the United States under present circumstances we would expect it to come over the north pole of the earth down from the Arctic regions and down through the plains or the mountains or eastern portion of Canada, attack some targets in Canada, attack many targets in the United States. The plan would be to try to shoot as many of these planes down as possible.
I would like to say one thing, though. When those airplanes are shot down they will carry with them the atomic bombs or thermonuclear bombs with which they were despatched. What of these weapons? Will they crash to the ground and do nothing? I cannot answer that question since I do not know the Russian plan, but it is perfectly possible to put a mechanism on an atomic or thermonuclear bomb such that it will detonate when it drops below a certain altitude. It is perfectly possible to provide that it will detonate when it strikes the ground.
I think we would be more than foolish if we did not at least assume that the Russians might do that.
I should now like to quote from Sir John Hodsoll's address at page 6 of the same book:
Can I highlight a few points? First of all, we are going to keep peace in this world today by being strong, and our strength is not only the armed strength but it is also civil defence. If we

ever got into a war there would be two fronts, the military and the home front. They both have to be defended, and they have both got to be held.
So I want you again to feel that every single thing you are doing in civil defence; every day your strength in civil defence grows you are adding to the chances of keeping the peace. After all, there is nothing finer on earth to think about than that.
Then at page 7:
So far as NATO plan is concerned, we are working on the assumption that the first thirty days are the vital ones and within this first thirty days the first three or four days may be the most critical. Our whole emphasis must be "Do it Now". If it cannot be done physically then let us have plans and let us have them tested out just as you are testing out at Calgary this question of evacuation.
We in NATO believe most firmly that our main problem is survival during that period, and when I say survival, I mean human survival. You can rebuild a city but you cannot rebuild human life and provided that we can keep our populations alive and, if possible, unwounded during that critical period although there may be frightful disasters so far as material things are concerned, they can be repaired but each NATO country will have survived and if the war is not over by then, we shall have the strength to put that extra bit of punch in which may make all the difference between defeat and victory.
I repeat, that is only going to be done by facing up to it today with the entire determination that no matter what type of bomb it is, we can defeat it, and we can if we face up to it and think about it.
After this warning by those experts I am really scandalized and shocked that the Liberals of that time did not act upon the instructions of the experts. Today I am pleased to congratulate the present government for doing something about this matter.
From listening to the discussion of the minister and the opposition members, all we get is a gloomy and grim picture of the world situation. The threat today is as great as but not greater than it was in 1955, for example, when experts from the United States and Great Britain visited Canada to address the conference of mayors at Edmonton.
To summarize, I think we know that our only defence is the defence of deterrence, because we have not the means to wage a conventional war. Our only defence is the threat of a thermonuclear war.
This can be summarized as a powder keg policy. It is a policy based on fear of total destruction on both sides. Both sides are holding a lighted match over a powder keg. I have no quarrel with our holding the match over the powder keg even though it is a desperate attitude, since it is a deterrent against attack and a necessity to maintain peace; but what I cannot understand is that we should all stand around the powder keg, exposed without protection, when it may be necessary to drop the lighted

match into both powder kegs. It we peruse the addresses delivered by the experts on August 31, 1955, it is clearly stated that a well planned and organized civil defence is also a deterrent, and it is a deterrent policy of NATO against thermonuclear war. The struggle to win the war will not be carried on by those who will have perished in a thermonuclear war; it can only be carried on by the survivors after the initial attack.
I believe that the most important and urgent national defence policy is to ensure victory in such a war, and that such a victory can only be assured by providing for human survival. This policy of human survival is paramount, and I am certain the Canadian people are not unwilling to spend the money necessary for the effort. We should do as much for human survival as we do for military defence.
I spoke to two hon. members of this house about this. One said, "It's a waste of money". What are we going to do with our money after a thermonuclear attack? The other one said, "I don't believe in getting into a rabbit hole". I think the wise thing to do is not to expose yourself to danger.
I should like to repeat what a famous Greek once said. I have forgotten his name; I think it was Socrates. Somebody was making a speech on patriotism and courage, and after the speech Socrates approached him and asked him, "What is courage?" He said, "It is to maintain your position". Then he asked, "What if strategy demands you should retire?" He replied, "Well, that is different". So, then, real courage is to keep your head. It is to do the reasonable thing in the face of danger. It is not courageous to waste your life because you may need your life to win the war. I think courage is to do what is reasonable, and I maintain that the reasonable thing for Canada is to do everything possible no matter what the expense, no matter what the effort, no matter what the cost, because it is all part of the deterrent and the strategy to win the next war.
Again may I congratulate the minister for taking a step in the right direction.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, the minister
did not make any reference yesterday, either in his initial statement or in his later reply, to the ideological threat which is far more insidious and equally as dangerous as the military threat. Neither did he make any reference to the need for ideological training. I should therefore like to take a minute or two this morning to elaborate on what I said yesterday on this point.
We have been engaged in ideological warfare for the last 40 years, and it seems strange that we should so cheerfully ignore that fact
Supply-National Defence and also ignore the need to do anything about it. We have seen one country after another come under communist domination through ideological warfare without a single shot being fired, and we cheerfully assume that this could not happen to us. This complacency, which is rooted in an attitude of foolish superiority on our part, is playing right into the enemy's hands.
Hon. members who served in the last war will recall that tremendous emphasis was placed on the need to know your enemy. Well, we do not know our enemy as far as ideological warfare is concerned. We do not know his methods or his tactics, and we do not know how to recognize his weapons. We do not know what ideological warfare is. We do not know how to wage it or how to defend ourselves against it. Because we do not know these things we are at a serious disadvantage; the enemy is in a position to use us to attain his objectives, and he often does. On those occasions we unwittingly become a tool in the enemy's hands to further his objectives and bring about our own destruction.
Not only should we be able to understand ideological warfare and recognize the enemy's tactics and weapons, but we should be in a position to develop ideoligical weapons and counter tactics of our own. This is one vital sphere in which, as I pointed out yesterday, we can take the offensive without any appreciable cost to the taxpayers. Furthermore, ideological training will help us to see the true nature of the struggle in which we are engaged. It is a global struggle. We often lose sight of that fact and think only in terms of NATO versus the U.S.S.R., or of the free world versus the communist world. This concentration on military defence and this preoccupation with military preparedness to the exclusion of other threats is exactly what the enemy wants. We cannot make our most effective contribution unless we think in terms of global struggle, global strategy and tactics.
Not only is ideological training necessary to give us the right perspective, but it is necessary also to develop that bedrock unity both within our own nation and among our allies without which effective action is impossible. We are prone to refer to ideological warfare in the most casual manner. Too long have we delayed in taking it seriously, seriously enough to develop our own counter measures, or even to try to understand what ideological warfare is. The Russians place tremendous importance on ideological warfare. It is the primary means by which they plan to take over the world, and we

Supply-National Defence disregard it at our own peril. If we persist in disregarding it much longer it will, in my opinion, be disastrous.


Mr. Lambert:: I should like to say a few
words at this time in connection with some of the things which were said yesterday by the minister and by the Leader of the Opposition. I myself was very appreciative of the detailed review which the minister made of the present defence situation, and pleased to hear that the government was taking certain positive steps in connection with our defence policy, steps which I think we were expecting. Some people had expected them, unfairly I think, much sooner, not having the knowledge of the facts which the government possesses and not appreciating all the difficulties and implications of such decisions.
However, the purport of my remarks goes to one of the basic concepts of the defence not only of this country but of the whole Atlantic community. The minister indicated yesterday his grave concern about the relative positions of weapons of offence and defence, indicating that in so far as missiles are concerned the ICBM with a nuclear warhead seems at present to have some years' lead over weapons of defence. And he indicated further that perhaps the use of force as an instrument of policy to settle man's differences may no longer be valid.
Yes; I think we may consider that absolute force as an instrument of policy to settle man's differences may no longer be valid, but I have not seen any reference to limited forces using more conventional weapons. I know this is a problem which has been raised by a number of people in the past, but yesterday the Leader of the Opposition referred to effect of nuclear attacks. We have seen statements made by the office of civil defence and mobilization, or civil defence, in the United States that the explosion of 48 nuclear bombs would have a devastating effect on that country. But surely this concept of absolute defence, and this recognition that the offence at the moment has predominance over defence, are known by those who may be opposed to the free world. This is not a one-way street. And in the light of this particular conclusion would it not be possible for us to become involved in some side effort, some limited military action and, once having been committed, find ourselves without the appropriate weapons with which to conduct it effectively?
This applies not only to Canada but also to the United States and to Great Britain with regard to the development of nuclear missile weaponry at the highest level and the elimination of what might be considered

conventional weapons, though that, it is true, is a very relative term. If you have invested all your money in elephant guns you are not going to be able to go out and shoot effectively small game; your weapons are of no use to you. I would like to have heard the minister tell us what the thinking is with regard to this particular problem.
The Leader of the Opposition indicated that he felt we had made no reassessment of our defence policy. But surely there has been a change in concept. When the hon. gentleman was a member of the government surely he felt that a change was taking place in defence concept, and this change is reflected in the changes that are taking place in our own defence structure. It will be recalled that prior to the NATO alliance in 1959, and in fact prior to the Korean conflict, our military establishments in this country were of a very limited nature. Since then our increased military requirements in so far as aircraft are concerned, and even perhaps the subsequent cancellation of the Arrow program, have reflected the changes brought about by technological developments. The Leader of the Opposition felt there was some danger that we were developing a concept of "fortress America", as I think he called it, as against the Atlantic concept. But I put this to him. Was not the Atlantic concept, though a much larger area of defence, based upon the situation up to 1949, and would he not agree that in the 10 years which have intervened we have witnessed a marked change?
The hon. gentleman spoke about the position in October 1957, and I am wondering whether that might not have started a stampede in thinking; whether it might have caused too great an emphasis to be placed upon certain types of development. At any rate, these technological changes have brought about this conception of fortress America within the framework of the Atlantic concept. I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me that at the time of the Atlantic concept in 1949 and the years immediately following, the North American continent, in so far as its own defences were concerned, constituted possibly one of the least defended areas in the world. What is relevant is that this fortress America is the result of an evolution within the Atlantic concept, a very necessary one in the light of technological developments. For this reason I feel that his criticism or doubts as expressed yesterday are not as valid as they might have appeared to be.
Yesterday some quotations from newspapers were read with respect to an alleged defence muddle. It seems to me, without getting into personalities or anything of that

kind, a lack of understanding of the situation comes about in three ways; first of all, through a lack of knowledge of the facts; second a lack of ability to understand those facts if they are available; and, third, in spite of both ability to understand and the availability of the facts, a refusal to see or understand them.
I am just wondering whether all these allegations of muddle, considering where they may have come from, might not be looked at in that light. Did these people have a comprehension of the situation? If they did, would they write or say the things they did? I am always a little careful-by subscribing or even by referring to them-of appearing to adopt such comments.
I have only one passing reference, or a couple of passing references, to make to our own Canadian situation. There was no indication of our complete defence picture. It may be because of the limitation of the time that the minister could rightly say he was not making a complete review of our defence policy, but there is a question that has bothered me for some time and I trust the minister may be able to answer it. It may have been referred to yesterday. 1 refer to our own armed forces, particularly our brigade groups. It strikes me that the effective use of our manpower in the field, regardless of its weapons, would require not only mobility but dispersement. Therefore, just how mobile are our land forces in this country today? We have certain transport, be it by road or by rail. As one who lives far removed from the capital I fully realize the limitations of rail transport. Then, road and rail do not take us everywhere in this country. Road and rail do not take us in those areas where it may be necessary to engage the enemy.
This brings us down to air transport. I would be of the opinion that if it is economically possible-and I realize the difficulties in the financial limitations in this regard-we should look to a considerable accentuation of the provision of air transport which could be available for a number of uses. Not only would we keep them relatively fully occupied for training purposes but for other purposes as well, since those brigades would have to get used to moving by air much more than they do now. I recall that at the time of the Suez crisis the reliance on commercial aircraft to supplement military transport aircraft did not show up too well, besides which, reliance on civilian aircraft, commercial aircraft, would mean that civil activity, which would be just as important in many fields, would have to halt if the aircraft were taken away. We know we have to move our technical
Supply-National Defence people around as much as we do our soldiers. I should like to ask the minister whether we could have some indication in this connection at this time.
While I am on the subject of our military personnel, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted the indulgence of the committee I should like to draw attention to the presence in the gallery of a relatively large number of men of Her Majesty's Royal Canadian Navy. There are 138 officers, chief petty officers and men of Her Majesty's Canadian ship Cornwallis who performed on the lawns in front of the parliament buildings on Dominion day. These officers and men are from a training establishment; they are in the main relatively new to the service, and represent all provinces of Canada. I would certainly congratulate them on the very fine performance on Wednesday evening.
My last point, Mr. Chairman, concerns civil defence. Here I would not say too much because I would be merely repeating the views put forward by the hon. member for St. Boniface. I think it was long overdue that our civil defence be taken over by a force, and an authoritative force, able to set it in motion and see to its training. By saying that I do not wish to criticize or belittle the valiant efforts of so many volunteers in the past who, in the various communities of this country to very greatly varying degrees, gave of their time and effort without pay to the development of civil defence. I think this country owes them a great debt of gratitude for what they have done. Now I would say they have the leadership and the force associated with them to give them greater scope for the utilization of the knowledge they have developed.
There are many other subjects on which I wish to speak today, but in the interest of getting on with these estimates I shall raise my points as the items come up.


Mr. Bourque:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence concerning the Bomarc site. I was wondering whether I could ask him the question on this item. Will the farms on range 4 at Canton Nantel La Macaza be purchased or appropriated for the Bomarc site? If so, in what way will these farms be purchased or expropriated, by superficial measure or by municipal valuation?


George Randolph Pearkes: To answer that question, the Bomarc site in northern Quebec, as I stated yesterday, will be in the area of Mont Laurier. I have not given the precise position of that Bomarc site, nor do I think it is advisable to pinpoint those defence positions. After all, they might be considered as targets for enemy

Supply-National Defence action, and I do not see any point in jeopardizing security by mentioning the particular section or point in an area where batteries will be placed. All purchases of lands which are required will be made in the ordinary way through the defence construction department.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two matters to put before the minister, but before I do so I should like to say a word or two by way of comment on the remarks just made by the hon. member for Edmonton West. He spoke very interestingly about the concept of fortress America concerning which I expressed some alarm yesterday and concerning which I still feel some alarm if it should develop in the wrong way. He pointed out that fortress America is essentially a development out of NATO, out of, if you like, the Atlantic fortress idea of 10 years ago which was one of the reasons why we created NATO.
But there is, as I understand it, a fundamental difference between these two things. Fortress western Europe, if I can call it that, was built up for one purpose only, a purely defensive purpose, for the protection of western Europe against an aggressor. Fortress America, which may, if you like, have developed out of the NATO idea, has now become, of course, something else because fortress America is the base from which the retaliatory forces will operate, not all of them but perhaps the major part of them. Fortress America in that sense has become the base for the deterrent.
It is also a fortress in the conventional sense, in the sense I referred to when I mentioned fortress Europe, because it has brought about a tremendous effort to make this continent as secure as possible against an invasion which could only come from the air. It is a problem which is becoming increasingly difficult every year. One of the worries I have about the fortress America concept, apart from the fact that it is perhaps tying us more closely than some of us would like to American defence and strategy, is that these two things sometimes conflict with each other, the fortress America concept in the conventional sense and the fortress America which represents the protection of the deterrent.
In all the hearings that have been held in Washington there is obviously developing a great anxiety as to the division of expenditure and effort on one or the other of these ideas, the development of early warning systems, ballistic missile early warning systems, of anti-missile missiles and the F-108 interceptor to protect the continent, and, the other development involving the deterrent, the

construction of intercontinental missiles and the protection of the bases from which they will be used so that the deterrent, which I think we now admit is our most effective defence, cannot be put out of action. I wonder, and I expressed this worry yesterday, whether even the United States with all its power and strength will be able to proceed with the development of these two ideas. No one can read the testimony at the congressional hearings without being frightened by the magnitude of the dual operation of the maintenance of the deterrent and the protection of the continent at the same time.
There is an interrelationship also not only between these two continental ideas but between the fortress America idea in either of its forms and the defence of western Europe. The stronger the deterrent becomes, the more effective it seems to be in preventing an all out assault. And the greater the feeling that it is our major protection and will be used as such, the less incentive there is in Europe to devote as much energy and as much of their resources as is necessary for the protection of western Europe itself by conventional means of defence. So you have, you have an example of it right now, almost a vicious circle. If it is not vicious it certainly is a circle. The stronger the deterrent becomes the less incentive there is for the European members of NATO to develop the kind of conventional defence methods which are required so that we will not have to use the deterrent in a limited war.


Norman Platt Lambert: In that connection may I pose a simple question? Would you wish to halt all technological development?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I certainly would not.


Norman Platt Lambert: I think that would be the only way to stop it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I tried to point out yesterday, you have to maintain the deterrent in its most effective form. Whether you can do that and at the same time spend so much of your resources on continental defence is something for the governments to decide. I would not halt the development of the deterrent technologically, but I cannot see any point in adding to the deterrent beyond the strength which is necessary to accomplish its purpose. If in fact 50 hydrogen bombs can destroy a continent, there is not much point in adding 10, 15 or 20 in the future.
The point I am trying to make is that it should be possible, in fact it is essential, for the members of NATO to have the feeling that they can defend themselves in western Europe against what might be a limited attack not meant to result in a world war. It is surely essential that the NATO countries in

Europe develop a defence against that kind of attack without the deterrent coming into action in the form of nuclear retaliation. The hon. member himself mentioned that one of our difficulties, indeed one of our dangers, is that we have an elephant gun and may not want to use it to shoot small game but may have to use it because we have not a .22.
So we have to have both. We have to maintain the deterrent, but surely we have to concentrate on the kind of European conventional defence which will be strong enough so the deterrent will not have to be used. This dual purpose is the core of our defence problem in the Atlantic community. My worry is that if we spend so much of our energy and resources-by "we" I mean the North American countries-on one aspect, the deterrent, we may discourage the members of NATO from doing what they should do to make the use of that deterrent unnecessary.
The hon. member said something else with which I most heartily agree, and this was also brought up yesterday. He said that we should develop to the greatest possible extent our air transport and make our forces as mobile as possible. That again has a bearing on what I have been talking about, because if we consider it necessary to use a number of our R.C.A.F. squadrons for continental defence-[DOT] I think the number is nine now-as part of this giant effort, if we have to spend so much money and so much of our air resources on that phase-as the minister pointed out last night, we are not able to develop our air transport to a point where we can move one brigade by air. Here again it is a balancing of priorities. I suggest again that in the reassessment which I still think the government should give to defence policy they should consider whether the priorities in this matter perhaps should be altered.
Mr. Chairman, the member for Edmonton West and the member for St. Boniface both congratulated the government on the progress that has been made in civil defence organization as indicated in the minister's statement. We will have an opportunity to discuss civil defence, as I said last night, when the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare come before the committee. Perhaps I should say a word about this in so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, since it has already been brought up. I did not read into the minister's statement that evidence of great progress which other members on his side have found.
I am not reading from Hansard but from the mimeographed version which I have marked, on page 28 of this statement he said that an order in council, known as civil defence order, 1959, had been approved by
Supply-National Defence the governor in council and tabled in the House of Commons. Presumably this is the basis for the statement that progress has been made in the association of the Department of National Defence with this problem. I wonder whether much more has been done in connection with this matter through that order in council than putting another minister in charge of part of civil defence.
I should like the minister to inform me whether the assignment given the armed forces under this order in council is very greatly different from those responsibilities which they had before it was passed. Then the minister said also:
On September 1 the Department of National Defence will assume full responsibility for the operation of the warning system in Canada.
Would the minister inform the committee as to what extent that is a change? What was the situation before September 1? I am of the opinion, and he will correct me if I am wrong, that this only represents a partial change over the previous situation.
Then the minister went on to say:
The Canadian army has organized a number of mobile support columns within the regular army and the militia. These columns will be based on major units and training establishments in the regular army. In the militia they will be based on groups of units. Each column contains rescue companies and such other elements as will permit them to perform re-entry and rescue tasks, as well as supplying manpower for maintenance of law and order and such other internal operations as may be necessary under conditions of war.
This, of course, is an important survival function, because it will be a question of survival if we are ever confronted with this kind of catastrophe. Does this represent any great change over the situation which existed previously? Is there not an important omission-we will come to this when we discuss the other departments-in the establishment of a relationship between these army support columns and the local authorities? Has the minister anything to say on that, the relationship which must be established between the army and the other authorities, municipal and provincial, in respect to the discharge of these functions and responsibilities?
Then the minister went on to say:
Requirements for communications equipment for national survival have been established and arrangements for procurement are being made on a priority basis. The requirement for radiation detection equipment has been established. Industry, however, is as yet unable to meet the standards in all cases. Action is being taken on a priority basis to obtain suitable equipment as it becomes available-
Detailed examination of other items of equipment normally held by the army is being carried out with a view to providing adequate scaling for survival operations for all troops involved.
The requirement for these things may have been established, but I would ask the



