Mr. Drew:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I must

coniess I am unable to understand the resistance of the minister as to something that is the regular practice in the other departments. Just as an example, let me refer to page 382 of the estimates, resources and development. On that page it starts, departmental administration, and that is what we are considering here. The first item is "One deputy minister and commissioner of the Northwest Territories, $15,000." Then it gives the "assistant deputy minister, planning; assistant deputy minister, administra-ton; director of administration." Then, you go on down through the whole list in which you have the details. For instance, there are thirteen clerks, grade 4, salaries from $2,568 to $2,904, and then the total is given, $31,227.

Then, a little further on there is another example, "Nine clerks, grade 2A, $1,560-$2,088;" and so on with the rest of the employees of the department. Then, you will find that where there are people employed in this department at casual rates, or at what are described as prevailing rates, they are lumped under the total sum and the number. It is either one of two things; either this book of estimates is brought together on a most inefficient and unnecessarily complicated basis by including these figures for other departments, or else there is some reason for it. It seems to me the reason for it is so the members of this house will have an idea of the salary level of the various categories of civilian employees. No matter what may apply to service employees, civilian employees are in exactly the same category in the Department of National Defence as any other department. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I find it extremely difficult to believe these figures are not readily available, because I would imagine we would have had a report a long time ago from the Auditor General that the accounts of the Department of National Defence were kept on an entirely different basis than any other department if those figures are not available right now.

Mr. Claxion:

I am sorry to have to assure the hon. leader of the opposition that, from the information which I have at this stage, those figures are not available right now. We made up our estimate and kept our accounts in accordance with the directions of the Auditor General, and those figures have not been included.

Supply-National Defence

Now, he has referred to page 282 of the estimates where there is a reference to 63 employees. If we are going to do that for the Department of National Defence, with

30,000 civilian employees, it will run to an awful lot of paper and it will not do anyone very much good. If that had been desired, it might have been indicated before, and then could have been considered. But the estimates have been made up in the form in which they have following the recommendations of the public accounts committee and the Auditor General last year; that is the form in which we have the material available. I shall be glad to give hon. members any information that is before me, and I shall be glad to get any information that they think it desirable to place before the committee. But I do suggest it is very desirable that we should consider the cost of obtaining this, and the advantages that might result.

Mr. Drew:

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence is really creating bogeys that do not exist. I have in my hand the army estimates for the present year for the United Kingdom. At page 72 of those army estimates I find, for instance, "civilians attached to regimental units." That is only one group, and that amounts to 5,438. It is not just a handful of people. In each case it gives the salary level; it gives the number and gives the total. I might say that that total, being 5,438, with the designation, the salaries and the totals, is all contained on one page of this book. When we are told that this would entail such a prohibitive cost and would be so difficult, I would only say that the minister would be following the practice that is well established, to which we have referred on numerous occasions and one which I am satisfied their records would now give, without any complicated detail.

Mr. Warren:

Does it give their telephone numbers?

Mr. Drew:

I shall not say what I intended to say.

The Deputy Chairman:

Order.

Mr. Ross (Souris):

I do not think the hon. member could handle them.

Mr. Drew:

All through this book the same practice is followed. For instance, on the preceding page, there is given "civilians at command headquarters and other headquarters establishments, 17,350." There again you have the salary levels, the number, and the total; and in those cases whether they are employing people at current levels as the minister did, they give it in that way in a bulk figure.

Supply-National Defence

Mr. Warren:

We do not want it.

Mr. Fulton:

Our own Post Office Department does it, at page 331; there are 17,000 employees.

Mr. Drew:

Yes. To come to our own estimates, at page 330, under the post office, we find there a total of 15,495; and above that you will see the details of salaries given, except where there is simply one official or again where they are indicated at prevailing rates as in the case of some of the employees of this department.

Mr. Green:

And approximately 17,000 on the next page.

Mr. Drew:

Then on the next page-and I mention this just to show that it is not dealing with handfuls of men-under the post office again, there is given a figure of 17,638, with the details and the salaries, and the total of approximately $54 million.

With this practice so clearly established, it is difficult to credit the fact that the accounting method is such that this information cannot be given to this committee in some similar form; and I think it should be given. I suggest right now that instead of having the resistance that there is to giving information, it should be seen by this time how much more rapidly we would proceed if the minister would agree to follow the practice adopted in other departments and in the United Kingdom, and would take the lists that are available, have them prepared, and made available to us here. Then we can proceed to discuss this matter with knowledge of the facts before us.

