I do not know; I am merely reporting what is in the paper. The very fact that the minister did not mention it is reason for justifiable concern whether these Orenda engines will be used solely for the CF-100 or whether they are to be used also for the F-86. That is another point on which we would like information. This same article goes on to say that reliable estimates indicate that engine production would run at about twenty a month.
If that is so, sheer mathematical process makes one wonder how we can get enough aircraft fitted with these engines, particularly if they are going to be fitted into the F-86, to look after our overseas commitments and our commitments in Canada as well.
Going on from that, we come to the position regarding the standardization of weapons. This was another point that was emphasized by the minister a year ago. I express some surprise that no mention was made of it today. In fact, the whole situation regarding standardization is somewhat bewildered because a year ago we were shipping British-type weapons to our European allies. We sent equipment for three divisions and at that time we were told that the British-type weapons would be replaced with United States equipment. The minister advised then that that would be done and said that an exceedingly good arrangement, to use his own words, had been reached. He intimated that substantial quantities of United States-type equipment were forthcoming, but United States-type equipment in any large quantities has not been forthcoming. We gave a warning a year ago about the hasty Americanization of the Canadian army, and I think that warning was well founded.
The 25th brigade in Korea is part of the commonwealth division and it uses British equipment, as do the other units of that division. The 27th brigade is operating with the British army on the Rhine and is serviced and maintained largely, if not entirely, through British channels. The standardization of our army along United States lines :seems to have misfired badly. Canada has sent British-type weapons to Europe-Belgium, The Netherlands and Italy each receiving the equipment for one division. Other equipment, including artillery, has been sent to Portugal, Denmark and Luxembourg, but the Canadian army has not been refitted.
I think the minister owes an explanation to the country as to what has happened in this respect and whether a premature decision was made to standardize along United States lines which seems to have been abandoned in midstream, leaving our army units in Canada short of equipment. We do not question the desirability or the advisability of sending equipment to Europe. As has been pointed out, the great reserve of manpower in Europe cannot be utilized because of the lack of equipment. What I am asking is what has happened to the replacement of the British-type equipment that we have sent out of this country.
Very large amounts are involved, including the sum of over $2,000 million, an increase of $400 million over last year's appropriation. It should be remembered also that the appropriations for civil defence this year are not included in these estimates, though they were in the national defence estimates last year.
I said we have not a great deal of information in the blue book as to how this amount is going to be spent. We shall have opportunities of going into that not only when this house is in committee of the whole but, if the suggestion made this afternoon by my leader is adopted and these estimates are referred to the committee on defence expenditures which was set up today, that committee will provide ample opportunity for careful examination not only of the expenditures made last year but of current expenditures as well. However, just a quick examination of such detail as is available indicates that over $213 million is to be spent on the acquisition of land and the construction of buildings in Canada. No particular details are given beyond the division of that amount as between the different branches of the department, $20 million to the navy, $81 million to the army and $114 million to the R.C.A.F. It would look as though we shall soon require a department of defence construction as well as a Department of Defence Production, because that is a large sum of money to be spending, and I hope the minister will give us details in regard to it.
This afternoon the minister referred to the number of men now in the service, both in uniform and as civilians. I noticed he said there are now 40,000 civilian employees in the services. If I remember correctly he estimated last year that the number might reach 30,000. It seems to have gone up in the interval. I wonder whether there is not a desire to increase that number perhaps out of all proportion to the actual service rendered. From my experience in the services a number of years ago I know there is a tendency to inflate establishments. There is only one man who can see that these civilians are used
economically and that establishments for home service do not become blown up; that is the minister. A great responsibility rests upon him, and I hope he is not going to be carried away by what might almost be described as an inordinate ambition or a lust for power, but that rather he will use his judgment to try to relieve the burden which rests upon the taxpayers by seeing that there are no unnecessary expenditures.
I am not convinced that we have reached the bedrock of economy in this department.
I believe if a thorough examination were instituted by the minister, perhaps in the form of a special travelling board or something of the kind, more unnecessary expenditures might be eliminated and these inflated establishments might be reduced. I know the tendency of all commanders to build up their headquarters as much as they can. I believe it was Gladstone who said something like this, that if you took the word of a doctor you believed there was no health in the country; if you listened to a parson you believed there was no purity; if you listened to a soldier you believed there was no security; and that the advice of these experts must be tempered with a generous portion of good common sense. I know there is a great tendency on the part of all senior officers to revel in the size of their commands. So I am not thrilled by the fact that there are 40,000 civilians serving at the present time instead of 30,000, though I realize perfectly well that many of them will be usefully employed.
No doubt many of the services mentioned in the blue book are very desirable and attractive, but I think of such things as some of these grants which are made to associations, which have been creeping up and up over the years. I think of such personnel as military attaches in many European countries. I suggest that their employment be reviewed now in the light of the fact that we have national representatives at SHAPE, because we do not want any duplication of the work there.
So I would wind up on this note: that while many of these services will seem attractive and desirable for the armed forces, the minister has to be extremely careful to see that only necessary expenditures are made at this time. It is only in the Department of National Defence that any real reduction may be made. Perhaps that cannot be done at the moment because of our commitments, but a grave responsibility rests upon the minister to see that in the expenditure of this enormous amount of money there is no waste or duplication or superfluous spending. It is not a question of how much the services would
like spent on them; it is how much this country dares spend on the bare essentials of the services.
At six o'clock the house took recess.