HOUSE OF COMMONS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Supply-National Defence minister what progress has been made in the provision of equipment in the last year or so. All he had to say in his statement yesterday was that the requirement had been established, but I gather from his own statement that very little progress has been made in the provision of the equipment in question.
Then he also said:
Army headquarters have prepared and issued training directives and provisional training instructions in all aspects of national survival training.
It is my recollection that this was done some time ago, even before the present government took office. So, while this statement is perhaps encouraging in that it does show there have been some changes made in regard to civil defence, I do not think it represents the kind of progress which should result in the warm congratulations the minister has received from that side of the house.
Norman Platt Lambert: It is progress in thinking, surely.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will see what is involved in this thinking when we have a discussion on this matter. I am suggesting one of the things which might not be progress; that we have now three ministers in the government directly concerned with civil defence and that the relationship between those three may constitute a difficulty, that is between the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Defence. It may also constitute a difficulty in the relationship between the federal government and municipal and provincial authorities who are certainly directly concerned with this problem. However, as I have said, Mr. Chairman, we will have a more far-reaching debate on this matter when we consider the estimates of the other department.
There is one other question I want to ask the minister, and it concerns the report of the committee on estimates last year on the Department of National Defence. This report, which I thought I had before me, received a good deal of praise because it made recommendations in regard to the Department of National Defence. Yesterday the minister mentioned that one of these recommendations had been implemented in the form in which the department's budget was being presented to parliament this year. I would point out now that there were a great many other recommendations, and I should like him to inform the committee, if he will, to what extent those other recommendations have been carried out or to what extent it is proposed to carry them out in the department.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, this might be an opportune time to answer some of the numerous questions which were posed to me during this morning's debate. Various members referred to civil defence, and I should like to thank those who have spoken on this subject. I do not think I need say any more than that the government is taking this matter seriously. We realize that there is likely to be a gap between the time the intercontinental missile is available to a potential enemy and the time an effective defence against the launched missile will be available. Therefore during that interim period we feel that it is necessary to provide all the passive defence that we can provide in order to help our nation survive under the nuclear bombardment should all our efforts to deter the enemy from going to war have failed.
Some progress is being made. As you will recall, earlier this spring the announcement was made that the army would take over greater responsibilities. Since that time an intensive study has been made of the requirements. The organization of the army in Canada has been pressed ahead, and additional training has been given.
Questions were asked with regard to the warning system which will, after September 1, be the responsibility of the army. The army, will have additional personnel they can make available in order to improve the warning system which has been in existence in the past. Additional communication links will be established over and above those which have been set up under the Department of National Health and Welfare and the civil defence organization. It will be necessary to man some of these centres permanently for 24 hours during the day because there exist these possibilities of attack without any warning, and we cannot rely on one system of communication. There will have to be duplicate systems.
A question was asked with regard to the steps which are being taken for liaison between the army commands and the provinces. It will be recalled that the Prime Minister made announcements earlier this year in connection with the arrangements which were being made for the future allocation of duties in the field of civil defence. As I think all hon. members are fully aware, there has been set up here in Ottawa a central authority consisting of a committee of officials, military officers and others to work out all the details. There will be permanent representatives of that committee in provincial capitals for

liaison between the different elements of government. The military commanders have already been instructed to establish the closest possible contact with the provincial ministers who are connected with civil defence. Hence I think there is an improvement there which will lead to still better and tighter arrangements.
The next question asked was with regard to limited warfare. I should like to stress the point that we have in Canada three brigades organized into brigade groups, as I said yesterday; one brigade in the Atlantic area, one brigade in central Canada and one in western Canada. They have not only infantry battalions but all the supporting arms including armour. They are regular troops who could be used at any time for any purpose which the government might decide was in the interests of the defence of Canada or the maintenance of our commitments to NATO and the United States.
Reference was made to the question of the mobility of those troops. I pointed out yesterday that we are increasing the facilities of our air transport command. Additional heavy transports are under order. Those are known as the CC-106. We have on order 10 new medium transports. Then I pointed out how the SA-16-B-that is the Albatross- which is to be used primarily for the purpose of search and rescue and mercy operations can on very short notice be used for the transfer of supplies and personnel.
I am not pretending in any way that we have enough military transport to move one brigade to any part of the world at any time, but we do have enough military transport to move a portion of that brigade, perhaps one battalion, not with their full equipment but with adequate equipment, to take part in a peace-preserving mission to which Canada might be asked by the United Nations to make a contribution. If more troops than that were required we would have to do what has been done in the past; that is, either call upon commercial companies to supply the additional transport or call upon our allies to supply the transport required.
It is hardly a requirement for us to have a large number of air transport vehicles standing by for such an emergency. We can call upon the commercial companies, which can make transport available as they have done in the past, if an emergency arises. While we support wholeheartedly the suggestion of a United Nations police force, the contribution of one full brigade from a country the size of Canada would seem to be rather out of proportion to the requirement which might be needed, unless some of the major 66968-9-344
Supply-National Defence countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, and so forth, were not taking part in such an operation, in which case I think there would be more transport available.
Questions were asked regarding the mobility of the brigade group in Europe. The brigade group in Europe have a definite role; that is, to try to blunt the attack which might take place through western Europe if Russian forces marched, and to channel those advancing columns into areas where they would be vulnerable to attack by air forces. It will be noted that we are strengthening those attack elements of the air forces in France and Germany by re-equipping our air division there.
I am not minimizing the importance of mobility, but at the moment we have not got a universal personnel armoured vehicle. However, money is provided in these estimates for the further development of the Canadian research vehicle which is generally known as the Bobcat, and if the tests which have been carried out and which have been promising and which will be continued this year are up to expectation, then consideration will be given to the equipping of the brigade with this vehicle.
But while the vehicle has been shown______
I think some hon. members have already seen the tests, which appear on the surface to be eminently satisfactory-it must be remembered that those tests were not carried out with armour steel. The tests this year are to try out the adaptability of that vehicle when equipped with armour plate. There were some little difficulties found in the construction of the vehicle as it was tried out last year and this spring which have to be rectified before we can embark on full production and decide that it is necessary to equip the brigade with this vehicle.
In order to make up for that seeming loss of mobility-and I say "seeming loss of mobility" because all the units of the brigade are fully equipped with their total complement of vehicles-this spring we sent over some 200 heavy transports in addition to the normal unit transports, and these additional vehicles will be used for the movement of personnel and equipment as and when required. We are also examining very carefully whether there should be an addition to the number of helicopters which are now available to the army. The army has a few helicopters, but one of the difficulties in that respect is to align the requirements of the three services so that we can get one type, or at most two types, of helicopter to meet the varying requirements of the different services. I hope we are making progress in

Supply-National Defence that respect, and there is a limited amount of money provided in these estimates for further research. We are particularly anxious that if we increase the number of helicopters there should be a strong Canadian content in the helicopter which is decided upon.
Questions were asked about ideological warfare. I would like to assure the hon. member that this is not being neglected, and that as far as our regular forces are concerned they do receive instruction in this matter. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer to the activities of the defence research board in this respect as being antiideological warfare; that is to say, they are concerning themselves with steps which can be taken to make our soldiers immune from attacks by the enemy under this heading. Furthermore, consideration is given to this aspect of training at the various training establishments, commencing at the Royal Military College, staff colleges and so forth. I want to assure the hon. member that we are not entirely neglecting that aspect, which I appreciate is a serious one. Remember that the main effect of attacks under that heading would be directed against the civilian population, and of course that comes under the question of education and is rather out of the field covered by these estimates.
The Leader of the Opposition asked for information as to the steps which are being taken in connection with the implementation of the recommendations of the estimates committee a year ago. The first one related to the policy concerning the CF-105 program, and in the final sentence of their recommendation the committee expressed its concern at the government entering into any such weapon program of this magnitude without first negotiating for some cost-sharing agreement by the NATO member countries and the United States of America under the NORAD agreement.
We have not entered into any more contracts of this nature unless one considers- and it is not of the same magnitude-the re-equipping of the air division; and as has already been stated, the Minister of Defence Production will be able to explain the steps which are being taken in connection with the sharing of production in this respect with our NATO partners. Also, in the development of the air defence of Canada we have entered into a cost sharing and production sharing agreement with the United States.
As to the necessity of maintaining separate provost and padre services and separate medical services, definite progress has been made toward the unification of the medical services and the padre services. As to the
[Mr. Pearkes.l
provost corps, further steps have been taken to integrate the general services particularly with respect to detention barracks, but it is not considered advisable-and I think I said this last year-that personnel of one service should be apprehended or interfered with on the streets by personnel of a different force.
The next question concerned civil defence. That has been covered. The committee wished to impress upon the government the urgency of a review of the civil defence program, and asked that this should proceed without delay. That has been done and the results have been forthcoming. As to the co-ordination of the service colleges and university training, a director of the R.O.T.P. program has been appointed, and there is a high degree of co-ordination there.
With regard to service personnel generally, establishment committees are carrying out a thorough examination of all personnel who are employed in these various branches and every effort is being made to eliminate any unnecessary overhead.
As far as the recommendation regarding the main estimates is concerned, that is being carried through. As I announced yesterday, the estimates are presented in the blue book. They are developed under different headings, and as soon as we have finished this general debate and passed this first item we will be able to go on to a detailed examination of the various forces, such as the army, the navy, the air force, the defence research board and so forth, following the listing of the parliamentary votes as given in the blue book.
I have answered as many of the questions as I remember. I hope I have covered the subject fully; I do not want to deny information which it is possible for me to give any hon. member. I trust I have covered the points which were raised this morning.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to allow the first item to carry on the minister's assurance that there will be no attempt to limit the discussion on the other items of the defence estimates as we proceed.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: I think the item should carry without an undertaking as broad as the one mentioned. I think on the first item of each of the forces' estimates there could be a fairly broad discussion within the realm of the force in question, but to agree that every item should be discussed on a broad general basis would not, I think, be possible.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All we want on this side of the house is an assurance that if the first item carries and we come, say, to the air force,

we shall not be restricted to dealing merely with administrative details of the air force, but would be able to talk about air force policy; we should not like the chairman to say we should have done that under item 1.


George Randolph Pearkes: That would be agreeable.


Mr. Denis:: There is an expropriation which has taken place at la commune St. Antoine de la Baie du Febvre, county of Nicolet-Yamaska. This piece of land has been expropriated for defence purposes, and I wonder if the minister could tell me under what item it comes in order that I may raise a question about it.


George Randolph Pearkes: That would come under vote
216.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Inspection services-
215. Operation and maintenance, $6,967,225.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I note this item has been decreased by $120,000. Could the minister tell us the main functions carried out under this vote?


George Randolph Pearkes: Inspectors are appointed to every project which is being carried out, be it construction, be it the development of weapons, be it the provision of clothing and equipment or be it vehicles. The Department of National Defence lays down the specifications in all these cases and those specifications are then handed on to the Department of Defence Production who procure, by letting contracts or other means, the articles which are required.
In order to make certain that the articles being produced meet the specifications laid down by the Department of National Defence and the service concerned, inspectors remain on the various projects. The increase is due to the general raise in salaries which has been authorized for civil servants.


An hon. Member:: Decrease.


George Randolph Pearkes: I beg your pardon. There has been that increase in so far as the salaries of the personnel are concerned, but the overall decrease is due to a reduction in requirements.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On Wednesday, May 27, 1959 the minister informed me in reply to a question that on May 1 there were 47 defence personnel and 50 civil employees of the Department of National Defence still employed at Avro Aircraft Limited and Orenda Engines. Will the minister tell me to which contracts these people were assigned and whether there has been any reduction in their number since May 1?
66968-9-344}
Supply-National Defence


George Randolph Pearkes: I wonder if the hon. gentleman will reserve that question until we come to the air force. I think I should then be in a better position to deal with it. The air force officer with the papers would be able to give me detailed information. If the hon. member will reserve his question until then I will give him a full answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will be glad to do that, but I presume the money comes from this vote.


George Randolph Pearkes: No, it comes out of the air force vote for that particular service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
216. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $563,400.
Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the minister has very many serious problems to consider at this time. However, I should like to speak briefly on a subject which is of a more peaceful nature, and it is in connection with Canada's national war museum. I brought this subject up at the time of the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Public Works and the minister agreed that we should have a new building for the museum but said I would have to bring it up at the time of the discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Defence.
I find that this building is a very popular place for visitors to Ottawa to go and see. There are some priceless pictures and pieces of equipment there from the first war, the second war and also campaigns even beyond that. If we believe it is necessary that we should have a war museum, then I think we would agree that we should have a much better building than the one we have at the present time.


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall be very pleased to bring the recommendation to the attention of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who looks after all museums. The funds for the maintenance of this museum come under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I shall be pleased to bring the recommendation to the attention of the minister.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Who has the jurisdictional responsibility for the war museum now?


George Randolph Pearkes: The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Under what statute?
Perhaps the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources can tell us under what statute he has that jurisdiction?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no statute. That is where the administration lies. All museums come under that department.
5426	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since what date has that been the case?


George Randolph Pearkes: The war museum was transferred in 1957.


John Smith: Mr. Chairman, as long as we get the right party in the end that is quite all right, but I might repeat that the Minister of Public Works referred me to the Minister of National Defence. However, the minister has agreed to bring it to the attention of the proper people. All I can say is that I am quite interested in it and I hope that consideration will be given in the very near future to providing either a new building or more space for those weapons and relics of past wars.


Mr. Meunier:: Can the minister tell us what was paid for land bought by way of expropriation in the province of Quebec for the needs of the army?


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the hon. member bring that matter up under the army estimates, when the representatives of the army are here with their books and will be able to supply the detailed information he requires?


Azellus Denis: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence under what item we should inquire about the expropriation of land in Nicolet-Yamaska county?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct; this is the item dealing with that. I did not realize it referred to the same property.


Azellus Denis: We have seen in the papers that this expropriation has been completed by the present government at a certain price. We should like to have some explanation as to the appraisal made during the time of the previous government. What was the municipal estimate or appraisal and what was the price paid for the land. We read in the newspapers that the amount was $400,000. We should like to know if that is the net price or whether interest is included in that amount. How many appraisals were made by the government? I think it was studied in 1951. This piece of land has been expropriated for army testing purposes.


George Randolph Pearkes: The land is purchased by the Department of Transport acting as our agent in that respect, and the deal is finalized by the Department of Justice. At the moment I have not the actual amount of money which is allocated for this in the estimates; I am having it looked up. In 1958-59 the sum of $430,000 was made available for the purchase of this land.


Azellus Denis: Was the land called la commune St. Antoine de la Baie du Febvre? Was it a piece of land that nobody could cultivate because it was too poor?


George Randolph Pearkes: The first part is right.


Azellus Denis: And it is flooded most of the year?


George Randolph Pearkes: It was a piece of property known as a commune.


Azellus Denis: Is the minister in a position to tell the committee what was the municipal appraisal of this commune?


George Randolph Pearkes: I could not tell the hon. member what the municipal appraisal was in that respect.


Azellus Denis: From which department can I get this information?


George Randolph Pearkes: I will see whether we can get it through the Department of Transport who, as I said earlier, are the agents for purchasing property for the Department of National Defence.


Azellus Denis: I hope there is no misunderstanding between the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Transport. The minister could get in touch with him very easily. I am asking the question because a few weeks ago the hon. member for Papineau asked a question about the piece of land which had been purchased by the present government. We all saw in the newspaper a picture of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and we wondered whether the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys had anything to do with this expropriation or the handing over of the cheque. We do not know whether it was money that came out of the taxpayers or out of the minister's own pocket. He said he had settled an expropriation matter which had been pending for five or six years, which expropriation the previous government did not settle.
Of course we would like to know what offer was made by the previous government and what is the exact amount which has been paid by the present government. I would like to know, having regard to the previous appraisal, whether the present government paid three or four times the value of this land. Of course you can always settle a matter very quickly when you pay four or five times the value of the property. It is easy to settle any kind of matter; you can do it in a few hours and maybe in a few minutes or even quicker than money can be collected for the Minister of Finance when he asks for a loan if you pay three or four times the value.
I would be very much interested in having a breakdown of this $430,000 which was paid

on this expropriation, because I am aware that the exchequer court still exists even while the present government is in power. When the government appraiser does not satisfy the owner the only thing to do is go to the Exchequer Court of Canada and get an appraisal that is binding on the two parties unless the judgment of the court is appealed. I know, for instance, that one piece of land has been expropriated for the very same purpose near the land we have been talking about. This land belonged to an efficient farmer and was cultivated, whereas the other piece of land is almost sterile and of no use because for the biggest part of the year it is flooded and for the balance of the year it is only a place to put cows or sheep. If you had a good horse or a good cow you would not send it there, because there is a mixture of animals and people can only send poor horses or cows there. However, I am told that during the last year nobody wanted to send any cattle there so the land is almost negligible in value as far as the soil is concerned.
I see that we have paid $400,000 for 4,000 acres, which means a price of $100 per acre, yet in the case of 20 other sales in the same area involving good land with barns, sheds and everything else needed for farming, the average price is much below $75 per acre for good, cultivated land. How is it that the new government has paid $100 per acre for a piece of land that is of no use at all for farming? I should like to know if the previous government was as generous as the present one in expropriating such lands.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will be very pleased to take up this matter with the Minister of Transport. I appreciate the hon. member's interest, and as the funds come out of the Department of National Defence I am naturally anxious to see that there has been no unnecessary expenditure of money. As soon as I can get in touch with the Minister of Transport I will endeavour to get the information for the hon. member, and I will see that he is fully informed on the matter.


Azellus Denis: Possibly we could suspend this item until we get the information. I have asked only a few questions, but there are many others I should like to ask the minister regarding this item. I know he will be glad to give the information to us.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am prepared to let it stand for the time being and I will get the information.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee agreeable to letting item 216 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
Supply-National Defence Royal Canadian Navy-
217.	Operation and maintenance, $192,550,000.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to say a few words on this item. By way of introduction may I point out that if my information is correct, and I think it is, the only time a shell ever landed on Canadian territory in the last two wars was in British Columbia, when the present Minister of National Defence was G.O.C. of the western command. At that time a Japanese submarine fired at a lighthouse on the British Columbia coast. The shot missed the target, but it did land on the British Columbia coast. I am certain that the then G.O.C. will recall that the only shot ever to land on Canadian soil was from a Japanese submarine which missed its target. I want to mention that because I think it is a most interesting little anecdote and perhaps not too well known.
That leads me to the subject of submarines. In recent days we have read in the newspapers two reports of submarines off the Atlantic coast and also of a submarine off the British Columbia coast. I cannot and will not ask what occurred, but I do know that our maritime defence force in British Columbia went into action to find out if there was a submarine off our coast and why.
This leads me to what I want to say more particularly by way of complementing what I said yesterday. I believe all of us would like to hear more from the minister about the department's policy as to the development of defensive measures against the possibility of missile attack from a submarine source. My knowledge is limited, though I hope it is fairly good, and I believe the minister and his predecessors have been working toward the development of methods to meet what must be considered a major problem, an attack on the Atlantic or Pacific coast of Canada by submarines of an aggressive nation using the missile.
The minister informed us both yesterday and today that there are now two detachments. This means that all ships of the St. Laurent class are now on the British Columbia coast and that all ships of the Restigouche class are on the Atlantic coast. I should like to ask the minister if all ships of the St. Laurent class which he says are now on the British Columbia coast, and those of the Restigouche class which are now on the Atlantic coast, are completely equipped as submarine hunters. If so, are they completely equipped with the most modern equipment, not only to search for submarines but also to counteract a missile when discharged or to possibly alter the course of a missile after it leaves the submarine?
5428	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-National Defence
This is important, so long as it does not disclose a security measure, and I should like to know just how well equipped they are. How far does their equipment go? Is it only for detection, or are they able to counteract the missile once it has left the submarine?
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I am very proud and grateful for this type of development in our naval service. In view of the minister's statement, and in view of the hundreds of millions of dollars that were spent, I should like to know whether or not we might be able to save a few hundred million on other aspects of defence which I think are useless, and add to the naval service which I think can make a real contribution to this country, to North America and NATO.


