<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<item xmlns="http://omeka.org/schemas/omeka-xml/v5" itemId="8766" public="1" featured="0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://omeka.org/schemas/omeka-xml/v5 http://omeka.org/schemas/omeka-xml/v5/omeka-xml-5-0.xsd" uri="https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/items/show/8766?output=omeka-xml" accessDate="2026-04-19T03:26:15-04:00">
  <fileContainer>
    <file fileId="5566">
      <src>https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/0de80a473a57681f933167c166b0a188.pdf</src>
      <authentication>29b541dff9663322267364ba21568e9b</authentication>
      <elementSetContainer>
        <elementSet elementSetId="31">
          <name>PDF Text</name>
          <description/>
          <elementContainer>
            <element elementId="131">
              <name>Text</name>
              <description/>
              <elementTextContainer>
                <elementText elementTextId="85000">
                  <text>Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a f information

arxfcis?

OTTAWA, l!arch 1 9 t h , 1947.

lxzmtiamu FOR G/C emit
Eoreuith aro oovcn oopioo of tho
ad hoc oomittco'o report on tho question
of tranonlttloc all eoveriiEont teloGraph
traffio oot\7ocn Canada and the United
KlnGdcn and tJithln Canada by Oorvico cireuito*
sould you please piaco those
boforo tho Chiofa of Staff Gosnittoo for
their eonoidoration,

E/J.2. Gill

000195

�Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a f information

t
SECRET

J-MVIORANDUM

FOR CHIEFS OF STAFF COMMITTEE:
Use'of Service facilities
for government telegraph traffic

'J:

I

Submitted herewith is the report of 'the
ad hoc committee appointed to study the possibility of
sending all government telegraph traffic over the communication facilities of the Department of National
Defence.
2.
The committee saw serious objections to
making it mandatory that all government traffic should
be handled by Service networks.
On traffic to the
United Kingdom it would require special distribution
arrangements, some new installations and increases in
Service personnel, and would conflict with existing
agreements with the U.K. and other Commonwealth governments.
On internal traffic the Services are not in a
position to handle all. government traffic without increases in personnel and without either extending their
present system or working out somewhat complicated
accounting procedures with the commercial telegraph
companies.
3.
The committee was not able to-present the
financial implications of the scheme. They were of the
opinion that it could not be justified on the grounds
of economy since the corporation operating external services is to be government owned and one of the two commercial telegraph companies in Canada is now government
owned.
The diversion of traffic from these organizations would not, therefore, result in a direct saving to
the government.
4.
The committee noted that in present conditions a fair volume of civilian government traffic is
carried over the Service circuits and they see no reason
why this practice should not be continued or even
extended where such an arrangement offers mutual advantages.
The problems raised, however, in making this
practice mandatory are out of all proportion to the
benefits that would accrue therefrom. '
5.
The conclusions in the attached report lead
the committee to recommend that- the transmission of
civilian government telegraph traffic over the Service
circuits be not obligatory but continue to be a matter
for interdepartmental arrangement.

;.W.T. Gill

P r i v y Council O f f i c e ,
March 1 7 t h , 1947.
\%%
000196

�Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a f information

t

m

SECRET

USE OF SERVICE FACILITIES
FOR GOVERNMENT TELEGRAPH TRAFFIC

v
I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
The Chiefs of Staff Committee at their meeting
of February 4th appointed a committee to examine and
report on the possibility of using Service communication
facilities for handling all government telegraph traffic:

v

(a)

between Canada and the U.K.

(b)

within Canada.

2.
This committee, composed of the Director of
Signals of each Service, Mr. Crean of External Affairs
and Mr. Gill of the Privy Council Office, has-met and considered in a broad way the two distinct questions, and
they report as follows.
II.

CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM

Description of Service facilities
3.
According to present plans the following facilities will be operated by the Services between Canada and
the U.K.:
(a)

Oshawa to Foreign Office, U.K. - 8 channels
multiplex 100 KW.
Canadian end operated by
Army.
United Kingdom end operated by Foreign
Office.

(b)

Ottawa to Air Ministry, Stanbridge, U.K. 6 channels single side band, 20 KW,
Canadian
end operated by R.C.A.F.

