The Deputy Chairman:

The hon. member for Kamloops.

Mr. Fulton:

I wish to go back to the question of the associate deputy minister, but perhaps there is more discussion on this question of the form of the estimates.

The Deputy Chairman:

Yes, but I should like to observe that the previous point was somewhat out of order. We are not going to discuss the method by which the estimates are to be presented next year. In my humble view that suggestion has been made by some

of the members to the minister who has replied to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and he has also given a reply to the hon. member for Broadview on the same question, and he has given a reply to the hon. member for Calgary East. Perhaps his reply is not that which the hon. member would wish, but nevertheless it is the reply of the minister, and he has indicated that that is the reply at least three times. I would suggest to the hon. members that we should carry on and discuss civil salaries and wages, which are relevant to the item.

Mr. Drew:

According to my recollections, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence said that his department did not keep those records in a way that would make it possible to give this information without costing the people of Canada a great deal of money.

Mr. Warren:

That is correct.

Mr. Drew:

I have before me the last copy of the public accounts, and at page N-49 there is a list of the civil employees of the Department of National Defence. It gives the names and the salaries. There is no suggestion that this is in any way inconsistent with the practice of the department. On the contrary, it is put forward as a regular matter of record by the Auditor General. We see that for the year that was covered by these accounts it gives the deputy minister's salary as $12,000; it gives the controller general of inspection services, the official to whom the hon. member for Nanaimo referred, at $12,000; it gives the assistant deputy minister at $10,000, and then it goes on with lists of names, with the salaries of each one, and that goes on for several pages. This is not a case of saying we have heard enough answers. We have heard enough answers to know that we need another answer, and that is why it is not possible-

Mr. Warren:

May I ask the leader of the opposition a question? Did he ever go into the military camp at Petawawa, and through the gate of that camp? If he did so he would be meeting men all the time and, with them, it is not a matter of salary. It is just a day's pay; that is all they get.

Mr. Drew:

I hope the hon. member who represents the constituency in which the Petawawa camp is situated is not under the impression that records are not kept as to what is paid the men who are there?

Mr. Warren:

They are getting small

amounts. It might be only a day's pay.

Mr. Drew:

Well, that is just the point. I would like to know how small or how large the day's pay is, as the case may be. But

lor one, I would like to know why it would be at all difficult to give the very information we have asked for, when the public accounts snow that that information is available.

Mr. Claxion:

The public accounts make it very clear that that information is available in respect of the year 1949-50, when the amount was paid. I am not responsible however for the form of our estimates, and they have been made in a form which involves the grouping together of items in accordance with the recommendations of the Auditor General and the Department of Finance. We are now being asked to put under each item the number of clerks, the rate of salary, and so on. That might be done in a static year, but we have not had a static year. Each year has been one of tremendous growth, as is revealed in the development of the expenditures of the department. It was $192 million four years ago, about $425 million for the first half of this year, and it is now maybe $1,879 million.

At a time when there is that kind of development it was felt, perhaps not so much by the officers of this department as by everyone concerned, that to put down three stenographers at $500 each or fifty soldiers at this or that amount would be likely to be found misleading-

Mr. Knowles:

Civil salaries.

Mr. Claxton:

-in consequence of the development of the department, which we were going to increase by fifty or sixty per cent or more each year. That, I understand, is the reason why this practice was adopted- and it was adopted before I came into the department. This year we adopted the form recommended by the Auditor General, and have conformed to the practice of other government departments, but without giving details as to civil servants. Details as to civil servants would take up a great many pages and it would be meaningless, and would not help the work of the committee. I think that must be the conclusion of everyone.

Mr. Noseworthy:

Would it be in order to

pass on to the next item, and ask-

Mr. Drew:

No, no.

Mr. Fulton:

On this item I would ask the

minister to give us a clear picture of the number of assistant deputies and associate deputies.

Mr. Claxton:

That has already been done.

Mr. Fulton:

I must confess it is not clear

to me. Would the minister at the same time say whether there is any effort in the department whereby either assistants or associates

Supply-National Defence should concern themselves with one or other of the services? In other words is there an allocation of deputies or associates?

Mr. Claxion:

No.

Mr. Fulton:

Is there an allocation to any

of the services?