George Randolph Pearkes: I remember the episode to which the hon. gentleman referred when certain shells were fired near Estevan point on the west coast of Vancouver island. This episode is rather vivid in my memory. As a result of that, we are doing all we can to protect the shores of this country, both the Atlantic and the Pacific, from similar attacks. The submarine menace has increased considerably since world war II. The hon. member is quite correct when he says there are some submarines which can, at the present time, fire missiles from their decks. We may expect further development along those lines in the next few years.
As I said yesterday, and I regret that I have to repeat it, because I think it is important, at the present time there is no defence against the missile once it has been launched, whether it be launched from a submarine or from a land pad. We are, therefore, increasing the ability of our naval escorts to hunt out and destroy hostile submarines as far away from our coasts as possible. That may mean hundreds of miles from our coasts. It means that we have to have large ships, larger than the old destroyers of a few years ago. They have to be seaworthy and they have to be able to remain on patrol for days at a time. This is one reason why we are spending the money to get a tanker this year, so as to enable our ships to remain on patrol longer and replenish them while they are there.
The hon. gentleman asked about the equipment. Well, I cannot and should not give details regarding the range or even the number of weapons our ships are carrying. Let me say this without any qualifications at all, that I believe our ships are equipped with the very best type of sonar detection devices that are procurable in any country in the world. I feel it is rather significant that the Royal navy, in the last few months, has made arrangements to buy from Canada some of the sonar equipment we have developed.

These are the means of detection by surface vessels. They are supplemented by similar equipment which is carried on the Argus marine aircraft on the Atlantic coast and the Neptune marine reconnaissance aircraft on the Pacific coast. All our ships are armed with the 43 torpedo, and torpedoes now have a homing warhead and are far more effective than they were at the time of the second world war.
In addition these ships carry batteries either of the Squid or Limbo mortar, which are able to fire mortars and depth charges in a pattern so they may destroy the submarine once it has been found. The problem is to keep our ships afloat as long as possible, and to prevent hostile submarines from coming within range of our shore targets. We have to strike a reasonable balance between the requirements of the navy, the army and the air force. This year roughly 18 per cent of the total expenditure is for the naval service.


Harold Edward Winch: May I follow that up? I am no expert on these matters but I believe the minister, in his last statement, has brought out the important phase of this problem. He gave the figures for the percentage spent on the navy, the percentage spent on the army and the percentage spent on the air force. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, there is the absolute key as to why we have not a defence policy. It is not a matter of what percentage has been spent for the navy, what percentage has been spent for the air force or the army. For what is the money being spent, not in so far as each of the three services is concerned but in so far as a national defence policy is concerned?
I believe the minister said 18 per cent was being spent on the navy. The fact that 18 per cent is being spent on the navy does not mean a confounded thing. What does mean everything is, what is our defence policy? What is the part the navy plays in it?
Speaking for myself, quite bluntly, I believe that you could save a good deal of money which I think is being wasted now in many expenditures and could perhaps do more on the navy front in the type of ship protection or anti-submarine protection. It is not a matter of percentage; it is a matter of protection. I should like to add this. I have asked the question and I received the answer no. I want to say that in my estimation you could save a great deal of money on many of the expenditures under your defence estimates and could perhaps spend it to a good deal more advantage under this vote for the Royal Canadian Navy on the type of work known as anti-submarine protection, than it is being spent at the present moment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It seems to me that the minister has been responsible for a masterpiece of understatement when he informed the committee that if in the future there should be a naval attack on Canada it would not be similar to that of the Japanese submarine which fired one shell at a lighthouse and managed to hit the British Columbia coast.


Harold Edward Winch: It missed it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; it missed the lighthouse and hit the coast. We know something about the nature and the scale of what a submarine attack would constitute in the future from what we have read about the success of the United States in developing a nuclear powered submarine. The very magnitude of the achievement of the United States in this field and the claims that have been made by the United States for that achievement in respect of this nuclear powered submarine must cause us to worry about the threat to our security from that kind of attack from an unfriendly power. We are indeed terribly vulnerable to attack by sea at the present moment.
The minister mentioned the fact that there was now a submarine from the decks of which missiles could be fired. There is one submarine which I believe can fire nuclear missiles of the Polaris type not from the deck but from well below the surface of the sea. Although I am certainly not an expert in these matters, I suppose that constitutes an entirely new problem in security. I understand that this submarine and other atomic powered submarines can remain submerged for long peroids of time and that it is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible to detect them through the ordinary methods of detection. I know that those methods have improved greatly since world war II. I know that the minister cannot give us the details with regard to that matter, but from the point of view of national security surely it is important to know whether sonar and something called NORAD are reasonably effective in relation to the kind of naval threat to which we are exposed at the present time.
I am informed that that threat has not yet taken the form of atomic submarines possessed by the Soviet union. I know, as does the minister, that the Soviet union has many hundreds-perhaps more than four hundred-of modern ocean-going submarines; and in the course of time, if not at present, they will have a submarine which would be the counterpart of the Nautilus. We are therefore faced with the possibility of a form of attack on this continent and on the continent of Europe which might be more difficult to detect and to counteract than an attack even from the air. I therefore wonder
Supply-National Defence whether our methods of defence or our methods of detection are effective against this kind of threat or whether we are spending our money on a form of naval protection which was certainly effective a few years ago but which may not be effective in terms of present circumstances.
This, of course, is another aspect of the general dilemma that we face. As I ventured to say yesterday, the United States, a great power, cannot afford to take any chances and is obliged to secure every sector of the defence front whereas a country like Canada, which must be more careful in the allocation of its smaller defence expenditures, must give consideration to this matter in a way which is not done by a great power. I therefore ask the minister-and I have no desire to ask him to go into details because I know that would not be proper-whether he can give us a reasonable assurance that these methods of detection and destruction of submarines which I have mentioned are effective enough to warrant the continued expenditure of extremely large sums of money for the construction of ships which would be the vehicles for this detection apparatus.
I was reading-indeed I mentioned it yesterday-the testimony of Admiral Rick-over. In emphasizing the character of this particular menace he has said that the best way of destroying the new type of submarine was through another submarine. We are not likely to become involved in that kind of protection and destruction unless we can work out some kind of arrangement on an exchange basis which would make it unnecessary for us to spend the amount of money which is required for that kind of submarine. If in fact that is the way to destroy submarines in the future through other submarines, can we be sure that the money we are now spending on our antisubmarine warfare is being effectively spent?


George Randolph Pearkes: I should not like in any way to minimize the problem which has been presented by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a real problem and one which is causing our naval staff the most serious consideration. It is the one problem upon which the Royal Canadian Navy is now concentrating. It is the major role of the Canadian navy to protect our shores against submarines, and for that purpose all their efforts are being devoted to improving the type of equipment, the training and the efficiency of our ships and our aircraft and the crews which man them. We are getting a great deal of co-operation from the Royal Navy and from the navy of the United States in that they make available to us submarines which

Supply-National Defence can be used as targets for our craft to train upon. We are continually carrying out exercises with the Royal Navy, the navy of the United States and other SACLANT powers in the Atlantic, in the Pacific, in the Mediterranean and in the Carribbean and an intensified effort is being made to have our equipment and our personnel brought up to the highest possible state. In addition to that our defence research board has naval antisubmarine stations established, and there is a tremendous effort being made by the defence scientists in order to improve our means of detection.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could the minister give us any indication of what the useful life of our destroyer escorts might be?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is usually estimated that 20 years is the life of a naval vessel.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Twenty years is the normal life of a naval vessel. In view of the rapid development of the trend there seems to be toward submarines and anti-submarine submarines has the minister any estimate of the number of years it will be before these destroyer escorts will become obsolescent as submarine destroyers?


George Randolph Pearkes: Of course, the means of detecting and destroying the submarine which are carried on these destroyer escorts can be changed as new inventions and new technological information becomes available. There is no reason at all why it should be considered that the weapons or the means of detection remain static. The ship itself should have a life of approximately 20 years, but even if new means of powering the ship were introduced, it does not mean that the whole ship becomes obsolescent, because those changes can be introduced if necessary.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has the minister given active consideration to the possibility of the Canadian navy acquiring anti-submarine submarines at some time in the future?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have mentioned in the house, I think, before that we have teams of naval experts and scientists who have been, and still are, investigating the developments which are taking place in submarine construction both in the United Kingdom and in the United States. I am not in a position at the present time to make the statement that we are or are not going to go into the anti-submarine submarine role. We have to gain a great deal more experience before we can venture into such a role. I do not want to be stampeded into doing that just in order that we may have what has been referred to as a prestige weapon.

It has not yet been proven that the submarine is the best answer to the submarine, because the range of the weapon carried by the submarine does not reach anything like the same distance as the detection devices on the submarine. Until there is an improvement along those lines it would be unwise for Canada to commit herself one way or the other.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister give the house any approximation of when the British will launch their first atomic powered submarine?


George Randolph Pearkes: I cannot give any information about another country. They are not included in these estimates. We are providing no money to assist the British to build submarines.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell the committee how many Wrens we have in the naval service at the present time?


George Randolph Pearkes: We have 25 Wren officers and 113 other ranks. There are 55 women in the medical branch, making a total of 80 officers and 113 other rank Wrens.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has there been any extension or contraction in the number of trades filled by the Wrens and the nursing sisters?


George Randolph Pearkes: There has been no material increase in the number of Wrens over the last few years?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not the number of personnel, the number of trades which they fill. I want to know the number of functions.


George Randolph Pearkes: There has been no material change.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the minister's statement as to the number of commissioned officers in the Wrens and the number of other ranks. Could he explain why there is such a large proportion of commissioned officers?


George Randolph Pearkes: All the medical personnel in the Wrens are commissioned officers. They are nursing sisters, and nursing sisters are commissioned.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Recently there were some changes announced in the training policy of the Royal Canadian Navy. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to elaborate on the announcement?


George Randolph Pearkes: The changes were introduced in order to have a general service in all ranks of the navy. Instead of having certain classified officers, such as an engineer officer, whose opportunities for promotion were very limited, they now all go in on a general list. The same principles apply to the seamen in

the navy. It has been under experiment for about six months now and the reports I have received are very favourable.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the navy still operate two basic training schools at Cornwallis and Iberville and if so, will the minister explain the functions of each?


George Randolph Pearkes: Iberville is a preliminary training establishment for French-speaking men who wish to join the Royal Canadian Navy. It is located in the city of Quebec, and the idea is to enable lads from the province of Quebec who are not fluent in English to have the opportunity of improving their English before they join general training establishments. The general training establishment for all ranks is Cornwallis in Nova Scotia, and the general technical training school is at Esquimalt in British Columbia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the minister if any special efforts are being made to encourage Newfoundlanders to go into the navy?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am very happy to say that no special arrangements are necessary because we are getting a splendid entry of Newfoundlanders into the navy. As the hon. gentleman knows, Newfoundland has a very long tradition of naval heroism and service both in the royal navy and now in the Royal Canadian Navy, and we welcome Newfoundlanders into the Royal Canadian Navy most wholeheartedly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say what naval establishments there are in operation in Newfoundland at the present time?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is the station known as Avalon in St. John's and Cabot is the reserve training establishment there. Further refuelling facilities are being provided in St. John's harbour so that it can be regarded as an alternative place in the event of hostilities breaking out and would enable Canadian naval vessels which are on patrol in the northern Atlantic to refuel and replenish their supplies in St. John's harbour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are no establishments anywhere except in St. John's?


George Randolph Pearkes: No Canadian naval establishments. There is, of course, Argentia, the United States base.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the minister could explain this increase in travelling and removal expenditures amounting to almost $200,000, the increase in telephone, telegram and other communication services amounting to something over $100,000 and 66968-9-345
Supply-National Defence the increase in the cost of publication of departmental reports of about $70,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: As far as transportation is concerned, I think that reflects the general increase in all transportation charges. As the hon. gentleman knows, there has been a steady increase in freight rates-passenger service and so forth-going on all the time. The main increase is due to increased freight rates in connection with the movement of naval personnel.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: How many schools are operated for children of naval personnel?


George Randolph Pearkes: I could not say offhand. I think there are two schools operated at Esquimalt, about three in the Halifax area and one at Shearwater. I could not say exactly.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And these only operate in areas where provincial schools are not available?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct. They operate at stations where it is not possible to send the dependant children to provincial schools. We should prefer to be out of the education business, but it is a service we must provide for our dependants.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister tell the committee what facilities the government has for training technical personnel and where these facilities are located?


George Randolph Pearkes: As I mentioned earlier, the technical training program is carried out at Esquimalt and only last year a fine new technical training school was opened in the dockyard there. It is extremely well equipped, and that is where most of the technical training is carried on.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: How many apprentices have enrolled there and what are some of the trades they learn?


George Randolph Pearkes: If the hon. gentleman would read the white paper he would find all that information contained on page 37 where the actual numbers trained, and so on, are given.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry. I must have overlooked it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
218.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $94,942,000.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister would give us a breakdown of the major expenditures under this item and the purpose of each major expenditure?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have some figures here for major construction at sites. At Halifax, according to this year's estimates, it will

Supply-National Defence amount to some $1,795,000; at Dartmouth, for the naval air station, $2,660,000; at Cornwallis $1,345,000; at Sydney, Nova Scotia, $575,000. There are other smaller expenditures, but at St. John's Newfoundland there is an expenditure of $270,000; on the west coast there is an expenditure of $1,985,000 at Esquimau, and for the various naval radio stations the sum of $330,000.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry that inadvertantly we let item 217 pass without asking about aircraft, and I wonder if the minister would be willing to give us some information as to the type of aircraft doing service in the navy, what the proposed expenditure for the fiscal year is and, finally, what naval air reserve squadrons are still operating, if any.


George Randolph Pearkes: The two main types of aircraft are the Banshees and Trackers. Both of these are aircraft which operate from the carrier Bonaventure, but in the case of the Tracker, it does operate from the shore. The Banshees are essentially fighter aircraft with the role of driving off hostile aircraft which might be attacking our own aircraft or even the carrier itself. The Trackers are reconnaissance aircraft to assist the Argus in locating hostile craft. We also have for intercommunication purposes a limited number of helicopters which can be used for transporting personnel from one ship to another. They are capable of landing on our destroyers. I have myself landed on one of the destroyer escorts from a helicopter. They are also invaluable in reconnaissance and anti-submarine work.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not gather which planes are still being delivered or will be delivered during the coming year.


George Randolph Pearkes: The delivery of Trackers has not yet been completed and if I remember accurately we have some 100 of these to be delivered; I am sorry that would be the total, with what we have to date. And in this year's estimates it is shown that $21,570,000 is provided for the Tracker aircraft.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could tell us what the advertising budget was, or would he prefer to deal with it first once for the three services?


George Randolph Pearkes: They are broken down between the services. Last year we reduced the amount of advertising by one-third. That advertising is used for recruiting purposes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister give us the expenditure last year on advertisements placed in other than English or French language papers?


George Randolph Pearkes: The hon. member means foreign languages-ethnic group languages-is that the term? I do not think I have that


information with me. We do engage in a certain amount of advertising in the languages which are used by people who have not been in this country very long and who might be interested. Advertisements are placed in the different papers by agencies with the general principle of getting the greatest value for the amount of money expended.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does that apply to the other
services, too?


George Randolph Pearkes: That applies to all the services. I believe all the services carry on an advertising program to a limited extent, and some of it is done on a tri-service basis in the papers of the ethnic groups.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is an amount in this item of $29 million for the procurement of ships. How much of it is in terms of ships themselves? What ships are involved?


George Randolph Pearkes: With respect to destroyer escorts, in the original program of 14 ships there is still $8 million provided in this year's estimates for that: in the destroyer escorts' new program, that is the repeat Restigouche, the first of which was laid down in Vickers yards early this year, and the second of which is to be laid down this month, there is the sum of $15 million. That embraces all the preliminary work, plan making and that sort of thing, for those ships. There is $2 million for the tanker to which I have referred already. There is $1 million for mechanical equipment for existing ships and for miscellaneous which includes drawings, gear testings, and so forth, $3,280,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister mentioned a figure of $2 million for a tanker which was, of course, included in his annual report. I gather the purpose of this expenditure is to construct a tanker so that our anti-submarine vessels can remain for a longer time at sea; but since our naval strength in the Atlantic is so closely integrated with that of the United States under NATO command, would it not have been possible to accomplish the same purpose by the utilization of United States tanker strength-and there must be a very considerable amount of that-which could have been made available to Canadian naval vessels without going to the expense of building a naval tanker of our own at a cost of $2 million.


George Randolph Pearkes: Under the general nature of the plans these ships on the Atlantic, as the hon. gentleman knows, come under the operational command of SACLANT in the event of hostilities breaking out. First, each nation provides its own logistic support. It is quite possible, in the event of hostilities breaking out, there might be a pooling of the support.

The plan of program at the present time is that each nation should supply its own logistic support.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, in May, I think it was, I asked a question with reference to the sale by the Department of National Defence of a parcel of land for the purpose of building a shopping centre. The minister replied that it had been sold without tenders being called. The reference may be found in Hansard of May 6, 1959. The minister told us that 4.8 acres had been sold for $8,500. In reply to a later question of mine he informed the house that tenders were not called. The answer further said that the reason for this most unusual way of doing business was that a contract had been let with the purchaser for the construction of a shopping centre according to the specifications set by the Department of National Defence. I wonder whether the minister will explain the details of this transaction, what the specifications for the shopping centre are and the present state of the project?


George Randolph Pearkes: The answer that I gave on the occasion that the hon. gentleman referred to was that in September, 1958 the company came forward with a proposal to erect a shopping centre on this particular parcel of land, and that was after many years, or some considerable time, of endeavours to try and get a shopping centre built in this area for the convenience of the personnel there.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I know the minister does not want to be unfair. Previous efforts had been made to have a shopping centre built on leased land.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is right. Efforts had been made by the previous government and every effort had been made to provide this facility but without success, I am afraid. This was the first opportunity which looked promising and since there had not been anybody else coming forward to offer to build this structure, the arrangements were made with this particular company and sale was recommended of the land on the understanding that it would be used solely for the development of a shopping centre for the benefit of the naval personnel in that area.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What is the state of the development at the present time?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am afraid the progress has not been very satisfactory and I do not think the actual building is started even now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister aware that the company to which it was sold has filed notice of bankruptcy?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have been so informed.
66968-9-345J
Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has the land been deeded to that company by the Minister of National Defence or is title still held by the crown?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am informed that the crown is fully protected in this case.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the crown is protected, it still has title to the land and it will be able to make some other arrangement for the construction of a shopping centre on that site.