(c)

Halifax to the Admiralty, U.K. - single channel
teletype",. 10 KW.
Canadian end operated by
R.C.N.

4. • Of these facilities the wireless station at
Oshawa is to be transferred on April 1, 1947, from United
Kingdom ownership (Foreign Office) to Canadian government
ownership, and is to be operated by Army.
The terms of
this agreement are that the station should handle U.K.
Foreign Office traffic, External Affairs traffic with the
Canadian High Commissioner's Office in London and with
the Dominions Office, and traffic between the Office of
the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Ottawa and the
Dominions Office.
Its main purpose, however, is to .
carry special Foreign Office traffic, i.e., Signals
Intelligence between Washington and London, and between
Ottawa and London,
The terms of the transfer do not include its use for other traffic.
While the eight channels,

)0
000197

�Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a f information

- 2 which will be available when the- new transmitter is installed, might, at first sight, appear excessive, the
standardization of cypher facilities, which is taking
place between the interested United States and United
Kingdom authorities, will, it is estimated, ensure full
use of the eight channels for Signals Intelligence
traffic and traffic between the users outlined above.
5.
In view of the anticipated volume of Signal
Intelligence traffic, U.K. authorities have pressed for
the use of two of the six channels listed in (b) and it
is the present intention to reserve these for this purpose.
In addition, one is needed
for maintenance and general reserve purposes.
All facilities listed in (c) are required for Naval Services and
are unsuitable for general traffic.
This leaves three
channels available for general government traffic.. These
three channels have a combined capacity of approximately
40,000,000 groups per year, in each direction.
Estimated volume
,6.
estimated
Services)
7,000,000
and plain

From figures available to the Committee it is
that the government traffic (excluding Armed
between Canada and the U.K. might perhaps total
word groups per year, made up of cypher, code
languages messages.

7.
Of this volume approximately 525,000 groups
comprise the cypher traffic from External Affairs to the
Dominions Office and the Canadian High Commissioner's
Office.
This represents the total cypher traffic to
London originated by civilian departments.
arrangements
are being made to carry this traffic over the OshawaForeign Office circuit.
Effect of scheme on plan to nationalize.
external'communications services
8.
As part of a re-organization of Commonwealth
telecommunication services the Canadian government has
agreed to nationalize their external services by acquiring the assets (excluding manufacturing) of Canadian
Marconi Company and the facilities, in Canada, of Cable
and Wireless Limited.
This plan, it is expected, will
be carried out within the next two years.
t

9.
The plan involves the pooling of surplus revenues, by the Canadian corporation with a Commonwealth
Telecommunication Board and after Canada's share of the
upkeep of the Board and any deficit arising from the
operation of the cable system is borne, the net surplus
would be returnable to the Canadian corporation.
10. The chief considerations which the Canadian
government had in mind in agreeing to participate in this
re-organization was to remove the causes of friction
between the U.K. and the U.S. in connection with telecommunications and thus avoid a rate war which otherwise
appeared likely.
It was generally agreed that this type
of re-organization would achieve this object and at the
same time preserve flexibility in the transmission of
messages, which ensures the greatest advantages during
peace and war.

�Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a (information

- -o 11. The proposal to use Service facilities for all
government traffic would divert some traffic from the
national system but it is difficult to estimate the effect.
There is no doubt, however, that the scheme would be
regarded by the other Commonwealth governments as contrary
to the spirit of the agreement made by all Commonwealth
governments with regard to the re-organization.
Operational arrangements
12. Canadian government traffic destined for the
U.K. would be handed into the Joint Signals Office at
Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, This would be done either
by domestic telegram transmitted over commercial or
Service facilities or In the case of messages originating
in Ottawa, by runner.
13. The traffic would be received in the U.K. at the
Air Ministry Signals Centre, Stanbridge.
From there
arrangements would have to be made for Its onward transmission or delivery to the addressee.
This might possibly be done by:
•
.
(a) relay to any point in the U.K. over their
defence teleprinter network;
(b)

terminate one channel at Canada House, London,
in lieu of Stanbridge;

(c)

terminate one channel in the proposed Services
Joint Signals Office, London.