The Minister of National Defence used glowing terms with regard to our attempts at standardization-and I only use this as an illustration-when he said that no nation in the world had done so much as we had done. The only way we have done that is to do nothing, in this particular case, evidently. But we are told that we can get the details of this department and that this department gives more information than any other. I must say that so far as I can see the answer is that this department is best because it does nothing to give us the information; the other departments do. This information is valuable or it is not. If the minister's contention is right and this information is not valuable, then it condemns every other department that takes the trouble to give us these details.

Mr. Noseworthy:

Mr. Chairman, when I asked for that information, I had no intention of asking the minister to do what he suggests he would have to do, namely to go back to these plants where men are employed

and pull their time cards to find out what they were being paid. What I was asking is that before we vote for five items amounting to $50 million, we be given something more than just a statement "civil salaries and wages" repeated five times, and amounting to over $50 million in this one department's estimates. I think we should have at least something approximating the information that we have in the other departments here or that we should have some idea where these people are going, what salaries they are getting, whether they are civil servants and what proportion are civil servants. The minister wants to know what good that would be to the Canadian public. I would think the Canadian public would want some knowledge of how an item of this size, namely $1,400 million, is spent. I think some detail would be of interest to the Canadian public, even if the minister thinks it is not of interest to us here in the house.

Mr. Claxlon:

I shall be glad to give the hon. member the information which I understand he wants as we come to each item. But to give it now, and put it on Hansard, I think would be anticipating the progress we hope to make.

Mr. Noseworthy:

If we could have something of that kind, either before us or on Hansard, instead of having to sit here and try to catch what the minister is saying as he reads these figures off, it would help us to study the matter intelligently.

Mr. Knowles:

May I just say one word in connection with this matter. Reference has been made to the form in which these details are given in connection with the other departments of government. I should like to point out that the book of estimates this year is considerably larger than it was last year. One reason is that more detail has been given, in keeping with suggestions made in the public accounts committee and here in the House of Commons. For example, greater detail is given as to the break-down between temporary and permanent employees. It seems to me that last year we did not ask that the one general item for civil salaries and wages in the Department of National Defence be broken down in the same way. Bearing in mind the fact that requests in former years with respect to the form of the estimates have been met to a considerable extent, I express the hope-without prejudice to the request that we get information this year-that next year, when the estimates are brought down, the Department of National Defence will bring down its information with regard to civil salaries and wages in the same way as do the other departments.

As the leader of the opposition, has already pointed out, the number of civilian employees in the Department of National Defence does not differ greatly from the number employed by the Post Office Department. The total amount spent for civil salaries and wages in the Post Office Department is $52,860,461. The total amount spent for civil salaries and wages in the Department of National Defence is $58,024,590. Those two figures are comparable in magnitude. In the case of the Post Office Department we get a break-down in the back of the book of estimates. My plea is that next year the estimates for the Department of National Defence be broken diown in the same way with respect to details in the back of the book.

Mr. Claxton:

I think we are moving

towards this, Mr. Chairman. As hon. members will observe, it has been possible to increase the detail each year as post-war organization has developed. Certainly I gave instructions this year that we should do everything possible to give all the information we can and to conform completely with the recommendations of the Auditor General. That has been done with regard to all categories of defence expenditures, in the same way as the categories for the expenditures of all other government departments. They have the same class numbers and they are given under the same heads. If in addition it is desired that we should give details of each group of employees, we will certainly be more in a position to do that than ever before, because the development which has been planned has occurred, and I shall be glad to consider it and discuss with the officials of the department, treasury and the government, what can be done to meet the hon. member.

Mr. Harkness:

I have suggested to the minister in each of the last three years the desirability of putting forward the estimates of this department in the same form as they are put forward in every department, and in the same form in which they were put forward in this department up until I think 1947. The discussion we have had for the last half hour or more indicates I think the fact that if the estimates of this department were put in the same form as other departments we would have saved a great deal of time here in the house. It would be unnecessary to ask a lot of these questions as to how many employees there are in the administrative branch, such as the item we are considering. The whole thing would be there in front of us. There would be no necessity to ask questions about it. We would save a great deal of time in the house and greatly facilitate the examination of the

Supply-National Defence estimates, and also the speed with which we might get through. I would certainly again recommend very strongly to the minister that when the estimates for next year are brought down the same form be used as was used in these estimates before, and the same form in which they are brought down by other departments.

The Deputy Chairman:

Is the discussion

on civil salaries and wages terminated?