George Randolph Pearkes: We hope to review the whole situation and hope that it will be possible yet to make arrangements for the construction of a shopping centre on that site because it is urgently needed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister care to inquire into the situation and give us a report as soon as he can as to the present state of affairs and as to how soon those arrangements can be made to let someone else undertake the project if they are willing to do so?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am afraid I have no more information other than what I have given the hon. gentleman. We will keep this matter under very careful advisement and I hope that a satisfactory solution will be reached in the not too distant future. Beyond that I cannot go.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian army-
219.	Operation and maintenance, $357,913,000.
Harold Edward Winch: On this item having to do with operation and maintenance of the Canadian army, I should like to say first of all perhaps I made a mistake when I said the government has no defence policy. They must have some policy or they would not have this estimate. Perhaps I should change what I said and say that Canada has no defence.
As I said yesterday, I was most interested in the remarks of the Minister of National Defence on the introduction of his estimates. I was perhaps more interested in the answers he gave last night to the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition, myself and others. Because of his answers I believe we are entitled to ask the Minister of National Defence under this vote-not only entitled to ask but we should ask-what is the defence of Canada as far as the armed services are concerned?
From everything we heard yesterday and today from the Minister of National Defence our defence is that we are not going to face a war between 1960 and 1965. We are going to spend hundreds of millions and billions of dollars on all forms of offensive and defensive weapons, but everything that the



S434 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Defence government is now planning and doing is based upon production in 1961, 1962 and 1965. What the situation will be then we do not know. If we go back over the last few years we know that we have always faced the threat of war. I am going to be quite honest. If war is going to come there will not be six months, one year or five years notice of a war.
What intrigues me under this vote is the mobility of our Canadian army. Two years ago in an emergency the mobility of the Canadian forces was such that the R.C.A.F. could not move 133 militia personnel from St. John's to Petawawa. They could not do it in an emergency. What was the emergency? The men would not go on a certain type of plane and because they would not go on a certain type of plane the R.C.A.F. could not move these 133 men from St. John's to Petawawa as equipment was not available.
I think I heard the minister correctly last night and I think I have read what he said correctly. Dealing with the active armed forces in Canada, he said that we could not move one battalion with all its equipment in an emergency. What is a battalion? A battalion consists of not more than 1,000 men. So after $1J billion and $2 billion a year over the years having been spent by this government and the previous government, right now in 1959 the Minister of National Defence says that in this day of possible spark war and fast moving emergency we cannot move one battalion with its equipment by air. We cannot move a battalion of
1,000	men.
Again, if I heard the minister correctly and read what he said correctly the minister said last night in reply to the Leader of the Opposition that it would take a long time and over $300 million before we would be able to make a brigade immediately mobile in Canada. With all the money, all the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars that have been spent by the Canadian taxpayers, do you, sir, understand why I now direct a question to the Minister of National Defence when he stands up in the House of Commons and says that not until the end of this year or until the beginning of 1960 can we even move a battalion of 1,000 men in Canada, with their equipment, and that not even consideration has been given to the possibility of moving a brigade?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the minister can look up because I heard what he said last night and as I could not believe his statement I read it again this morning in Hansard. He said that it will be the end of this year before the R.C.A.F. will be able to move a battalion with its equipment. Am I wrong? No. For what have we been spending these
[Mr. Winch.l
[Stage Direction]
hundreds of millions and billions of dollars when we will not be able before the end of this year or the beginning of next to move
1.000	men of the armed forces with their equipment?
George Randolph Pearkes: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would give me the page from which he is quoting?


Harold Edward Winch: I do not have it right in front of me at the moment. I will produce it. I know it is there. The minister said a battalion and a battalion is 1,000 men. A battalion is
1.000	men, is it not? The minister also made a statement about the cost of moving a brigade with all its equipment.
But the most important thing to me at least is the matter of a Canadian mobile force available to the United Nations as a police force. I want to say to the Minister of National Defence that I was most disappointed, in fact almost heartbroken, with what he had to say last night in that there has been no request made for Canada to do this. How long would it take Canada to answer a request if it ever came? The answer there is clear. The only time a request was ever made to Canada was when a speech was made about the Middle East situation by the man who is now the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition at the time he was secretary of state for external affairs, and for which he got the Nobel prize.
What happened then? On the request being made to Canada, Canada made an immediate answer but how fast could we get the police force into the Middle East? With all the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent, do you know what we had to do in order to be able to send a battalion into the Middle East? We could not move them by air; we could not move them by ship. We had to spend thousands of dollars to dismantle an aircraft carrier and convert it into a troop ship to get this force to the Middle East. This took six weeks; that is right, and you all know it.
This was an example of our efficiency. This was an example of our preparation for an emergency. We had to take the Magnificent- I think that was the name of the ship-strip it and convert our only aircraft carrier into a troop ship. It took us six weeks to answer a request of the United Nations to send a force to the Middle East. Then, of course, we had to re-equip the aircraft carrier, that is convert it from a troop carrier to an aircraft carrier and then return it to the country from which we borrowed it.
This is a matter of record. What is our position now, as outlined by the minister? I should like to say to the Minister of National Defence that the greatest contribution Canada

could make would be not to wait until the United Nations has to call upon us as a result of a local war, and then be delayed because we have no air transport, until we have to change an aircraft carrier; our job I feel is to have a force, equipped and mobile, that can answer immediately an appeal by the United Nations. I have no hesitation at all in saying that from the record of Canada and from the statement concerning the condition of our armed forces and their mobility as given by the Minister of National Defence, there should be a transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars, which is proposed to be spent on something that cannot be of any assistance to Canada at all, to something that would make the Canadian military forces completely mobile and completely equipped. They would then be able to answer immediately a call from the United Nations and be in a position to make a contribution to a world police force in order to maintain world peace.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to have the opportunity of referring the hon. gentleman to page 5392 of Hansard from which he will see quite clearly that I made no such statement that we could not move a battalion. I was referring to a brigade, and a brigade is somewhere around 5,500 troops, while a battalion is less than 1,000 troops. It is a question of being able to lift a battalion, with all their equipment at one time.


Harold Edward Winch: That is what I said, a battalion with all its equipment.


George Randolph Pearkes: As soon as the new aircraft are delivered, and that should be this year, we should be able to move without any difficulty a whole battalion with its equipment at one airlift.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry to interrupt but I said that you said until we get that equipment we could not move a battalion with all its equipment. We cannot now move a battalion with all its equipment with our present air force.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think it might be of some interest to the hon. gentleman, since he was talking about the Middle East, to give some idea-


Harold Edward Winch: Am I correct in my statement?
I said we could not move a whole battalion with all its equipment.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does the hon. member mind if I finish this statement? In order to give him some idea of the amount of transportation which is carried out in that area by transport command I would say that last year transport command flew, outbound from Canada to Egypt, 1,645 passengers and cargo
Supply-National Defence amounting to 469,769 pounds. In addition to that there is continual transport going on of personnel and material between Canada and Langar in the United Kingdom and to our forces in Europe. Most of the personnel from our forces in Europe, who are single men, are transported in the aircraft of transport command. There is a like movement of personnel and material across Canada, to say nothing of the airlift of supplies to NATO and to the Arctic which is carried out by transport command.
All these aircraft could be made available in an emergency in order to move a specified force to any part of the world. We have not got, and I am not pretending to say we have, enough transport in the R.C.A.F. to be able to move a brigade although we could now, if we cancelled other operations, move a battalion. I pointed out, as mentioned in the white paper, how we are increasing transport command because I have recognized the desirability of having additional transport to supplement the Dakotas and North Stars that we have. We are getting these new 106's, which are heavy transports; the new 109 medium transport and the new Albatross SA-16B, and that is going to materially improve our ability for transporting troops.
When an emergency arises you have to take emergency measures. A few years ago when a sudden emergency came upon the government of the day a decision was made to use this ship of the Royal Canadian Navy to transport personnel to the Near East. This was an emergency move. There were not the ordinary transport vessels available at the time and probably the most economical way of loading these troops was to send them via the aircraft carrier because they could put on the decks of the aircraft carrier the vehicles they needed.


Harold Edward Winch: This is getting somewhat ridiculous and I hope I am not the one to make it worse. We have been listening now for two days to the story of the Minister of National Defence about the potentialities of a new war, about how it will strike without notice, how we are obliged to rely on our D.E.W. line and how it is only a worry of the United States. But if this war is going to
come just like that-and I snap my fingers__
without notice and nobody knows when it may come, whether tomorrow or ten years from now; and in view of the fact that the minister himself is saying that is the reason he is asking for all these hundreds of millions of dollars, just how much sense does he think he makes in what he has just now said? If it occurs tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, he could
543G	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence not move one thousand men with their equipment from Ottawa to Vancouver or from Vancouver to Ottawa. Am I right or wrong?


George Randolph Pearkes: You are wrong.


Harold Edward Winch: He could not move one thousand men immediately.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, it is ridiculous for the hon. gentleman to be making statements like that-


Harold Edward Winch: It is not.


George Randolph Pearkes: -which I am obliged to deny all the time because they are completely inaccurate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could read exactly what the minister said as reported at page 5392 of Hansard of yesterday. He said:
We should be able to move one battalion, with Its equipment, in the very near future.
I presume that means that we cannot move one battalion with its equipment now.


Harold Edward Winch: That is exactly what I said.


George Randolph Pearkes: To any place in the world, although those words are not in there. We can move them from here to Vancouver and we can move them by calling upon aircraft to move those troops. Is it not sensible to encourage commerical aircraft to carry on with their ordinary work? There is no need to have a large number of transport planes tied up when there are commercial planes available in the event of an emergency.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister does not deny the words he used to the effect that he hoped to be able in the near future to move a battalion. That is exactly what I said.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: According to the figures I have here, no funds at all are allotted for tanks and armoured fighting vehicles. Can the minister give us any indication as to when new armoured equipment might be required for our troops overseas or at home?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no requirement for any new heavy armoured vehicles for overseas at the present time. A brigade group with its armoured components is equipped with Centurion tanks and with the Ferret armoured cars. I do not know of any more suitable weapons than those for the type of work that they are carrying on.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I believe a
most important point has been raised in view of the quotation from Hansard by the Leader of the Opposition and the answer of the Minister of National Defence in which for the first time he said that the plan for moving is tied in with the acquisition of commercial aircraft in order to be able to move troops


in an emergency. This is the first time I have heard this phase raised. Will the minister now-and I think it is a matter of the utmost importance-tell us what is the direct arrangement or what is the tie-in between his department, the army, the air force and all commercial airlines whereby in an emergency they can be called in for the transportation of troops and equipment? The minister just made it clear now that he is in the position that he hopes to be able to move a battalion. But now we hope we will do it by the use and co-operation of commercial airlines. What now is the tie-in between the army, the navy and the commercial airlines so that in an emergency they immediately come under the army or the R.C.A.F.?


George Randolph Pearkes: The hon. gentleman suggests that for the first time arrangements are being made for commercial transport to move personnel and supplies of the armed forces; but that is not correct. During the Korean war C.P.A. were moving them continually-


Harold Edward Winch: I mean in an emergency.


George Randolph Pearkes: -and also during the construction of the D.E.W. line; and in the supplying each year of the northern stations commercial planes are used. We can make agreements any time with the commercial companies to hire planes or charter them or, if necessary, we could requisition them. As far as the air force transport command is concerned, we have two squadrons of what are known as the Flying Boxcars which take heavy equipment and are able to carry out a great deal of supply work; and there is a tremendous amount of supply work going on for our northern stations.
In addition to that, we have the long range North Star aircraft carrying out every week flights from Canada to Europe in order to supply the personnel that are there. We have those facilities. At any time in the case of an emergency civilian aircraft could be brought in if we did not have enough of our own transport. But in addition to all of that, we are augmenting our transport command this year by the type of aircraft that I have mentioned half a dozen times during this debate. The first of those new aircraft will be available this year, in which case we will be able to move a complete battalion, with all its equipment, without interfering with any of the other services. We could move them today if we were prepared to suspend some of the other operations which we are normally carrying out and we would suspend those operations in an emergency if we had to make every R.C.A.F. plane available.


Harold Edward Winch: Then I was correct. You cannot yet move a complete battalion on your own without any suspension of other operations.


George Randolph Pearkes: I just said that we can move a whole battalion if we suspended other normal operations which consist in the movement of personnel overseas and the replenishing of the brigade which is now in Europe and the air division which is there. Those are normal operations which go on. But we have not-and I do not think we should have -a large number of aircraft standing by just in the eventuality that the United Nations might find themselves suddenly plunged into some situation demanding that Canada send a brigade somewhere in the world. It is a contingency which is not likely to develop overnight.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I have a report from the Ottawa Journal to the effect that the parliamentary secretary presumptive to the Minister of Finance has criticized the government for granting Major General Plow nine months' leave with pay so that he could qualify for a higher army pension and become lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia. Is the hon. minister aware of this pension being granted to Major General Plow, and has he any comment to make, because after all it is a criticism coming from a member who is pretty close to the government. He was last year and I suppose he will be next year.


George Randolph Pearkes: The position of lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia became vacant last year, I think it was, and the gentleman who was selected to become the new lieutenant governor, and I might say it was a very popular selection, was Major General Plow, who was at that time in command of the Atlantic area and who was very well known in Nova Scotia. He was granted permission to retire from the army before he had reached the normal retirement age to assume his important position as lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia.


Azellus Denis: Was this pension granted to the major general according to the rules and regulations and the ordinary pension benefits of the armed services? Second, if this criticism by the former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance means he does not approve of the granting of the pension, are his chances to be again nominated as parliamentary assistant reduced or increased?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to read the text of the committee report and not the press report.
Supply-National Defence


Azellus Denis: It is worse. If you read it it is worse.


George Randolph Pearkes: I understand the Auditor General did make some comments in connection with this point.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could the minister give us some information as to the mechanical and armament equipment which is included in the appropriation?


George Randolph Pearkes: Is this item 220?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, 219.


George Randolph Pearkes: This covers mechanically propelled vehicles, mobile engineering equipment, warehouse material, handling equipment and spare parts and accessories for ail components of the Canadian army. The estimates for epuipment under this item are based on the anticipated deliveries of various items, such as trucks, buses, station wagons, vehicle kits, mechanically-propelled equipment and requirements for the northwest highway system which the army has to maintain. In most cases expenditures in 1959-60 will be largely in respect to contracts carried forward from previous years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the minister if he would tell us if there is any proposal to do any paving of the northwest highway?


George Randolph Pearkes: That will come under the other vote, but I can answer the question now. The first 50 miles are being paved and work will be completed this year. It was started a year ago and runs from Dawson Creek up to Fort St. John. The contract has been let for another 35 miles to be paved this year, and I expect the work will be completed next year. That will cover the heavily travelled part of the highway where there is a fairly heavy population of farmers and people connected with the oil wells in that district. It was considered desirable to pave this highway in order to reduce maintenance costs. In addition to that we have made arrangements with the province of British Columbia that when this highway is paved they will take over the responsibility for maintaining it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The cost of the paving is being borne entirely by the federal government?


George Randolph Pearkes: The cost of the paving is being borne by the Department of National Defence, because it was considered essential to do it in order to keep down the ever-increasing cost of maintaining a gravel road.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But it will become to all intents and purposes a part of the provincial highway system once this is done?

Supply-National Defence


George Randolph Pearkes: The province of British
Columbia will take over that portion of the highway which is paved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister consider this a good bargain from the federal standpoint?


George Randolph Pearkes: I certainly do, because the maintenance cost is pretty high on that part of the route.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the decision was made by the previous government.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, on this item I would like to say a few words about the militia. I noticed yesterday when the minister was giving his introductory speech that he mentioned that the reserves and the cadets would cost $53.6 million. I notice in looking at the estimates that as far as the militia is concerned the vote is about $16,600,000. If that is correct, that is just better than 1 per cent of the total expenditure on defence, which I think is very little indeed.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I explain that now? That refers to the pay and allowances. Transportation of the militia, maintenance of their buildings and maintenance of their clothing all comes under the general administration of the army. Where it is shown separately as a militia vote it covers pay and allowances only.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his explanation; I could not reconcile the two figures. I would just like to say that our militia in Canada, in which I have taken considerable interest throughout the years, as many other Canadians have, is our citizen army composed of people willing to give their time and services, people who are carrying on their every day occupations. I know of a good number of people in the district which I have the honour to represent who have given their time and services throughout the years in serving in the militia, I think in many cases without sufficient recognition from those in charge of the regular army, and with very little recognition in many cases on the part of a great many of our people. Personally I consider this a very important part of our defence services.
I would say that the first duty would be home defence. I understand now it will be extended to include a considerable portion of civil defence, and I am sure the reserve army may be used in emergencies and disasters of other types. I think a good many people fail to realize the important part that our militia plays in the defence forces of Canada, and I am just rising to say that I think we should recognize that fact more generally than we do. I know some people who have carried on throughout the years in face of apparently


very little official support and a somewhat looking-down-the-nose attitude on the part of regular army senior officials. At least, that is the impression I have had on a number of occasions.
These people do provide a corps of trained and disciplined local people which could be used for the purposes I have mentioned and as such they are an essential part of our defence force. In my opinion, their services should receive greater consideration. I have been impressed throughout the years by the loyalty of these people who have been asked to carry on a most uninteresting form of training program. I know that in my own district for some years we had anti-aircraft batteries. I do not think the guns were even complete; I think the breach blocks are missing. Just imagine asking young men to come two nights a week to study the operations of a gun which they never fire and which was, I am told, incomplete, and to go through this procedure week after week in addition to a certain amount of other minimum training.
I am very pleased to note that in our district this situation has changed. I understand that the regiment there has light artillery, if I am correctly informed, and that the training syllabus has improved. But I suggest that consideration should be given to making the training course more interesting to the local people, both officers and other ranks, who are interested in serving in the militia. In the district I represent the local officers commanding have done something on their own initiative to correct the situation by carrying out some experimental summer manoeuvers; some trips into the mountains, some reconnaissance work, and activities of that sort. I found, after talking to some of the young men who had taken part in these manoeuvers that they appreciated what had been done and showed considerable increased interest. Also, since this change in the type of militia training has taken place there had been an increase in the number of enlistments, and that flows naturally from providing a more interesting training program in which young people can participate.
I do urge that greater support should be given to the militia, and greater recognition of the services which they have performed. I think the syllabus should provide for an increased number of outdoor manoeuvers. In my opinion the local militia should have a thorough knowledge of the geography of the district in which they reside and for some considerable distance around. I believe that some 50 years ago when the Rocky Mountain Rangers were training, the training syllabus was on that basis. They went on marches in the forest, they did some rough and ready

bridge construction, blazed trails through the forest and things of that sort. I suggest that the training syllabus could be made much more interesting by the incorporation of more outdoor manoeuvers enabling people to get to know the geography of the country well, its valleys, mountains, unexplored areas, and so on.
I suggest, also, that there should be more physical training in the program; interesting physical training, not just forming fours in a squad inside an armoury. And I further recommend that a great deal more could be done with respect to map and compass reading, which is a very useful study for any young man and one very necessary to travellers in a country such as ours. I make these few suggestions as a result of a continuing interest in and observation of the activities of the militia units in our district for a number of years. My dad belonged to the Rocky Mountain Rangers.
My final point is this: is the local unit now a successor to the original 54th Kootenay Battalion which was an outgrowth of the Rocky Mountain Rangers? I think it is very worth while to perpetuate the names of the units which have served this country so well overseas. With these few remarks, coming from an amateur and a backwoodsmen and a peasant farmer, I ask the minister, in all sincerity, to be good enough to look into this question about the 54th Kootenay Battalion.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to extend my thanks, first of all, to the hon. gentleman for his remarks and for his continued interest in the militia. And I should like to extend these thanks beyond the hon. member who has just spoken to the very large number of members in this house who do take a keen interest in their own militia units. I believe in those units maintaining their territorial and local connections and the traditions of the units which have preceded them in each particular area. We are making a practice of passing on the battle honours which have been gained by their predecessors operating perhaps under a different name and perhaps with different equipment but, nevertheless, units drawn from a distinct area with all the proud traditions of people who have served in that area before.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I, too, should like to pay tribute to the wonderful work which has been done by the militia throughout the years. As you know, Toronto has been the bulwark of many of the most famous and most illustrious regiments of this great land. Just this week we had a ceremony in front of the exhibition grounds in that city in which the 48th Highlanders of Canada trooped the colour resplendant in their scarlet
Private Bills
uniforms, putting on a show which was magnificent and outstanding in every respect. I think they deserve the honour of a tribute from all who had the pleasure of witnessing both their parades at home and of being grateful for their services overseas during two world wars. Like other Toronto units, they have distinguished themselves on the field of battle and won for themselves many battle honours.
I think it would be unfortunate if this great reserve stream of potential strength were to be diluted or materially diminished. We have been proud of the fact that during two world wars these units provided the nucleus of officers and men around which our armies grew to the proportions necessary to ensure victory, and although it is true that in the concept of modern nuclear warfare it would be impossible to get them battle-trained and ready, as troops must be, to participate from the outset it is not beyond possibility that they could be used again in an encounter of a limited or local nature. Indeed, the suggestion has been made that the militia in this country could be strengthened and trained to a point where, in the light of the air portability which the minister told us he intended to provide, they could be transported anywhere in the world at very short notice. This prospect would give them incentive and encouragement to carry on and I hope the minister will do everything in his power to encourage a continuation of the wonderful contributions they have made throughout the years.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall this item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Charles Edward Rea: It being five o'clock, pursuant to standing order 15 I do now leave the chair.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether we might take private bills and then, I believe, we probably could obtain the consent of the whole house to forgo the rest of the private members' hour and return to the discussion of the estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we dispose of one private bill and then get the will of the house on the other matter?
(Translation):



DESJARDINS MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

Mr. Noel Dorion (Bellechasse) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-29 to incorporate the Desjardins Life Insurance Company.

