Mr. Campney:

I am informed, first, that the air force does endeavour to utilize as fully as possible its own engineering staff and, second, that it sometimes finds it is unable to obtain sufficient engineers of certain specialist categories. So I would think that would be a check on the use of the people in the air force who have engineering training.

In regard to the vote for professional fees and the increase from $1,500,000 to $3,600,000 for architects, engineers and consultants, shown on page 340, I might point out that out of the amount, $2,600,000 is for professional services in connection with the mid-Canada line, so that on the ground of normal engineering the vote is somewhat less this year than it was last year.

There is a great need for engineers. We cannot begin to get all we want. There is no other alternative but to go outside the service. We are utilizing people with engineering training, or certainly endeavouring to do so, to the very best advantage of the service.

Mr. Noseworthy:

While I am on the same point, I notice the item under professional fees for medical and dental consultants and special services is for $2,213,000. I always understood that the air force had its own medical and dental officers and personnel. Just why is it necessary to go outside the force to spend nearly 2J million on medical and dental services?

Mr. Campney:

A large part of the moneys we spend for medical and dental consultants and special services in that field is really reimbursement to the D.V.A., which conducts a good deal of our work. It also includes care of dependents in certain circumstances, in isolated areas where we have to look after the dependents of our personnel. The remainder of it is due, of course, to the steadily increasing size of the R.C.A.F. We do have our own medical service, but we do not have, generally speaking, a complete hospital service. We use the D.V.A. service where it is possible to avoid duplicating such services. We have some hospitals, but we do not engage in a large hospitalization scheme.

Mr. MacLean:

Mr. Chairman, would the minister be kind enough to bring the committee up to date on the progress which is

being made in re-equipping the maritime squadrons with Neptune aircraft, and what the target date for complete conversion might be. I presume O.T.U.'s that support those squadrons will also be equipped with Neptunes.

Mr. Campney:

The O.T.U.'s will have Neptunes this year, and I believe it is anticipated that all the Neptunes that have thus far been ordered will be delivered in November of this year.

Mr. MacLean:

That includes Neptunes for

O.T.U.'s that support the maritime squadrons?

Mr. Campney:

Yes, the number ordered for them will be delivered this year.

Mr. MacLean:

I have a second question I should like to ask the minister. In the white paper a reference is made to the mobile striking force. It says:

The mobile striking force consists of army and air force components to deal with possible enemy lodgements on Canadian territory.

I am concerned with the progress which is being made in supplying suitable equipment to the air force component of the mobile striking force, whatever that component may be, so that troops could be transported and dropped in any vital area and, just as important, that they can be supplied by air, wherever this location may be. I wonder whether the minister could say a word as to what the plan or program is in that regard?

Mr. Campney:

There are two squadrons. They are completely equipped now with C-119's for the purpose of transporting the mobile striking force. Was there another question that followed that one? I heard the horn member asking something but I did not hear it clearly.

Mr. MacLean:

The second section of my question was this. What special aircraft may be provided, if any, for supply purposes?

Mr. Campney:

The C-119.

Mr. MacLean:

The C-119 is filling both functions. Yesterday, I think it was, we were discussing under the army estimates the disbandment of anti-aircraft units in the country. I wonder whether the minister would say a word about any plans that may be in existence with regard to replacing these units with some other formations to take over the function these anti-aircraft units formerly carried out? It seems to me that modern military thinking is to the effect that the air force should have control over all air defence, whether it consists of ground units firing ground to air rockets or whether it is done by aircraft themselves.

50433-385J

Supply-National Defence

In that connection, if the minister can do so would he indicate what plans there are for the experimental use of guided missiles and rockets at Cold Lake and whether the actual personnel who will be doing the testing of any missiles which may be developed will be air force personnel, army personnel or civilian personnel?

Mr. Campney:

In answer to the first question, I can only say at the moment that the various alternative methods-to some of which the hon. member referred-are still under consideration, are being studied and will be studied for some time to come. With regard to Cold Lake, that is entirely air force; it is a guided missile range for air to air missiles at the present time.

Mr. MacLean:

The program at the present time is for air to air missiles, as I understand it.

Mr. Campney:

That is right.

Mr. MacLean:

But I was under the impression-I may be wrong-that tests of ground to air missiles would be carried out at a future date; and I was wondering whether any plans are being made along that line.

Mr. Campney:

I would not want to go any further on that particular question than I have said in the white paper on page 5, paragraph 12.

Mr. Dinsdale:

I should like to pursue the line of questioning being followed by the hon. member for York West just a moment ago. I also asked some questions along this same line last night. I refer to the preparations for home defence. When this question has been discussed in previous years the reply has been that our 10 auxiliary squadrons were the backbone of home defence. From the remarks of the minister I take it that now that policy has been reversed, that the auxiliary squadrons are being withdrawn from defensive responsibilities and that the nine active force squadrons are going to be placed in the front line of our air defence.

The minister also indicated tonight that the whole matter of the future of the auxiliary squadrons is still under consideration. From that I take it that perhaps it has not been decided to withdraw them from fighter-interceptor activities. I wonder whether bolstering these auxiliary squadrons with a heavier percentage of permanent force personnel might not help get around the difficulty of coping with modern, complex military aircraft?

Along the same line, may I say that I cannot quite understand how it is that we are reducing our expenditures-and I raised

Supply-National Defence this point last night-for the procurement of aircraft by $100 million. I cannot reconcile that reduction with the need for the equipping of several of the active fighter squadrons with the CF-100 type of aircraft. The inference I draw from that answer is that we have a surplus number of CF-lOO's already produced and waiting to be manned by aircrew personnel; and that in turn would suggest that there must be a shortage of adequately trained personnel to man these aircraft. I wonder what the true situation is. Is there a shortage of trained personnel to man the aircraft, or is there overproduction in the CF-100 type of aircraft?

Mr. Campney:

To deal first with the spending last year and this year in respect of aircraft purchased, I think last year our estimates contained an item of $395 million. This year, as the hon. member has said, it is about $100 million less, or $293 million. The fact is that last year we spent $309 million of the estimate, so the difference this year is $16 million.

May I say that there is also another phase of the matter which I overlooked in replying to the hon. member for York West. There are quite substantial savings in costs of airplanes as the production schedule runs along. In other words the manufacturing companies learn by experience how to cut their costs. So that consideration enters into this figure as well.

To refer again to the question of aircrew, may I say that we are not short of aircrew. We are getting aircrew to the extent on which we have planned. We had done so up until the end of last year, and I think the situation is still being maintained.

Mr. Dinsdale:

In his reply, then, the minister suggests that there is no overproduction of CF-lOO's and that the present output of, I believe, seven aircraft a month will be sufficient to equip the remaining nine active force squadrons still not equipped with the CF-100?