Mr. Claxton:

I appreciate the point made by the hon. member. We have been criticized for having too good a building in Washington and not a good enough one in Toronto. I venture to say that if you look at the unit cost of the two buildings, you will find that they are within five cents or ten cents a cubic foot of each other. However, the one in Toronto is unquestionably on too small a lot. I think that really is the point about the building. That is all the area that there was to put it on, so it was put rather flush with the street and interferes with the street line. I certainly would like to have seen it put on a larger lot.

83276-407i

Supply-National Defence

Mr. Claxton:

We are trying so far as possible to replace service personnel by members of the corps of commissionaires.

Mr. Claxion:

Both the Royal Canadian

naval air arm and the Royal Canadian Air Force have to fly by the rules regarding civil aviation. They are just as much subject to those rules as commercial aircraft, and that applies to low flying or flying on certain levels, flying by instruments and everything else. They are completely subject to the same rules. I can assure you that in the case of the two service air forces, these rules are strictly enforced. Whenever any infraction is found, severe disciplinary action is taken. When this happens a man may be dismissed from the service, and then very frequently I have representations made that he should be restored.

I know of the incident in Vancouver to which the hon. member referred. It was drawn to my attention before. This was an occasion when the naval air arm had been out doing some exercises at Patricia bay. On the way back from Patricia bay to the east they, as a way of celebrating the Queen's birthday, did a flypast over Vancouver. They understood that this had been advertised and cleared with the local people, the newspapers and so on. Apparently it was not, and it was a surprise. This was planned and organized

[Mr. Dinsdale.l

as a patriotic demonstration, as is done on numerous occasions. We had a magnificent flypast over Ottawa on the occasion of the coronation when 140 aircraft went by. Some of them were below ordinary flying height, but very little danger is involved in that. However, it is disturbing and I am assured there was a misunderstanding about it, otherwise it would not have occurred.

With regard to other matters, we simply are not in a position to say to the R.C.A.F. that they must not fly in or out of the airfields that have been built for the R.C.A.F. at vast expense to the Canadian people, whether they be at Moose Jaw, Saskatoon or any of the other places. Each of these airfields probably represents an investment of $30 million. They have to be located near a city and they are operated as safely as possible. At some of these airfields the trainees rise and descend at the rate of more than one a minute, so that the air may at times be infested with Harvards. If the weather is clear, there is no reason why that should represent a hazard.

In the case of the Moose Jaw business I have nothing to add to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce who made the statement for the government in that connection. We are looking into it and we are hoping to arrive at some very sensible and reasonable provision which will make it less likely than the almost mathematical impossibility that a collision should occur. It is almost impossible to conceive that a collision should have occurred between those two aircraft in broad daylight; yet it did; that is being investigated.

Mr. Claxton:

This is relatively recent.

Mr. Claxlon:

In answer to the hon. member's interesting questions, he asked first whether, in the case of veterans of world war II desiring to enlist, any reference is made to their records in world war II. I am informed that when they apply to join one of the forms they sign is a form dealing with their previous war experience. That form is referred for further inquiry to the Department of Veterans Affairs which keeps the records of veterans of the first and second world wars. My understanding is that the answer is yes, but I do not want to suggest for a moment that this is done sufficiently rapidly to screen out people who may have had bad records. An effort is made, but this is a very large-scale operation. We are dealing with another government department, and I am not sure whether or not that is done in time to turn down a man on the score that he has had a bad record if he does not disclose it himself. However, a check is made.

The hon. member also asked about the wash-out rate for aircrew. This rate is not given in any country. We have checked this, and I think hon. members will appreciate the reasons for not doing so. I am not in a position to give any comparison between the wash-out rate for R.C.A.F. and other trainees. This is a matter which is receiving continuous consideration by everyone concerned in our air force and the other air forces, and we are working together very closely on it. I must say personally that I am reaching the point where, having had some experience and having discussed the matter extensively with experts in this field in other countries, I am beginning to doubt whether increasing the level of selection produces a corresponding decrease in the rate of losses in training. You get to a point where, whatever the rate of refusal on selection is, statistically the rate of losses in training appears to be just about the same, so that you could select out too high a proportion without getting corresponding returns. However, that is an idea of mine. Other people are testing the matter scientifically.

The hon. member also asked whether in the figures given in the white paper for R.O.T.P. personnel we include any of this new group he mentioned. I was not able to hear precisely what he said. If they are officer candidates from the universities or the service colleges then they are included. If, however, they were previously officers and are taking

Supply-National Defence refresher courses they are not included in that figure. The figure in the white paper is for officer candidates only.

The hon. member inquired about the expenditure in an item on page 317, I believe. I understand he was referring to the item for films, displays, broadcasting, advertising and other informational materials, $936,000 for this year and $936,700 for last year. It is very much the same figure. We feel it is desirable to maintain advertising at about the same level, but I can assure the hon. member and the house that this matter is being reviewed within the next two or three weeks to see if we cannot effect some further reduction in recruiting expenses. We have some experience in this regard. We did make a substantial reduction in March, April, May and June of 1950 and the rate of recruiting slipped very materially. We were about reaching our then targets or coming within sight of them. Then we had the Korean affair and it was necessary to build up the program again. Personally I am rather opposed to making too sharp a drop until we see whether or not we are maintaining our present levels in the services and increasing them slightly towards the targets.

Of course, hon. members should appreciate that as we attain our target, not that we will ever have any fixed target because we will be changing from year to year, but as we reach about the targets we will see that wasting will exactly equal intake and intake will equal wastage. We shall have an exact equilibrium. People will talk then about our high rates of wastage. Our aim will be to maintain our intake at precisely the level necessary to meet wastage. As long as we do that, we will be meeting the target.

Naturally, we will always be striving to keep down wastage in order to keep the men of experience. Actually our wastage rates for the three services are I believe very favourable. Let me put it this way, our rates of re-engagement for the three services are very favourable. I have got the rates for other countries and for ours, and they are improving in our country or holding their own, while relative to the others with which we are familiar, they are very much better. This is a good position, but I should like to see it still better.