Private Bills
He said: The essential purpose of this bill is to grant a federal charter to a company already registered under the provincial laws of Quebec and to give it the name of L'Assur-ance-Vie Desjardins or Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company. That is the object and the purpose of the legislation before us, as clearly implied in section 10.
Of course, this being a private bill, its second reading would not necessarily mean that the house would approve its principle; it would simply allow us to refer this legislation to the standing committee on banking and commerce where hon. members may obtain from the sponsors and their solicitors any information required to enlighten them and to help them form an opinion on the scope and effect of the bill. This rule, Mr. Speaker, will dispense me with going into all the details and making a long speech.
I would however fail in my duty if I were to leave it at that and not take this opportunity of saying a few words about the eminently beneficial work carried out by this mutual company whose wish it has been to include in its designation the very name of its founder, Mr. Alphonse Desjardins.
Mr. Desjardins who, from 1892 to 1917, was editor of Debates at the Quebec Legislature, and then, from 1917 to 1921, parliamentary reporter in this very house, was a pioneer of the co-operative movement in Quebec and in Canada as a whole.
It was following a debate on an act directed against usury that he conceived the idea of taking practical steps to fight the ravages of usury by developing a system of "caisses populaires" (credit unions).
In a most fascinating small pamphlet, which is a sort of tribute to the vision which characterized Desjardins, the hon. Senator Vaillancourt, his successor and one of the sponsors of this bill, writes in detail about the singularly difficult start of that institution which, today, extends its benefits not only to the territory of Quebec, but also to many places in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New York state.
In brief, what Mr. Desjardins wanted, what he tried to promote and what he obtained by his forceful courage and perseverance, was to develop in his associates a spirit of mutual help by applying the co-operative formula, the only one by which it is possible to fight efficiently against the danger of monopolies and powerful financial interests. He thus succeeded, by the organic bonds of a cooperative institution, in developing popular thrift and to organize it so as to satisfy the

people's need for credit. Indeed, the "caisse populaire" (credit union) has been defined as an association of people who save money in a spirit of mutual trust for the purpose of enjoying personal credit at low cost.
To this institution were gradually added various services designed to ensure the security of mutualists and their families, and this led in 1948 to the founding, through a statute of the province of Quebec, of the Desjardins Life Insurance Company, of which the proposed company is to be nothing more than an extension. This new company will enable it to extend protection not only to mutualist members of credit unions in the provinces where the provincial company can legally operate, but also to those of other provinces where a federal charter is required to carry out insurance operations.
Mr. Speaker, this concludes my rather awkward summary of the background, purpose and effect of the bill now before the house. In approving this bill, my hon. colleagues will not only be rendering a service to the community, but will also be working for the good of Canada. There could be no better conclusion to my remarks than this quotation from a speech delivered at Quebec in 1908, by Mr. Desjardins himself, in which he emphasized the educational value of his works:
You want to help your fellow man? I can only commend you for It. I think in promoting the virtue of thrift, in favouring its expansion, in setting up new institutions to channel the savings and make them profit, and at the same time in fighting improvidence, extravagance, luxury and perhaps intemperance, as well as many other costly habits which absorb a frightful proportion of our daily earnings, indeed in fighting usury, you can be of tremendous help to your fellow beings, and who knows, you may be helping yourselves.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to forgo the remainder of this hour and return to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to unanimous
agreement the house will now assume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

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

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Canadian army-
219. Operation and maintenance, $357,913,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether in the organization of the army there is any provision made or any expenditures of any kind allocated for a possible expeditionary force?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no special allocation of funds for what one might call an expeditionary force in the usual meaning of that term. We do, I think, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, maintain one battalion in a higher state of readiness than others so that it might be able to meet any emergency which might develop.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I know that. I was wondering whether there was any provision made, and I am not suggesting that there should be; I think it would be a waste of money to provide for a division or a corps organization overseas.


George Randolph Pearkes: None at all. We do not picture that as being a likely type of employment of the Canadian armed forces.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With reference to the militia, I wonder whether the minister can tell us what relation the changes proposed this year have to the Kennedy report, and whether he still maintains the opinion which he held a couple of years ago with respect to the Kennedy report and its implementation?


George Randolph Pearkes: Which Kennedy report is the hon. member referring to?


John Whitney Pickersgill: General Howard Kennedy.


George Randolph Pearkes: The one which dealt with the re-organization of the militia three or four years ago? That has been reviewed and some of the recommendations have been implemented. As to others, changed conditions have altered the requirements which were then advanced in the report.


Mr. Nielsen:: May I ask the minister one or two questions concerning the northwest highway system? First, it is my understanding that responsibility for the highway now rests with the Department of National Defence through international agreement with the United States. I am wondering whether, if and when the highway is transferred to British Columbia upon completion of the paving, the transfer will be subject to the terms of the agreement with the United States.
The second question concerns my fear that once the road becomes the property of British Columbia it may be that it will become subject also to any tolls and taxes which may be levied on other provincial roads. This, of course, is very important to those engaged
Supply-National Defence in mining operations in the Yukon, particularly marginal operations, and should such tolls be imposed it may very well mean the difference between a marginal mine coming into production or closing down.
The third question I wish to ask the minister concerns continuing responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the northwest highway system. Is it the intention of the government to leave this responsibility with the Department of National Defence rather than transferring it to any other government department or agency?
The fourth question concerns the installations of the Department of National Defence in the city of Whitehorse. As the minister is fully aware, there is a rapidly growing problem in the city in finding adequate space for enlarging residential and commercial construction. A large part of the city of Whitehorse is, of course, taken up by national defence installations and the sooner the army finds an alternative acceptable to themselves the sooner the city of Whitehorse will have this land available which is very necessary to orderly expansion and proper town planning. Can the minister indicate what the future plans of the department are in this connection?


George Randolph Pearkes: In answer to the first question, the international agreement will be maintained. Consideration will be given to the hon. gentleman's remarks regarding tolls and when the agreement is drawn up with the British Columbia government that matter will receive consideration. It is the intention of the government at least for the present to leave the administration of the highway system in the hands of the Department of National Defence. With regard to the installations at Whitehorse, a review is now taking place with respect to a reorganization of the administration and of the buildings which are required in order to meet modern conditions, which have changed so much in the last few years. I hope that it will be possible within the next few months to complete the reorganization of the administration of this system and to firm up plans for the accommodation which is required.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the minister for his answers to my questions. May I conclude by saying that I would not want to leave the impression that the residents of Whitehorse do not wish to continue to see the army there. We are very grateful for the addition they have made to the economy of Whitehorse. I am sure there is alternative available land close by which would be

Supply-National Defence eminently suitable. I hope that these alternatives will be considered in the reorganization of the administration of which the minister speaks.


Harold Edward Winch: On the same question may I say that I honestly believe that the Alaska highway should be part of the British Columbia highway system and I think that eventually it will be. I do not think I need to add this word of warning but nevertheless I should like to do so. If there should be any consideration of turning the Alaska highway over to the British Columbia highway system, and I hope that will eventually come, and if the same government is in power that we have today, then for heaven's sake do not close your eyes because if you do there will be a toll on the highway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister tell the committee in a very summary fashion what army establishments there are in the province of Newfoundland, where they are situated and what accommodation they have?


George Randolph Pearkes: The main army installation in Newfoundland is at St. John's which is the headquarters for the area. For the moment I have forgotten the name of the park in which it is located. I am sure the hon. gentleman can remember. That is the headquarters of the Newfoundland area. The Newfoundland area embraces the whole of the province of Newfoundland and is a subordinate command to the Atlantic command stationed in Halifax.
There are a number of militia units in Newfoundland of which, of course, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment is the historic regiment of the province. It has various companies stationed in the different centres of Newfoundland where they are provided with such accommodation as may be readily available. There are also a few artillery batteries, a field regiment and some engineers in the province. I think that is a general description of the situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am interested in a little more than a general description of the accommodation. Can the minister tell me precisely in what places in Newfoundland the army has accommodation and what the general nature of the accommodation is in each of those places?


George Randolph Pearkes: I will get that very shortly.


Erik Nielsen: I rise simply to disagree with the hon. member for Vancouver East when he suggests that the Alaska highway should logically become part of the highway system of British Columbia. We in the Yukon like to think that eventually we will achieve provincial status and we anticipate that at 

that time we will be fully capable of looking after the road ourselves, although that may be many years in the future. Until that time I feel that the responsibility should remain with the federal government as it is now.


Harold Edward Winch: I thought you were going to join British Columbia.


Erik Nielsen: Never.


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps we ought to join the Yukon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A few weeks ago the minister favoured the external affairs committee of the other place with his views on some aspects of defence policy. He must have been affected by the serenity that prevails there because I thought that his views were extraordinarily optimistic. I would ask him to comment for our benefit on this statement, found in the Globe and Mail of May 29:
-NATO members have a moral responsibility to live up to their commitments unless they are freed by the other members.
We have accepted certain military commitments, certain army commitments as well as air force commitments, to NATO. I wonder whether the minister means by that statement that the only way, in his view, in which we could alter this commitment would be by a decision of the NATO council, because while I am not disputing the validity of that view-if a collective security system is going to work, it has to be collective enough that decisions cannot be normally permitted if they interfere with the collective action which is required-certainly all other members of NATO have not displayed that high standard of collective responsibility and respect for national commitments which the minister suggests in this report should be shown by Canada. I wonder if he would like to comment upon it because it is an important matter in case we wish to modify our commitments under NATO in the future so that we could take on other commitments in the collective interest besides NATO, perhaps on this continent?


George Randolph Pearkes: As the Leader of the Opposition well knows, the discussions at the various meetings of the NATO council are carried out in camera and the press is not present. The council of the group of ministers issues a press release at the conclusion of these meetings. I think the best answer I can give him is to quote from the release which was made in April of this year. I am only quoting part of it:
The ministers-
Here, that refers to the ministers of defence of the NATO countries.

-heard full and valuable reports by the military committee, the standing group and the supreme allied commanders on the present state of the forces of the alliance, on the progressive introduction of the most modern weapons and equipment and on the forces needed for NATO defence in the years ahead. They also heard progress reports on projects initiated by the heads of government in December. On the basis of those reports, a most useful discussion took place between the ministers and the NATO military authorities.
Then, they went on to say that they confirmed their support of the basic NATO strategy for the preservation of peace and for the defence of member countries. This defensive strategy continues to be founded on the concept of a strong deterrent comprising the shield, with its conventional and nuclear elements, and the nuclear retaliatory forces. In other words, the requirements that the military commanders felt were necessary were explained to the ministers of defence, and these general proposals were confirmed by the meeting of the heads of government previously. Now, having these general proposals and general requirements confirmed by the heads of government, it seems to me it would not be quite honourable for a country to alter those agreed requirements without informing the other members of the alliance.
This is what I meant in the remarks that I made to the committee of the other place. I had no script, and I cannot remember exactly the words that I used. I did not quote, as I have quoted here, but I thought there might be a question on this subject so I had this final press release brought down this afternoon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am glad to have the minister's explanation of this particular report which goes considerably further than he has gone today in his considered statement of the nature of our obligations as a NATO member in respect of the commitment we have accepted. The statement in the press which I have just read says that there must be agreement before a national commitment can be altered. The minister has now said that it would not be honourable, and I agree with him, to alter a commitment of this kind without informing the other members of the council, presumably so that there could be a discussion. As a matter of fact, this is how it has been done in the case of the United Kingdom when they wished to alter the commitment which they had accepted. There was a discussion in the appropriate NATO organ, but that is not the procedure that has always been adopted in all cases in NATO.
However, the minister is also reported as having said in this meeting in the other place that any Russian attack in Europe could be forced to pause by the NATO shield forces
Supply^N ational Defence which would use tactical nuclear weapons. I should like to ask him this question, whether he feels that our brigade group equipment in Europe is of a type now which would permit us to play our part in that operation, if it ever had to be undertaken? I am thinking particularly of the Lacrosse surface-to-surface missile of which the minister has spoken and which he says is shortly to be made available to the brigade. Has there been any progress in actually making that missile, which I believe can be used conventionally or in a nuclear way, available to the troops, and is there any other equipment which is required by the brigade to carry out this undertaking which is not now available to the brigade?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is money provided in the estimates for the initial procurement of this Lacrosse weapon. It is still undergoing tests, and it is expected that these will have been completed by this September. Our position in connection with the requirements of this Lacrosse is unchanged. We believe it will materially strengthen the powers of resistance of the brigade which is now in Europe.
As other more advanced equipment becomes available I hope we shall take advantage of that and we intend to keep that brigade fully equipped and operational. I have referred already this afternoon to the tests which are being carried out in connection with the personnel carrier, which would be armoured, and I hope that those prove successful.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the minister says that any Russian attack in Europe could be forced to pause by the NATO shield forces, which would use tactical nuclear weapons, he is referring, I take it, to such weapons in the hands, not of the Canadian brigade at the present time but other components of the shield forces, particularly the United States?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct; we have no nuclear weapons at the present time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is there any additional equipment which the minister feels the brigade group should have within the next one, two or three years in order to make it more effective in its NATO shield role?


George Randolph Pearkes: The brigade is well equipped. If there is any new equipment developed, I hope we will be in a position to acquire it and to place it at the disposal of the brigade. I cannot think at the moment of any equipment which is readily available today which the brigade needs in order to carry out its role, and which it has not got at the present time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister tell the committee whether there are non-Canadian personnel on the strength of the brigade group

Supply-National Defence in Germany? If so, roughly what proportion of the total strength would be represented by them?


George Randolph Pearkes: As to being on the strength of the brigade group, may I say that there are some liaison officers attached to the brigade group. They are very few in number. Would the Leader of the Opposition be referring to civilian personnel who are employed? There are a number of German civilians employed and there might be a few men who have enlisted into the Canadian forces and who have not Canadian citizenship. No doubt he will remember that some Dutch bandsmen were engaged on certain special terms a few years ago. There might be some of those.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is what I was thinking of. I read a report the other day which surprised me because it showed that a relatively high percentage of the United States NATO forces in Germany were non-Americans, were Germans. I wondered whether there were many German civilians on duty working with the brigade group and how many Germans had been enlisted into the Canadian brigade group who are not now Canadian citizens.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not think we are enlisting any men of German nationality into the brigade in Germany, nor do we send over with the brigade any Germans who have not become Canadian citizens. I do not think there are very many, if any, who are nonCanadian citizens other than those who have been specially enlisted as bandsmen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it not true that there are a considerable number of immigrants- I do not know how large the number is- who have enlisted in the Canadian army here in Canada, who have not yet become Canadian citizens and who have been dispatched overseas in the ordinary course of their service? As the minister will probably recall, when he was in the opposition and I was still a member of the government I sponsored certain amendments to the Citizenship Act to make special provision for cases of persons of that sort counting their service overseas as a residence in Canada for the purpose of getting citizenship. While most of those amendments related to the wives of servicemen acquired while they were over there, there was also provision for what I am told were not actually isolated cases but a certain number of cases of immigrants to Canada who had enlisted in the forces and who had in fact gone overseas.


George Randolph Pearkes: Those are the type to which I have been referring. They consist mainly of a few bandsmen who have been enlisted.

There are some immigrants to Canada who have enlisted here in the services and have perhaps returned to Europe with their units but they would not include-and care has been exercised that they do not include-any immigrants or any enlisted men of German nationality.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But there might well be persons of other European nationality?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes; of course there are very few.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And perhaps there are British subjects who are not Canadian citizens.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall vote 219 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister as yet obtained the information he was going to give me? I have one or two questions I wish to base on it.


George Randolph Pearkes: About what?


John Whitney Pickersgill: About the accommodations in Newfoundland.


George Randolph Pearkes: That information has not come over from national defence headquarters as yet. We shall have to check on the matter. I shall be pleased to give it to my hon. friend.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could ask one or two questions now. It might perhaps facilitate matters.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will recall that when we were still in office property was acquired in Newfoundland in St. John's on which an armoury was to be built. Has any further progress been made in respect of this armoury? As the minister will realize, ten years and more have now elapsed since Newfoundland became a province of Canada. There has never been an armoury in what is now one of the larger cities of Canada. I cannot imagine that there is any other provincial capital that does not have an armoury. It seems to me that this is something that might reasonably be done even though perhaps, by a strict counting of heads, a stronger case might conceivably be made for some other place.
I know I discussed this matter with the minister's predecessor shortly before he ceased to occupy the position now occupied by the minister and I, not for the first time, pressed this argument fairly strongly upon him. He acquired the land and he gave me every reason to hope that if the public had favoured us a little bit more in 1957 the armoury would have been started by this time. I hope the minister-whose party were

quite successful in the city of St. John's as he will recall-has been receiving similar representations from his colleague in the cabinet from Newfoundland, and that his colleague will be successful in giving quarters to the Newfoundland regiment which I am sure the minister thinks they have every right to have.
Then it has been drawn to my attention that facilities ought to be provided by the department in Gander for the militia. Gander is not precisely in my constituency. It is five miles away. It is in the constituency of my friend the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador who intended to make this appeal himself. However, he understood that we were not going to be on the estimates between five o'clock and six o'clock and he is carrying out another engagement at the moment. In making this appeal with respect to Gander I am speaking on his behalf even more than on my own, although in my constituency there are people who would be interested in having these facilities provided in Gander.
As the minister knows, Gander is a growing community. It is a community in which, by the nature of its population, it seems to me it would be a great encouragement if something of this sort could be provided. I observe that my friend the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has just taken his seat in the chamber. I am sure he would say something in support of this appeal because I know he has some knowledge of the need for good accommodation for the militia in Newfoundland, both at St. John's and at Gander.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have visited both the units referred to in St. John's and in Gander. I regret to say that in the estimates this year there is no item for an armoury at either place. At St. John's they train in the area in a drill hall there and have other accommodation provided which, while it may not be considered ideal, is adequate for the moment. In Gander they are occupying temporary quarters provided, I think, by the Department of Transport.


Chesley William Carter: May I ask the minister this question? Has land not already been acquired in St. John's for an armoury?


George Randolph Pearkes: I believe land has been
acquired in St. John's but in this year's estimates there is no provision for the construction of the building.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say just a word on that matter. The minister will, of course, have been in the house from time to time when we have had discussions about the state of employment and he will undoubtedly be aware of the rather markedly
Supply

National Defence heavier incidence of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces-particularly in the province of Newfoundland-than in other parts of the country. I was hoping that perhaps the minister might get a certain amount of sympathy from some of his colleagues if he took this aspect of things into account as well as the purely military aspect in relation particularly to the situation in St. John's and Gander.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my words of support to what my colleague from Bonavista-Twillingate has said respecting the need for an armoury at St. John's. We have the Newfoundland regiment, which is a very proud regiment with a very old tradition, and it does not have proper accommodation for its requirements. Newfoundland is the only province in Canada, I believe, which has not been provided with an armoury and proper facilities.
With respect to the employment picture, I have just looked at one of our latest papers in the reading room and there was an article to the effect that we still have 40,000 people out of work. Approximately 10 per cent of our population is still out of work, and here we are well advanced into 1959. That points to the need for a works program particularly during the winter months, and I do hope the minister will be able to persuade his colleagues that this would be a very worthy project to undertake this winter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there was one other question I forgot to put with regard to Newfoundland. Could the minister say whether there are any army establishments in any part of Labrador?


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not think there are any army establishments owned by the Department of National Defence there, but there may be some rented buildings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The R.C.A.F. is the only part of the forces at Goose Bay?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister tell us if the Toronto University avenue armouries, the long time and proud home of the great Toronto regiments and units, has been disposed of?


George Randolph Pearkes: Arrangements have been
made with the city of Toronto for those armouries to be vacated by December, 1960. Other armouries will be constructed to accommodate the units, the idea being to move those units from the central part of Toronto and to disperse them into the suburbs and residential areas of Toronto so that they will be available for recruiting purposes, training purposes and also more likely to be out of

Supply-National Defence a target area and therefore more conveniently situated in the event of its being necessary for those units to carry out survival operations.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell us what the terms of the sale were?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the price was $2 million.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could say if just one new armoury will be constructed, or does he plan to build more than one?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is intended to have more than one medium sized armoury.


Mr. McGee:: I wonder if the minister could tell the committee if any final decision has been reached as to the location of the proposed armoury in the Scarborough area?


George Randolph Pearkes: A property for the armoury in North York has been expropriated and an option has been obtained for another site in Toronto. Efforts are being made to find a suitable site in Scarborough.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand from what the minister said that the sale of the University avenue armoury was an outright sale and did not include, as was the proposal of the previous government, the transfer to the Department of National Defence by the metropolitan corporation of the sites necessary for the new armouries?


George Randolph Pearkes: The agreement, as far as I can remember, was an outright sale and the city of Toronto has been co-operating in every way to help us acquire the other sites.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Are these proposed new
armouries the standard variety, or are they larger than the standard variety?


George Randolph Pearkes: There are several standard sizes of armouries. These will be armouries to accommodate two major units, and there is a standard armoury for that type of requirement.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: How many units are there in Toronto altogether?


George Randolph Pearkes: I could not tell you how many units there are in Toronto altogether because there are quite a number of comparatively small units of a technical nature.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it the intention that a number of units will use the same armouries? That is to say, more than two?


George Randolph Pearkes: The idea is that two major units will utilize the new armouries. Each new armoury, that is. It may be necessary to have some small unit attached to one of the major units.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the minister realizes that there are considerably more units in Toronto than would be accommodated by this proposal. Is it the intention that the messes will be joint messes for all units using the particular armoury, or will the units have their own messes as they do at present?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the standard plans provide for one general mess room which can be used by any unit using the armoury, with anterooms for each particular unit.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could tell us how the army installations at Gage-town are coming along, whether they are complete yet, or what units remain to be built there?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the installations for the units are very nearly complete. There is still work to be done on the married quarters. There is not a full accommodation for the married personnel.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister say what is the position with regard to the rest of the townsite? What units are installed there and what remains to be done?


George Randolph Pearkes: There are no units in the actual townsite. That is purely for dependants and civilian personnel. There are no units outside of the camp area.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether an armouries has been provided for at Kitchener?


George Randolph Pearkes: No there is no provision for an armoury in Kitchener in these estimates. I am afraid we have got comparatively little money available for the construction of new armouries anywhere in Canada. We have to work from a strict priority list.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell us what new units, including those for married personnel, have been built at Petawawa in the last year, and what are contemplated in the forthcoming year?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think the only new unit which has been stationed in Petawawa was a new armoured unit which is known as the Fort Garry Horse.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not quite what I meant, Mr. Chairman. In addition to the Fort Garry Horse, what other units are stationed there, and perhaps the minister could answer the other question in regard to building construction?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think if the hon. gentleman refers again to the white paper he will find the major units which are stationed at Petawawa camp. I have not a copy of the white paper here but I am quite certain it is included there.


George Randolph Pearkes: All that information is given on page 35 of the white paper.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
220.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $90,940,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: On this vote I should like to ask the minister what construction, if any, the army is carrying on in the province of Newfoundland, or proposes to carry on in the present fiscal year.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am advised that there is no major armoury construction planned this year for Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is there any minor construction planned this year?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is some minor repair and maintenance work in order to keep the existing buildings in a state of repair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it the minister does not yet have in his possession the list of buildings for which I asked on the previous item.


George Randolph Pearkes: It has not yet come over.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As the minister knows, there is a modern and very satisfactory armoury at Trail and an old one at Nelson which, with certain additions could, in my opinion and that of others, be made very suitable for further use. I do, however, wish to bring to the attention of the minister something which has become a standing joke in the city of Nelson. I think that in the last ten years some 15 engineer officers or architects of the department have visited Nelson, in each case spending two or three days in the hotel, supposed to be investigating the possibility of extending the armoury, or renovating it or improving it. But I think that in all that time about $5,000 has been spent on putting in a new roof. I am bringing this to the attention of the minister because I hope he will look into this matter which has become the subject of caustic comment by local people with regard to the efficiency of the Department of National Defence. These officers and architects spend two or three days in a hotel there periodically; but nothing ever seems to happen as a result of their visits.
Several prominent citizens in the city with whom I have spoken have brought up this question, and I promised to direct it to the attention of the minister because we think this state of affairs should be stopped. I am given to understand that at very little expenditure an addition to the south side of the present armoury could be made, with the result that the building would be suitable and usable for a number of years to come. I might add that this unit has carried on in
Supply-National Defence the face of great difficulties in previous years and-I am speaking carefully-in the face of even less recognition than is usual. This is presenting a problem to the local officer commanding and to the other officers and men and I should like the minister to look into this question to see what can be done to improve and extend the building there. I imagine that a modest expenditure would be enough to provide satisfactory quarters for the men who have been carrying on throughout the years.


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall be very pleased to look into that matter.
Now with regard to the acquisition of a rifle range in Newfoundland there is a figure here of $1,500.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister could tell the committee what the total expenditure in the Atlantic provinces will be or what it is expected to be this year and what the comparable figure was for last year.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have not that information readily available. I will get it, and let the hon. member know.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The increase in this vote, from $45,745,000 last year to $90,940,000 this year is a very sizeable one, almost 100 per cent, so I think the minister might be good enough to give us a list of all the major projects and what their purpose is in each case.


George Randolph Pearkes: In Calgary, the expenditure is $3,271,000; in Edmonton, $1,895,000 and at Wainwright, $422,000. Those are the expenditures in Alberta. In British Columbia, at Chilliwack, there is an expenditure of $1,886,000; in Vancouver, $90,000; in Victoria, $290,000. In Manitoba there is an expenditure at Shilo, which is a military training command, of $1,611,000; and at Winnipeg, $110,000. At camp Gagetown the expenditure amounted to $2,970,000. Expenditure in Nova Scotia is $361,000; in Barriefield, Ontario, $2,630,000; at camp Borden, $4,320,000; at Cobourg, the ordnance depot, $965,000.
Other places in which there is considerable expenditure include Kingston with $2,421,000 in connection with the Barriefield camp, a tri-service hospital and extensions to the Royal Military College; in Ottawa, $2,200,000 mainly for the new tri-service hospital here, and Petawawa, $8,350,000, which covers new quarters for dependants. In Montreal there is a small expenditure of $160,000; at Val Cartier, $3,353,000, and in Saskatoon, $300,000.
5448	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence These are main items. Outside erf these there is the northwest highway system, with a total amount of $1,465,000, the reasons for which I referred to earlier.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee met at 8 p.m.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a little information in regard to these expenditures for construction. There is a large amount of $3 million at Calgary. What is it for?


George Randolph Pearkes: With reference to these votes, I might just add that the increase is very largely due to the fact that the special account from which $49,871,000 was provided in the 1958-59 estimates was, as the hon. gentleman knows, liquidated last year and therefore any amount spent on army equipment is included there.
With regard to the questions asked concerning the armouries in Newfoundland, there are army-owned armouries at Corner Brook, which is a militia armoury on a parcel of land of 1.36 acres. At Grand Falls there is another militia armoury on 1.2 acres of leased land and at St. John's the department owns 10i acres of land which is being purchased for a possible site for an armoury. At Buck-master's field the accommodation used by the militia and by the regular army is in a portion of the camp and the whole camp is naval property. At St. John's there are three buildings owned by the Department of Justice and now lent to the Department of National Defence for TMQ's and a manning depot at Kenna's hill; also, in St. John's at 431 Water street there is a Department of Public Works building which is used as a recruiting office. The army leases at St. John's Memorial University lecture rooms for the officers' training corps there and on Bell island St. Kevin's hall, which provides accommodation for the militia. The total amount of money which is being spent under these items in the Atlantic provinces, which is what the hon. member asker for, is $3,345,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is, in the current estimates?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is in the current
estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked the minister what the comparable figure was for last year?


George Randolph Pearkes: The comparable figure for last year was $8 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked the minister about Gander? In that list I did not notice that there was any accommodation of any kind at Gander.


George Randolph Pearkes: I understand that accommodation is being used for their training there which belongs either to the Department of Transport or to the old R.C.A.F. station there.
With regard to Calgary, the items there are, at Sarcee camp, development of a tank hangar, REME workshops; these were made necessary in order to provide accommodation for the armoured unit at Sarcee camp where the new barracks was started some years ago and is now nearing completion. Paving there is standard, drill hall, combined officers' mess and quarters for the miniature range and some 200 married quarters. These are the main items as far as Calgary is concerned, with the exception of a sergeants' mess and lecture training building at Currie.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister give us the same information with reference to camp Borden and camp Petawawa.


George Randolph Pearkes: At camp Borden there is a 40-vehicle garage, command medical equipment depot, 26-vehicle garage for the royal Canadian army medical school. There is a 500-man mess building for the army service corps school. There are officers' quarters for the R.C.A.M.C. school and officers' quarters for the R.C.A.S. school which is there. Another big item is junior ranks club and their lecture and training building and the sergeants' mess for the school of infantry.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is all in camp Borden?


George Randolph Pearkes: Those are the main items. In addition there is a 160 married quarters. Those are for camp Borden. Do you want Petawawa as well?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: At Petawawa there is development of roads and sewers; central medical and dental equipment depot. This is an important building in which the storage of general supplies in the event of emergency are retained. A lot of that is civil defence equipment. There is a small garage. Those are the main ones which are included in this year's items. There are some more. A big one is a sewerage treatment plant, which is necessary there, running into $1,300,000. That is all provided for in these estimates.


Mr. Granger:: I would like to express the hope to the minister that at Gander he would find it possible to include in his estimates a sum to cover the construction of an armoury, or a drill hall, which is badly needed there, and which would serve a useful purpose I am sure.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will take that under advisement and look into it personally and see what can be done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just one further question; I have looked at the figure. The figure covers the acquisition of major equipment as well as buildings, works and lands. The total figure is nearly $91 million. I think the minister gave a figure for the four Atlantic provinces of something under $3 million. The minister will recall that at the time of the 1957 election the candidates supporting the present government made great representations in the Atlantic provinces about how large a diversion of expenditures they were going to make to the Atlantic provinces, and I wondered if I heard aright that of the $90 million only $3 million is being spent in the Atlantic provinces.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, but there is a considerable amount being spent for the other services, the navy and the air force. I am afraid that this time the army in the Atlantic provinces is not getting as much as it did last year but I think you will find that on balance the Atlantic provinces are getting a very fair share of the construction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister can tell us, since I was not bright enough to think of the question, how much the navy is spending in Newfoundland.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am afraid that the books have been taken away but I will look that up and let the hon. member know privately.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That will be quite satisfactory.


Mr. McFarlane:: Mr. Chairman, I see that we are spending approximately $90 million for construction throughout the Dominion of Canada. I should like to make a plea this evening for the construction of armouries especially in our smaller centres. Two years ago we were advised that the construction of an armoury at Kimberley, British Columbia, had been approved in principle early in 1956. In spite of the publicity given at that time, funds were never made available nor has a vote been approved by treasury board. To all intents and purposes this item was dropped. No allocation of money was made by the previous government either in 1956 or in the April budget of 1957.
We are spending many millions in the larger centres of Canada and forgetting that the backbone of the country lies in our smaller centres. We had with us at this morning's session representation from the navy, and a good many of these boys come from the smaller centres of Canada. I think we should do something to encourage both
Supply-National Defence the army and the navy boys in their work. Savings in travelling expenses alone could be diverted to writing off the cost of construction of armouries in the various smaller centres of Canada.
Therefore I should like to ask the minister again to give some consideration to the construction of an armoury in Kimberley. We have in the unit there a very active group of men. At the present time they have inadequate hall space which is rented periodically to carry out a program of training. I should like to read an extract from a letter to indicate what they are up against in this area. It reads as follows:
As for us in Kimberley, we continue to struggle along trying to run a unit of approximately 100 men in the rented lower half of the Oddfellows hall. We continue to hire half of a civilian garage to house our vehicles, and rent rooms in the adjoining public school for training space on parade nights. The total bill to the public for all this is, I know, much more than would be the case in a more efficient plant. We do our best but the training suffers and the administrative headaches are too numerous to mention.
Administration alone has become really a problem in itself. At the present time this unit has very little in the way of facilities and equipment to carry on its work. It has been suggested that the unit should travel a distance of 40 miles in order to carry out a parade two nights a week. I think that during the cold winter months a good many men are going to forego parade if they have to travel that distance, especially over icy roads.
We depend on the trained units of our country to take over in time of need. I think we should encourage these smaller units to continue and in my opinion the only way we can do so is by building armouries in our smaller centres. Of the $90 million expenditure this year I think, speaking specifically of the cost with respect to Kimberley, that we would require approximately $200,000 to $250,000, which is a very small percentage of the entire vote. I also think that we should decentralize our forces. At the present time the bulk of our spending is being done in the larger centres of Canada, and I think it is very essential to support these units in the smaller urban and rural areas.
I would respectfully request the minister to reconsider the present policy and to support the active units with adequate facilities, particularly in the interior of British Columbia where they are badly needed.


George Randolph Pearkes: I thank the hon. member foi bringing the needs of Kimberley to my attention. At lot of armouries are required across the country and we have to put them on a strict priority basis having in mind our other requirements. I would call his attention to

Supply-National Defence the fact that there is not $90 million allocated for this purpose. The amount for the construction of buildings and works is only $49,950,000. The balance is for the purchase of various equipment.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: I should like to ask the minister what is the thinking of himself and his advisers at the present time in connection with the armouries and defence headquarters in Ottawa? There are so many stories from time to time in the newspapers as to the location of the defence headquarters that I should think that by this time the minister, who is very aggressive, would have something to say. He might indicate to me whether land has been purchased, if it has been decided where the headquarters will be and also whether it is planned to provide Ottawa with a suitable armoury. I am sure that the new members of the house have seen the location of our armouries on Cartier square and realize that they are hardly suitable for the capital and must be moved somewhere else in the near future. I would invite the minister to bring us up to date on this subject.


George Randolph Pearkes: With respect to a new building for national defence headquarters, there is no money provided for that purpose in these estimates.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Or for land?


George Randolph Pearkes: We will continue to make use of the present building. As far as an armoury is concerned, there are a number of rented buildings as well as the main armoury on Cartier square, and I have to inform the hon. member that there are other places even more badly off than Ottawa for want of armouries.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Would the minister inform me if any land has been purchased for the headquarters yet?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, no land has been purchased for headquarters.


Mr. Henderson:: I should like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that we need an armoury badly at Dawson Creek. I have mentioned this before. The boys drill down in the cellar of an old school. We have a very good corps there. I have brought this matter to the minister's attention before and I bring it to his attention again tonight and ask him to give it some consideration.


George Randolph Pearkes: In order to cut the debate short on this particular subject, may I thank practically every member in the house for having at some time or another during this session brought the needs of his militia unit in respect of new armouries to my attention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

Inspection services-
216. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $563,400.
George Randolph Pearkes: The hon. member for St. Denis asked for information regarding certain land at Nicolet. I am informed that the commune at Nicolet consisted of 3,497 arpents and was purchased by the Department of Transport for $400,000 under authority of treasury board dated July 28, 1958. The value of the land was determined by specialists employed by the Department of Transport, and the negotiations were carried out by that department. There are no funds allocated in these estimates for the purchase of that land as the deal was concluded and funds provided in last year's estimates.


Azellus Denis: Can the minister inform me as to the amount of the municipal assessment on this land?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am afraid I would not have that because, as I said earlier, the Department of Transport acts as agent in purchasing all land. I hate to have to say it, but I am afraid the hon. member will have to ask the Minister of Transport that question. I suggest that he put the question in the order paper, and then he will be able to get an answer.


Azellus Denis: There is something unusual in that answer given by the minister because the estimates of the Department of Transport have been passed. This expenditure belongs to the Department of National Defence, to which minister we are talking. It becomes almost impossible for us to get the information we require. It is a very important question and involves a large amount of money, nearly half a million dollars. We should like to know how it is that an additional appraisal was made by this government when the previous government had already appraised the land and had made an offer which was far less than the amount paid by this government.
I am not saying this new government was extravagant. I know we have been accused in the past of being extravagant, but there is a big margin of difference between what the previous government offered for this land and what this government paid for it. We should like to know why it was necessary to have this land appraised again. I should like to know how much was paid for this new appraisal. I should like to know if the new appraisal was made by an independent person, as happened a little while ago. We should like to know how much the government paid for this appraisal because if the owners were not

satisfied with the offer made by the previous government they could, asi is the usual practice, go to the exchequer court.
As a matter of fact, I have in my hand a report of an investigation made by a corporation which, I suggest, was hired by the department in connection with other pieces of land in Nicolet-Yamaska, and the owner, not being satisfied with the appraisal, went to the exchequer court. This is the usual way in which to appeal from a decision of the government. I am making this observation about this item because a few weeks ago in this house we had a minister of the crown who was very pleased to inform the country that an expropriation proceeding which had lasted for years had been settled quickly by the present government. However, this matter was settled quickly by the present government by means of a large increase in the amount the taxpayers had to pay.
The Minister of National Defence is telling me that all the information I require can be obtained from the Minister of Transport whose estimates have been passed. What other means is left to the opposition for getting this information? I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong in the price paid, but I should like to know when it was paid. It might have been paid in January or February, but I want to know because the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys said that it was only by accident that he was there and was photographed holding the cheque. It appeared as though he was paying the money from his own pocket. If the money was sent out nearly a month before, I would come to the conclusion that this accident was purely accidental! I wonder how this accident happened 10 days or 15 days later, if this amount of money was in Nicolet-Yamaska before.
As the minister knows, this expropriation matter concerns 265 owners. I know personally that during the last electoral campaign the Conservatives told these owners they would get much more for them; they would be as generous as could be, as they usually say, if they were returned to power. We might look at the results from two polls in this area. In poll No. 43 the minister received 85 votes, while our candidate got only 12. In poll No. 44 the minister received 181 votes, while our candidate had only 23. No wonder the present government was so generous after the election. At least there is one commitment made which was kept by the present government, but it was a commitment which resulted, in my humble opinion, in the taxpayers being detrimentally affected.
Of course, I can talk as long as I like because the minister has told me he does not know anything about it. I should like
Supply-National Defence some minister in this house to give me this information because the matter is very important to this committee. I should like to know what the amount of the municipal assessment was because, according to the report of a case in the exchequer court, the municipal assessment represents about one-third of the real value of the property.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; I think perhaps the hon. member is discussing a matter that was in last year's estimates, if I am following him correctly. If that is the case, I think it would be a matter for the public accounts committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order you have raised, Mr. Chairman, I may say I was going to raise a point of order when my hon. friend finished because we are discussing the estimates of the Minister of National Defence and surely it is a very unusual doctrine to be told the minister cannot explain things; that we have to go to some other minister who merely acted as his agent in spending the money for which this minister is the trustee and is responsible to this committee. I suggest it is the duty of the minister to give us this information and not tell the hon. member he has to go to some other minister for it, in whose estimates the item does not appear.
In so far as the question of whether or not this was in last year's estimates, I have never heard it suggested before that we could not compare the expenditures of one year with those of another. Indeed, they are put in the blue book in that way, one year compared with another. If I recall what the hon. member for St. Denis said, this famous presentation of the cheque, this accidental presentation of the cheque by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys took place in the month of April, so it would appear that, unless the cheque was held back for a while, this payment was made in this fiscal year. Therefore even on the narrow ground which Your Honour has raised I submit that my hon. friend is in order.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sure that we ought to be able to allow the hon. member to make a comparison with other estimates; that is quite true; but we cannot debate other estimates. Otherwise we could go back and debate estimates that have been before the house since goodness knows when. That is why I was asking the hon. member to make a comparison but not to debate the item that was in the estimates the previous year.


Adrien Meunier: Who was the appraiser in connection with this expropriation?

Supply-National Defence


George Randolph Pearkes: I have not that information. My department does not carry out the task of appraisal. When land is required for the Department of National Defence that is done through the Department of Transport. I am afraid I have not that information here. We shall have to go to the Department of Transport to get those details.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How can we ask the Minister of Transport to account for money which was spent on behalf of the Department of National Defence whose estimates we are now considering?


George Randolph Pearkes: As I have said, the Department of Transport are the agents. They would know how much money was paid to the appraisers. I would not know how much money they paid to the appraisers. I would not know the names of the appraisers.


Azellus Denis: I suppose there is no misunderstanding between the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Transport. But we should like to know whether this last appraisal made by the present government was binding on the parties-and by that I mean the government and the owners-and whether it was supposed to be accepted in advance by the two parties. I know that last week or two weeks ago something of the kind happened. Of course there was some misunderstanding. We should like to know whether here again we are confronted by some other misunderstandings between members of parliament and ministers of the crown. I wonder whether it would not be to the advantage and in the interests of this committee and of the country to have the Minister of Transport come here and give us some information as to the municipal assessment, why another appraisal has been made, what was the price paid and what was the amount offered by the previous government. I think this information would be extremely welcome and that it would be to the advantage of both parties.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think an extremely important question of principle has arisen here. The minister is here not to account for the money he has not yet spent in the year 1959-60 but to ask this house to vote money for the year 1959-60. The basis on which we have always in the past, in my experience both as an observer of this house and as a member in this house, voted money for the current year was on the basis of the way in which the minister spent the money in the previous year and in previous years. If the Minister of National Defence will cast his mind back to the days when he sat over here on this side of the chamber and when my friend Mr. Claxton and my friend Mr. 

Campney were piloting their estimates through the committee, I am sure he will remember that he did not confine his inquiries to the prospective expenditures for the year in question. My recollection of those debates-and it is very vivid-is that most of them had relation to expenditures that had already been made. The payment was apparently made, according to this newspaper publicity, in the month of April which is in the current fiscal year, but whether in fact the money left the treasury before March 31 seems to me to be quite irrelevant. It seems to me that it would be the greatest abridgement of the practices of the committee if that consideration were allowed to stand in the way of an inquiry into a matter of this kind.
The other point I think is equally important, namely that if one department of government uses another department of government as its agent but the money is under the custody of the first department, then it is the duty of the minister of the department that is spending the money to make the explanations to us, not that of one of his colleagues. If he wants to invite his colleague to come and sit beside him, rise in his place and help him to make the explanation, that is perfectly all right. I am sure my hon. friend would be delighted to have the Minister of Transport here-he is a member of this house-so that he could ask him these questions. He might like to know, for example, whether Mr. Clare was the appraiser. There are a great variety of questions that it might be possible to ask about this case. I suggest that we are entitled to have from the Minister of National Defence the information which my friend the hon. member for St. Denis is seeking. Perhaps the minister would agree to allow this item to stand in order to get this information.


Mr. Brooks:: If this is a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on it. I think it is a ridiculous situation where the hon. member asks one minister to comment on an item which is in another minister's department.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is exactly the situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If these hon. members who are asking these questions had been on the job when the estimates of the Minister of Transport were before this committee they could have obtained the answer at that time.
Then as to the other point, may I say this. They are asking this committee to consider estimates which were for 1958-59, not for 1959-60. On both points, as far as the minister is concerned, they are asking for information from the wrong minister. They are also asking

it for the wrong year. If anything could be more ridiculous I do not know what it could be.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word on this point. The minister has said that we are asking this question of the wrong minister. If we had asked the Minister of Transport when his estimates were before the committee, this item could not have been included in those estimates because it had nothing to do with them. But if we had known about it and if we had asked him, the Minister of Transport at once, of course, would have said: "This is not my affair; I was merely acting as agent for the Department of National Defence. I cannot give you the information." We are considering the defence estimates and we are asking the minister to explain this transaction which occurred during last year so that we can relate the explanation to the amount he is asking this year for the purchase of land. Surely nothing could be more reasonable than that procedure. Perhaps this matter and this item could be allowed to stand until the minister has had a chance to talk to the Minister of Transport and to get the information for us tomorrow. These departmental estimates will certainly be before us tomorrow.


Azellus Denis: I am sorry to see that the present government is using the method of proscription in order not to speak about a matter which happened last year. If they have nothing to hide, why do they not answer these questions? The first report we had about this transaction appeared in the newspaper on April 15, 1959.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The item was in last year's estimates.


Azellus Denis: We did not inquire about it. The matter is more confused. The report involves another department. Let me read from the report.
(Translation):
The picture was printed in Le Nouvelliste for Wednesday, April 15, 1959, alongside the following remark:
The community business has been settled. An amount of $400,000 was paid to the owners of the lots the federal government had appropriated for the use of the defence production department.
I note that while the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) is now in his seat, he did not find it necessary to rise and say whether his department had anything to do with this. All we are told is that the matter concerns a department whose minister is now absent.


Mr. O'Hurley:: Mr. Chairman-
Supply-National Defence


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, we are told that this item in the estimates of the Department of National Defence comes under the Department of Transport. I think we are entitled to some information on this matter.
It is even stated in the report that this land is unsuited for agriculture, and subject to spring floods. It would therefore be interesting to know why this government has paid more than was offered by the former government. Indeed, we must not forget-and I ask the minister and this government not to forget-the speeches made in the past by our hon. friends opposite, in which they spoke of extravagance and unwarranted expenditures. However, those people have been in power and sitting in this parliament for only two years, and already we are able to point to cases of extravagance practically every day.
So it is worth investigating whether this government is actually thrifty.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) has mentioned my name during the discussion and I must tell him that if he relies on newspaper clippings, it will take him far! The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) has said that the matter concerns the Department of Transport So, I take the minister's word for it and I have nothing to say about reports published in papers like, for instance, Le Nouvelliste. Besides, I must add that I had nothing to do with the transaction.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I take the word of the Minister of Defence Production. I read the reports as they appear in the newspapers. There might be times when newspapers are wrong, but there are times too when they are not wrong. Moreover, I might point out that when the report was first printed in the papers, no minister or member rose in this house to deny it.
Perhaps the Minister of Defence Production and the Minister of National Defence could consult with the Minister of Transport who, as they say, was responsible for this transaction, so that we may get the information we have been seeking on this matter.
(Text):


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I realize the importance of the answer to this question by the member, but as the information will have to be obtained from two or possibly three departments of the government it is quite impossible for me to give an answer tonight. I have not got the information and it will take
5454	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence some time to get it; but I will promise that the information will be obtained and that the hon. member will be supplied with that information at the earliest possible opportunity.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, we are insisting on this information because these questions were asked early this afternoon and the hon. minister was good enough to tell us that he would get the proper information and give it to us. Early this afternoon we asked those questions, and as a matter of fact that is the reason why this item stands, because we are almost at the end of the estimates of national defence and vote 216 has been suspended.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: There was no question asked about the assessment this afternoon.


Azellus Denis: Yes. The hon. member may have been out for a while.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I make the suggestion that the minister agree to let the item stand again-


Azellus Denis: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and then we can get on with the other estimates of the department, because when he supplies my hon. friend with the information he might wish to exercise his right to make some comment about it.


George Randolph Pearkes: I can give the hon. member the assurance that if he wishes to make some comment on it when the information is provided there will be opportunity to do so. But as this is going to take several days in order to get this information-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Several days?


George Randolph Pearkes: It may take more than that. There are two or three departments involved. New questions have been asked this evening which were not asked this afternoon. I got what information I could in the meantime and I trust this item will be carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we have made a perfectly reasonable request, and I am sure I can speak for my hon. friends in saying that we would give an undertaking to the minister that if he is agreeable to letting the item stand we will not discuss anything except this transaction when the information is provided. But we feel we have to safeguard our rights as members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Azellus Denis: On division.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, this item deals with construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment. It is a large item. Would the minister break it down


and tell us how much of this item is for the acquisition of land and give us particulars about that?


George Randolph Pearkes: This is the breakdown on construction or acquisition of buildings and works, etc. With regard to purchase of land, no money is provided for the purchase of land. Construction of major projects, $78,300. Construction of minor projects, $19,500. Major equipment procurement, $465,600; making a total of $563,400.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just said that there is no amount in this estimate for the purchase of land. I think he said there was no amount for the purchase of land.


George Randolph Pearkes: No amount in these estimates for the purchase of land.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is shown in the estimates, however, a decrease in this particular item of $431,786 as compared with the preceding year, when the amount was $995,186. Could the minister tell us how much of this decrease is due to the fact that there is no amount spent for land this year? How much was spent for land last year?


George Randolph Pearkes: The amount spent for land last year was $430,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister give us details as to where that was spent?


George Randolph Pearkes: No; I have not those details here at the moment.


Alexis Pierre Caron: We are in no hurry.


Harold Edward Winch: It seems rather a small item though.


Mr. McPhillips:: There is nothing too small for that bunch over there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We want to know where the taxpayers' money is going.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: If you read the estimates last year you would know where it was spent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member for Victoria would like to assist the minister. I am sure he would make an admirable assistant!


George Randolph Pearkes: That is the figure for last year's estimates but I have not got before me the breakdown of last year's expenditures.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Do I understand the minister to say that he has not that information available now?


George Randolph Pearkes: I say we have not the breakdown of $430,000 which was spent last year.

Supply-National Defence


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister can under NORAD with special reference to tell us how much was spent last year on land what will be the equipment of our R.C.A.F. and where it was?	squadrons in Canada.


George Randolph Pearkes: Whether all that amount of money was spent I do not know. That was the amount which was provided in last year's estimates for the acquisition of land. 1 am told that amount was spent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say
whether the particular transaction to which-


George Randolph Pearkes: It was not spent entirely on this one piece of property but on a large number of properties, I am told.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But did the amount include this particular transaction about which we have been trying to get information from the minister?


George Randolph Pearkes: It did include the cost of the land, which is known as the commune St. Antoine de la Baie du Febvre.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Could the minister tell us the amount which was included for that purpose?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am told $400,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have been able to ascertain the amount was $400,000, but we are unable to get any more information out of the minister in regard to this matter. He says this is a matter for the Department of Transport, and we can do our best to get the information from the Minister of Transport who will, undoubtedly, tell us it is a matter for the minister of defence. But as the minister feels it is not possible for him to give us any more information, and as he is unwilling to allow this item to stand until tomorrow for the consideration of this one point, perhaps in these circumstances we will have to let the record show what has happened and go on to the next item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Air Force-
221.	Operation and maintenance, $546,991,000.
Harold Edward Winch: On this vote I should like to ask a pertinent question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of the minister's analysis of the situation in Europe and the government's decision that our squadrons in Europe now have to be equipped with new planes which it intends to purchase from the United States and which will not become available until between two and two and a half years, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence, irrespective of the situation in Europe and the equipment of the R.C.A.F. in Europe, if he would give us his analysis of our position in Canada in the event of a war of aggression and our position 66968-9-346


George Randolph Pearkes: The nine squadrons employed on the air defence of Canada are equipped with CF-lOO's.


Harold Edward Winch: Is there a differentiation made by the minister in his understanding of the air defence policy as between Canadians in Europe and Canadians in Canada? It is my understanding from the statements made by the minister yesterday and today that it is felt necessary that the R.C.A.F. in Europe should be equipped with more modern equipment than CF-lOO's or Sabre jets, that they must have the finest equipment available. Is it the minister's position and his statement of policy on behalf of the government that although we must now spend some $300 million for the equipping of the R.C.A.F. under NATO command in Europe with the latest possible fighters, that in Canada our squadrons-I believe it is nine-


George Randolph Pearkes: Nine.


Harold Edward Winch: The CF-100 is all right for Canada. Do I understand that is the position?


George Randolph Pearkes: There are four squadrons with the air division in Europe which are equipped and still remain equipped for the time being with the CF-100. There is no plan to change the type of equipment which those four squadrons with the air division have. In Canada, the nine squadrons are equipped with the same all-weather longdistance reconnaissance aircraft, the CF-100, and the defence of Canada, or the air defence of this continent, would be reinforced by the acquisition of the Bomarc batteries to reinforce the nine squadrons of CF-100.


Harold Edward Winch: Now we are getting it. Our squadrons in Canada will be reinforced by Bomarcs. But in view of the fact that the majority of the money is going to be spent because of the possibility that the two giants, the U.S.S.R. to our north and the United States in the south, may come into conflict, what is the actual situation of our fighter force in Canada to be? I understand from the minister that it is going to be equipped with CF-lOO's, is it not?


George Randolph Pearkes: The nine air defence squadrons in Canada are equipped with CF-lOO's.


Harold Edward Winch: And there is to be no change?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no change contemplated in these estimates.
5456	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Harold Edward Winch: I think, sir, you have now made one of the most astounding and mis-understandable statements ever made by a minister of national defence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can understand the hon. member's preoccupation with the fact that CF-100 squadrons will be operating in Canada indefinitely at a time when the capability of a possible attacker is such that one can have no assurance that the CF-100, good plane as it is and skilfully operated as it always is, will be able to carry out effectively a job which could have been done a few years ago. If we have worries on that score they are, surely, understandable. These preoccupations are increased, I think, by the references which the minister made yesterday to the possibility of United States interceptor squadrons operating from Canadian airfields and pushing interception as far north as possible which, if we are going into this kind of thing, is certainly desirable. The minister said yesterday that provision had been made for this kind of co-operation in the NORAD agreement. I have been looking at the NORAD agreement, but the only provision I can find to cover this kind of activity of United States squadrons operating on Canadian soil is the article which reads:
No permanent changes of station may be made without the approval of the higher national authority concerned. Temporary reinforcements from one area to another-
That is, one area on either side of the border, or across the border, presumably, including the crossing of the international boundary.
-to meet operational requirements will be within the authority of commanders having operational control.
That kind of movement is authorized under this agreement if it is to meet operational requirements. With respect, I suggest to the minister that this particular clause would not cover the kind of procedure I have in mind and to which I thought he referred yesterday-the stationing of United States interceptor squadrons at Canadian airfields as part of a joint force.


George Randolph Pearkes: The permanent stationing could, as the hon. gentleman has just read out, only be carried out by agreement between the two governments, but the temporary operation of squadrons of the United States air force from Canadian airfields could be authorized by the commanders in question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister if there are negotiations under way now which would permit that kind of permanent stationing on Canadian soil?


George Randolph Pearkes: There are no such negotiations under way for the permanent stationing of any United States squadrons in Canada.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: There is one matter on which I feel compelled to make some comment and I think it would be best done under this item. It is with regard to the separate school problem that has existed over the past year among air force personnel situated at Stevenson's field in the city of St. James. I, myself, and I know the hon. member for St. Boniface, have received a good many representations on this matter and no doubt the minister has received as many, and possibly more. I do not know what may be done with regard to immediately solving the situation. As the minister well knows, before last year the personnel situated at Stevenson's field were granted equal privileges with regard to educational opportunities for their children. In Manitoba we have a separate school system. It is my understanding that Quebec and Manitoba are perhaps the only provinces with such a system. However, the system in Manitoba differs from that in Quebec in that, although the separate school system is recognized, no public funds are authorized for the provision of such a separate system.
Up until last year the minister's department paid for the education of these children regardless of which school they wished to attend. Then at the beginning of last year an agreement was entered into by the Department of Finance with the city of St. James under which an over-all sum was paid to the city of St. James, but the city of St. James had the onus of providing the educational facilities for the children of the air force personnel situated at this air field. However, the city of St. James is not compelled to provide separate schools as such, and it is my understanding that there are no other schools in St. James apart from the Protestant public schools.
The minister may wonder how I come into this picture. I am in this picture because the main parish school which is situated in St. Edward's parish is in my constituency. The children of the Catholic air force personnel at Stevenson's field went in the main to this parish school and Monsignor Mac-Inerney of St. Edward's parish brought this to my attention. I have talked to the air force personnel out there. I realize, of course, in part this is a constitutional issue with the minister because education comes under the domain of the provinces. This is a situation in which perhaps he can do little since the agreement has been signed.
However, I understand the present situation is simply this. The air force personnel situated

out there are still sending their children in the main to St. Edward's parish school; that is, those of the Catholic denomination and are paying for this out of their own pockets; whereas, only a few blocks away we have Fort Osborne barracks, which is in the city of Winnipeg, which has no agreement with the government but the government is subsidizing the children of the army personnel there. Of course, the personnel out at Stevenson's field say to me, "Is this right; is this fair, is there not discrimination?" This is a difficult argument to refute.
I know there is no onus upon the city of St. James to provide those facilities and it is money out of the pockets of the air force personnel situated at Stevenson's field. I am wondering whether the minister might at this time make another complete review of the present situation. It is my feeling that this is perhaps a unique situation. I may be wrong in this but I do not know of any other province that has a separate school arrangement legalized by statute. If it is a unique situation, then perhaps it deserves a unique solution. However, if it is not possible to go all the way with regard to countermanding or amending the agreement, perhaps something may be done with regard to aiding these service personnel by perhaps providing transportation. Perhaps they could use one of the department's buses to take the children to school and to bring them home.
I have been out at the field and have noticed buses standing idle during the day time. Perhaps this may be only a small matter, but the suggestions I have made would do a great deal to alleviate the situation. I would be interested in hearing the minister's remarks on this matter.


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall be very pleased to look into the matter. I will take it up with the air officer commanding in Winnipeg. I thank the hon. member for the suggestion he has advanced.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the vote under which we can ask the Minister of National Defence to enlarge on what he had to say on this particular item in his opening remarks on the air defence of Canada, because I understand that the purchase and the allocation of Bomarc are part of the R.C.A.F. defence. I fully realize that on a security basis there may be a lot of information the minister cannot give us. I do feel that the members of the House of Commons who are 265 representatives of the millions who occupy Canada require a more comprehensive knowledge from the minister on the change which has been made in the cancellation of the CF-105, and the fact that we got the information only a few weeks ago that the 66968-9-346J
Supply-National Defence R.C.A.F. in Canada will continue to be manned with the CF-100. The major defence, therefore, is going to rely on the air force installation of the Bomarc. As far as the members of the House of Commons know from all the statements made by the minister or the Prime Minister, there are two installations authorized, one in Ontario and one in Quebec.
The minister made it very clear this afternoon that he was not in a position to tell us of the actual results of the tests of the Bomarc. Therefore, we can understand that we have to go on what we can read in our own Canadian papers, in the papers of the United States and in the congressional record. In recent weeks we have read in the congressional record of a debate in the United States on the value of the Bomarc and also we have read the official record of the cutting of the estimates to a very great extent having to do with Bomarc, but I do not know whether it was experimentation or development. However, in view of the fact that the Minister of National Defence has not made any announcement in the House of Commons that he on behalf of the government is making any change on account of this, it therefore means, I take it, that as far as the government is concerned they are proceeding with their arrangements with the United States authorities on the Bomarc as a defence for Canada and United States.
That being so, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can give us information as far as he possibly can. If anyone is to be taken into his confidence by the minister, it should be the members of the House of Commons. Since there was the cancellation of the CF-105 and his own statement that our own R.C.A.F. is only going to have the CF-100, and in view of his own statement and that of the Prime Minister going back to February of this year and continuing that we have to have something that will meet the supersonic missile, not the ICBM, will the Minister of National Defence-in view of the fact that he is only now prepared to give as authorized the establishment in Canada of two Bomarc launching stations, one in Ontario and one in Quebec- give the information as to what is the defence from Ontario to the Pacific coast?
I have had the privilege of having a talk with the Minister of National Defence. I do not think I am breaking any confidence when I say that outside of the two establishments in Canada there is now in existence or will be established a Bomarc line south of the Canadian border from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Whether the establishments are now in existence I do not know and I am not going
5458	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence to ask. As a member of the House of Commons, a Canadian citizen and a citizen of British Columbia I want to ask the minister how the defence policy of the government, with its reliance on Bomarc installations in the United States, even if they are close to the Canadian border, is protection for Canadian cities, towns and villages running up to the Arctic circle?
I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he is prepared to say, without violating security, that a Bomarc line on the United States side of the border from Ontario to British Columbia can, in the case of any invasion, protect the northern part of Vancouver island, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Lethbridge, Regina, Peace River, Saskatoon or whatever you will. So far the Minister of National Defence, with the exception of saying that there will be Bomarc installations at two locations, one in Ontario and one in Quebec, has not told us what the protection will be in the other parts of Canada.
I know, and I am not breaking any confidence because I have seen it in half a dozen magazines, that there is a Bomarc line just below the 49th parallel, but how does that tie in with the protection of our country? I say that Canada is more than Quebec and Ontario. I accord all honour to Quebec and Ontario but as a member from British Columbia I am very much interested in that province and I know that the Minister of National Defence is too. It is pretty hard for a member of the opposition to speak on this matter but I do want to say that I do not think the minister has taken the house into his confidence as much as he should have. He has not given us as clear a picture as we should have as to defence policies and the protection of Canada if aggression takes place.
I hope, and this is all I will have to say about the matter, that the minister will perhaps be able to open up his mind and his heart a little bit more and give us a little more information so that we will have a better understanding of what is actually taking place in Canada in order to try to alleviate the misunderstanding as to why there are Bomarc installations in eastern Canada but nothing in central and western Canada, the misunderstanding as to why the most modern is for NATO and the obsolete for Canada. I should like him to explain if he can that under government policy we are not just the defence area of the United States and, in the event of war, the graveyard.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, in my opening remarks yesterday I did my best to explain briefly and as concisely as I could the policy regarding the defence of Canada. Canada is a


member of the western alliance. The overriding concept of that alliance is to prevent war. We believe that by having powerful forces of retaliation, and I do not attempt to say that this is a good solution for all time, we will make it quite obvious to any potential enemy that it is not worth while starting a war because the power of the west will strike back and will be so devastating in its effect on that country.
In order to have that power of retaliation effective it must be kept secure and in* order to keep the power of retaliation secure and also to provide a degree of protection to our own population and the cities of Canada we have established first of all an extensive warning line stretching from the Atlantic ocean across the north of Canada to the Pacific, and that line is duplicated by other lines closer to the populated areas. They will give warning not only to our cities to take measures of protection but, more important, to get the SAC bombers off their bases.
The potential enemy realizes that and realizes that his chances of really carrying out a sudden attack on the SAC bases at the present time, thereby destroying the power of retaliation before the bombers can get off their bases, are extremely remote. Then also as part of the deterrent we have various, shall I say, zones of defence as far north as it is possible for the interceptors of the R.C.A.F. to go, working in conjunction with United States air force interceptors under the command of NORAD. As I said before, those bombers that get through that zone of interception will then come within the range of the Bomarc stations which consist of a series of interlocking stations, two in Canada and the balance in the United States close to the border of Canada but all interlocking so that the whole of the air space from the Atlantic to the Pacific within their range is covered.
In order to make that more effective, and in order to provide the control which is necessary for the interceptors and Bomarcs, we established additional radar stations, pushing them farther north so it will become possible for the interceptors to operate farther north than they can today. We are introducing gap fillers between the stations of the Pinetree line so some aircraft, trying to dodge the radar screen and sneak in at low level, will be picked up.
We are linking all this up with certain communication centres known as the SAGE environment which is an automatic system of transporting information received and translating it again into instructions to the aircraft or the missile so that they may be effective.

That, is a brief description of the air defence of Canada. I hope that the hon. member will note this outline I have given and will link that with what I said in my opening remarks. Then, I trust he will be able to get a picture of what we are trying to accomplish. The west's defence is based on the power of retaliation. The retaliation forces must be secure, and we are in a partnership in the defence of this North American continent, including the cities of Canada, the cities of the United States and the SAC bomber bases, with our allies, the United States. Their aircraft will be available to protect the cities of Canada against bomber attack.
The hon. member talks of two Bomarc bases. Yes, there are two in Canada, but from the west of North Bay to the Pacific the centres of population in that Bomarc zone will be covered as soon as these Bomarc batteries are in place in the United States. However, one must remember that they come under the command of NORAD and we have a Canadian officer as deputy commander of that force. These Bomarcs and these interceptors, whether they are based in Canada or based in the United States, will be directly under the command of the commander in chief of NORAD for the protection of everything that there is on this continent.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a question on the same phase of the discussion. The Bomarc is not a system of retaliation, the Bomarc is a system of defence.


George Randolph Pearkes: Bomarc is for defence; it has nothing to do with retaliation at all except that it is a protection for the forces of retaliation.


Harold Edward Winch: That is what I said; Bomarc is not a weapon of retaliation, but Bomarc is a system of defence. So far as we know from the Prime Minister and the minister, Bomarc, as a system of defence, is only now being authorized, paid for and installed in two sections of Canada. I listened very carefully to what the minister had to say, but if it is not breaking security I should like to ask this question because your government is placing the emphasis on Bomarc: Is there a protection for the third city of Canada by Bomarc the same as there will be for Ottawa from North Bay? I think we are entitled to know the answer to that.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have said there will be a general interlocking of Bomarc stations from the Atlantic to the Pacific which will be capable of engaging hostile bombers before they enter the air space over the heavily populated parts of Canada. If my hon. friend is thinking of the city of Vancouver from
Supply-National Defence which he comes, there will be a Bomarc station which will be capable of doing exactly that task and providing that protection about which he is so concerned.


Frank Charles McGee: Coming down from the airy heights of armchair strategy to a matter concerning an individual member of the Royal Canadian Air Force, I should like to put in the form of a rather lengthy question the case of an individual which has been brought to my attention. I would prefer, for the moment, not to disclose his name or circumstances, for obvious reasons.
This young man, 19 years of age, joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in a certain trade capacity. Since his enlistment he has married and has had a child. He is faced with the usual situation which confronts a young married couple with a child. According to the information which I have it is suggested that it is air force policy that if the individual cannot demonstrate his ability to look after his family they release him, at least this is one of the reasons which would contribute to his release. Apparently, according to my information, a member of the R.C.A.F. must reach 21 years of age before he can receive a married allowance. The representations made to me take cognizance of the fact that this is, perhaps, a reasonable attitude for the air force to adopt in general, but raises the countering argument that this particular individual happens to be dedicated and is most interested in a career in the Royal Canadian Air Force. I must say this is an attitude I can understand having shared at one time that same point of view.
This young man graduated at the head of his class following his training period. In fact, it has been brought to my attention that there are others who desire to be released, but for other reasons I will grant you. My question to the minister is, is it a matter of policy in the air force-I must confine myself to that particular service at this time-that 19-year-olds who have married and assumed certain responsibilities at the same time incur disabilities as a result of that particular situation?


George Randolph Pearkes: If the hon. gentleman will let me know the name of this man privately, I will see what can be done for him. But as a matter of principle we do not encourage service men to marry under 21 years of age.


Frank Charles McGee: While I can appreciate the decision of the department and the particular service in not encouraging marriage and the acquisition of dependents, surely it is a fact that people under the statutory age of 21 in ever increasing numbers in other areas of our society do in fact marry and do in fact

Supply-National Defence have children. I am wondering whether the minister might give some indication as to whether this particular general policy-and I assume it is a general policy

might be the subject of some review and reconsideration.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the plea made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to the education of the children of the personnel located at the R.C.A.F. station at St. James. In 1957 the Canadian government was providing for the education of the Roman Catholic children using the English or the French language. But in 1958 an agreement was made with the city of St. James providing for the education of the personnel at the station. However, the children desiring to attend separate schools were overlooked. Since this is a right of all Canadians to be educated at schools to which they want to go, in the province of Manitoba separate schools are legal. As a matter of fact, the constitution of the province of Manitoba is the same as the constitution of the province of Quebec. In 1870 when the constitution was drafted the Roman Catholics of Manitoba were in the majority, and this constitution was made in order to protect the minority of the future. Now it is the Roman Catholics who are in the minority. I believe that the federal government should see that the children of the personnel at the R.C.A.F. station have the same rights as those in the army. Right across the river from there the children of the personnel stationed at Fort Osborne, for example, are provided for at the expense of the government. Our troops in West Germany are provided for at considerable expense. Teachers are sent from Canada to Germany to teach both in the separate schools and in the public schools. I think this is an irritating matter that is not conducive to Canadian national unity. It is not a serious matter. It is not a matter of much expense. I should like the minister really to look into this matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the minister yesterday announced that eight squadrons of the air division in Europe were to be re-equipped with the F-104. Those of us on this side of the house indicated our satisfaction that a decision had finally been made even though we were advised last night that the commitment had been made in December, 1957 and the government had had all of these intervening months in which to consider the matter. We were glad the decision had been made because if the air division is to be retained in Europe, it must be well equipped. Our satisfaction at the fact that a decision had been made is lessened by

the nature of that decision because of what we have learned of the characteristics of the F-104.
The minister told us last night that it was primarily a strike fighter and that it had no other role. Yet upon examination we find that the F-104 was designed to be an air superiority fighter, the last of the air superiority day fighters. It holds the world speed and altitude records. To be able to do this, in order to provide this capability, air frame stability was sacrificed in the design.
We are advised that there are certain manoeuvres that the plane cannot do, that it is subject to stick "judders" when approaching manoeuvre limits, thereby warning the pilot that the plane is nearing the point where there will be loss of control. We further understand that the F-104 was grounded two years ago by the United States air force because of trouble with afterburner controls and power trim settings, although these difficulties have presumably been overcome. We further understand that the fatality rate of F-104 planes and pilots in the U.S.A.F. is unusually high. The accident rate is about double that of other U.S.A.F. fighters.
It is true that the F-104 used by the U.S.A.F. is not the Mark G contemplated for our air division but the G differs from the others mainly in electronic equipment, there being no change in the air frame or engine.
Why did the government not choose either the Grumman F-ll-F Super Tiger or the Republic F-105 Thunderchief? Both of these aircraft were designed specifically for the strike role and both are very stable weapon platforms. The characteristics of the Thunder-chief as outlined to the U.S. house appropriations committee are as follows:
The F-105 is manufactured by Republic Aviation at Farmingdale, N.Y. It is powered by one J-75 turbojet engine, manufactured by Pratt & Whitney, United Aircraft Corp, Hartford, Conn.
It is an all-weather tactical fighter. It is being procured to modernize our tactical fighter force. It will provide partial modernization of forces equipped with F-lOO's which do not have the performance needed in the 1960 time period to enable it to compete favourably with first-line aircraft of other nations.
The principal characteristics of the F-105 are:
1.	It can fly at supersonic speeds.
2.	It has an accurate, self-contained navigation system that is independent of vulnerable, ground-based aids to navigation.
3.	It is equipped with a radar system which makes it possible to attack ground targets under all weather conditions.
4.	The F-105 can deliver a wide variety of conventional munitions should the situation demand.
The F-105 is a jack-of-all-trades, capable of gaining air superiority or attacking ground targets with nuclear or conventional weapons. It will also be equipped with one M-61 20 mm. cannon.

We are informed that Republic offered to let Canada make all the sheet metal airframe parts, including skins, after-fuselage structure and parts of the wings for its United States air force contract, thereby giving this country an additional production sharing order. Furthermore, the Republic 105 has been engineered in such a way that it would be able to use the Iroquois engine, and it is understood that Republic offered to consider using the Iroquois engine for its United States air force contract. This would have been a matter for agreement between the United States and Canadian governments. If such an arrangement had been reached the Canadian plus the U.S.A.F. orders would have been sufficient to make the Iroquois competitive for other installations. In any event, it would likely have been cheaper, if you consider the cancellation costs connected with the Iroquois, to have put it into production rather than tooling up for another engine. The Iroquois engine would have increased the power and effectiveness of the Thunderchief, an already outstanding strike aircraft.
What about the J-79 engine in the F-104, the plane the Canadian government has chosen for our air division? Congressman Andrews of Alabama had the following questions to ask:


Mr. Andrews:: How often do you overhaul an engine? At certain periods?
General Hewitt: At certain periods, sir. We have different life expectancies on engines running all the way from 100 hours between overhauls to approximately 1,200 hours, for one of the engines that we now use, the J-47 in the B-47.


William Andres: What is the one which has 100 hours' life expectancy?
General Hewitt: The one which has 100-hour expectancy, right now, perhaps a little less, sir, is the J-79 which is in the F-104 aircraft. I can recall the time when the J-47 in the B-47 aircraft also had a life expectancy of 100 hours. As we find out the faults and the weaknesses of these engines, sir, by modification we can extend their life expectancy.
We have a complete chart here, sir, if it would be of any interest to you, which shows the life expectancy of each one of the types of engines we are now using.
Would you not know, Mr. Chairman, that of all the engines in all the fighter planes of the United States air force the Canadian government would choose the one which is the least satisfactory?
As regards armaments, it is reported that the F-105 rocket payload is approximately five times that of the F-104. In addition, it has an internal bomb bay which gives it a capability of delivering nuclear or conventional weapons. The F-104 does not have an internal bomb bay. The F-105 is the only plane available which can launch a bomb when flying twice the speed of sound. It
Supply-National Defence has been flying for nearly two years and unlike the F-104 has yet to kill a pilot. It has been estimated by a United States research team that one Republic 105 Thunderchief is capable of doing the work of two F-104's. On this basis the F-105 system if bought in its entirety would cost less than the F-104 because it would take fewer planes to do the job.
The Republic F-105 also has an all-weather fighter capability and could be used to supplement the Bomarc if Canada is to remain in this particular field of continental defence. It could be stationed at bases such as Comox, Cold Lake, Churchill and Bagotville, for example, and could make contact with the enemy far over the north. To provide this capability would merely require minor modifications in the electronic system.
The Grumman F-ll-F is also an outstanding aircraft. Its electronic capabilities are similar to the F-104. It was designed for the United States navy as a strike aircraft. It, too, is very stable, an excellent weapon platform. United States confidence in the Republic 105 Thunderchief is demonstrated by the fact that it is presently in United States air force squadron use and there is a production order which will continue until 1963. The United States air force, which developed all these planes and which is in the best position to evaluate them, chose not the F-104 but the Republic F-105 Thunderchief for its strike fighter squadrons. United States confidence in the F-104 is demonstrated by the fact that it does not plan to replace this plane in squadron service as the inventory is depleted. The very high attrition rate will accelerate this phasing out.
The plane chosen by the government of Canada to re-equip our air division is, Mr. Chairman, to put it bluntly, no ruddy good for the strike role. The air frame is unstable. The engine is not reliable enough. It was not designed for the job. There are infinitely better aircraft available for the strike reconnaissance role. This, Mr. Chairman, is just one further example of this government's incredibly bad judgment in defence matters.


Frank Charles McGee: I wonder if the hon. member would table the document from which he was reading?


Harold Edward Winch: I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he would give an indication of something which I admit I do not know, and that is with regard to matters which have an effect on the air force and its equipment, its equipment in Canada and its equipment overseas. Would the minister mind explaining just how a decision is reached
5462	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-National Defence amongst the air staff, himself, the government, NATO and the general staff? What is the arrangement whereby these things are discussed and decisions reached, and who makes the final decision?
In other words, I would like to know, not just for my own information, but I think I can speak, although I have not got the right to because I cannot-well, I will say it-on behalf of high ranking officers of the R.C.A.F. who have been in a position where they have been stultified, stupefied, not knowing what to do because they had no authority to do it. I knew, even up to two weeks ago-if you ask me to name the R.C.A.F. man you could crucify me because I am not giving his name-that the R.C.A.F. to my knowledge were sitting wondering and waiting for what was to be done, what was going to be the decision? They were wondering what was going to happen to our squadrons in Europe and what was going to happen here in Canada. I have never been called a liar in my life and no one is going to call me one now, but I say that that is something which is inside the armed forces, Mr. Minister of National Defence, whether you like it or not. It is a position of complete indecision because there is no unification. There is no chain of authority and there is no chain of decision.
I should like the Minister of National Defence to stand up in this committee right now and tell us what is the chain of consultation, what is the chain of decision, what is the chain of authority; who makes the final, authoritative decisions on policy, on planes, on equipment and on the armed forces. I use the occasion of this vote to ask that question. I am going to say to the Minister of National Defence, that he will make the greatest contribution to the morale of the armed services and to the brass hats of the army if he will announce where authority lies, where decision lies, where the responsibility lies. It is repetitious, but I am going to repeat that if the minister would get rid of the confusion which I know existed up until last week by laying down something which will be on record in Hansard as to where the authority lies, he will have done more than any previous minister of national defence has done toward building up the esprit de corps and morale of the armed forces. But, particularly, I ask him the question: what is the chain of consultation and command; who makes the decisions relative to policy and equipment and aircraft for the R.C.A.F. under vote No. 221?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, the chain of command for the R.C.A.F. and the other national armed forces is described in the charts at the end of the white paper.


Harold Edward Winch: That doesn't mean a thing.


George Randolph Pearkes: Simply because you cannot understand plain English. These charts show exactly the commands of the R.C.A.F. It is all explained in this paper. The chief of the air staff is the senior officer of the R.C.A.F. He is advised by an air council. He makes his recommendations, if they concern the administration of the air force, to me directly, and if they raise questions of defence policy they go to the chiefs of staff committee who then make their recommendation to the Minister of National Defence. If it is within his powers, he makes the decision himself, but otherwise he refers it to the cabinet.


Harold Edward Winch: Can I ask the Minister of National Defence who was the general officer commanding western command and who is one of the best known of the generals of Canada and who has now been Minister of National Defence for two years, if he honestly believes that the white paper contains the answer to these questions, because if so he is far more naive than I ever thought he would be.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall this vote carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. It is a long time since the government or the department has had to make a more important decision in the field of military equipment than the one they have made in respect to the reinforcement of a major part of the Canadian air force which is now to continue its service overseas under NATO. That requirement indicates that the division is going to be given a new role, that of strike fighter, and no more important role could be conferred on a division than this. And therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is surely of the greatest importance that we should get all the information we possibly can in respect to this decision which was made to re-equip the division with a particular plane concerning which we have doubts in comparison to other planes which were designed for the same purpose.
So we on this side hope that the minister will be able to deal tomorrow with some of the questions which have been raised by my hon. friend from Trinity in expressing doubt as to the suitability of this particular aircraft in comparison with others, and we shall have other questions to ask the minister on that point. More particularly, we should like to hear from the minister the reasons why this particular plane was chosen, the procedure which was followed, the examination and the tests which were given to other planes, and information on all those matters which must have been in the minds of the government before they took this important

decision. Perhaps the minister will be able to satisfy our legitimate concern on this matter when the committee resumes tomorrow.


George Randolph Pearkes: Just briefly, tonight, I might say that as I stated in my opening remarks yesterday a large number of different types of aircraft were examined-British, American and European-by teams of technical officers from the R.C.A.F. and the Department of Defence Production, and when all the considerations had been evaluated and examined, including the suitability of the different types of aircraft to carry out the role which had been assigned to them, availability, cost, the sharing of production and all those considerations, both military and economic, those matters were then considered by the chiefs of staff committee. They were studied by myself. They were considered by the cabinet defence committee and finally by the cabinet itself, and the final decision was reached when all the evidence had been obtained that this was the most suitable aircraft to meet all the requirements.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister one more question before the committee adjourns. Is it a fact that the United States has reequipped its own tactical squadrons in Europe with Republic F-105 fighters?


George Randolph Pearkes: I understand that some
squadrons of the U.S.A.F. are being equipped with the Republic F-105.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the leader of the house has anything to add to what he said last night about future business.
Business of the House


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker. The business will be as I outlined it then.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the leader of the house able to tell us what we will be doing next Tuesday? I think he indicated what the business will be on Monday. Can he go one day further?


Howard Charles Green: If we finish with the legislative items which I mentioned last night, then we will go on with any other items on the order paper on Tuesday with the exception of item No. 2, which is consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to the Income Tax Act, item No. 4 dealing with the Canada Shipping Act, item No. 6 dealing with the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. Any of the others might be called. We would arrange with the opposition parties if there should be any change in this order.
At 10.04 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
214.	Departmental administration, $3,380,550. Inspection services-
215.	Operation and maintenance, $6,967,225.
216.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $563,400.
Royal Canadian Navy-
217.	Operation and maintenance, $192,550,000.
218.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and major equipment, $94,942,000.
Canadian army-
219.	Operation and maintenance, $357,913,000.
220.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and major equipment, $90,940,000.
66968-9-347
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, July 4, 1959