14. Arrangements such as those described in (a)
above would require concurrence of the U.K. authorities
and would probably be opposed as that circuit is at present restricted to military traffic only.
The second
alternative outlined in (b) above would require additional space at Canada House to accommodate the equipment
as well as operating and distribution personnel,
The
committee understands that this space is not presently
available and would be difficult to secure.
The third
alternative outlined in (c) would require additional personnel to permit distribution of local messages and possibly some additional space in the new quarters of the
Canadian Joint Liaison Officers.
Either (b) or (c)
involve financial accounting arrangements where messages
are passed to civil telegraph company for delivery outside the London area.
Conclusions
15. In the light of the above considerations, the
committee concludes that:
(a) . the equipment capacity of the Service system
would be adequate to handle all government
traffic;
(b) adoption of the scheme would require:

�Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a f information

•

-

(i)

(ii)

4

minor increases in Service establishments
in Canada and substantial personnel increases in Joint Service Signals Centre,
London;
concurrence of U.K. authorities who
.operate terminals in U.K.; and,

(iii) arrangements for the distribution of messages in the U.K. end;
(c) the scheme would divert some traffic from the
"national corporation" which the government
proposes to set up, and it would be contrary to
the spirit of the agreement made with the
other Commonwealth countries;

III.

(d)

the financial aspects of the problem cannot be
reported upon without undertaking a detailed
study; it should, however, be pointed out that
when external communications are nationalized,
any saving which might be brought about by the
present scheme would be largely nullified since
the government would own the company operating
the external telecommunications services;

(e)

the scheme offers advantages to the Services
in peacetime by increasing the volume of
traffic handled and thereby improving the training value and general efficiency of their system; however, these advantages might be offset
by disadvantages to the civilian departments
since in the event of emergency their traffic
would inevitably be accorded a low priority in '
relation to Service traffic and they might have
to fall back on commercial circuits; and,

(f)

the principle of having the Department of
National Defence provide services for civilian
departments or to undertake activities which
could be carried out under civilian auspices is
one which appears contrary to government policy
and the provision of funds for non-Service activities in the Defence Department estimates-might
well conflict with the interests of the Armed
Services.

. .

TRAFFIC WITHIK CANADA

16. The Department of National Defence is planning
to operate facilities within Canada which will serve the .
Northwest Territories and the-following principal cen-tres:
Summers id e
Goose Bay
Sydney
Halifax
Dartmouth
Greenwood
Moncton

Aylmer, On t,
Trenton
Winnipeg
Churchill
Rivers
Shilo '
Regina

,SM
000200

�Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a {'information

t

- 5 Fredricton
Quebec City
Montreal
Ottawa
Kingston
Toronto
Oakville
London
Camp Borden
Clinton
Centralia

Edmonton
Calgary
Fort St. John
Vancouver
Victoria
Fort Nelson
7/atson Lake
Chilliwack
Whi tenors e.
(Washington," D.C.)

18. The following places having a population in
excess of 20,000 will not be served by the system:
Chariottetown
Three Rivers
Sherbrooke
Shawinigan Falls
Oshawa
Peterboro
Niagara Falls
St. Catharines
Hamilton
Guelph

Kitchener
Windsor
Sudbury
Timmins
Sault Ste. Marie
Fort William
Port Arthur
Moose Jaw
Saskatoon
New Westminster.

Traffic over Service circuits
19. . There were some 626,000 messages transmitted
over Service circuits in 1946, of which 469,000 were from
the Department of National Defence and some 157,000 from
other departments.
A reasonable estimate of the volume,
if all government traffic (to points served by the system)
were put over these circuits, is about 2,000,000 messages
per year which is well within the 'capaciti^ of the system.
Operating arrangements
20. General government traffic is now accepted for
transmission over the Service network if the point of destination is served by it.
If not, it is turned over to
one of the commercial landline companies at the point of
origin.
Government messages addressed to non-government
organizations are permitted over the Service system but
the latter may not originate a message.
21. To provide a more complete service throughout
the country it would be necessary:,
(a)

to integrate operations with the landline companies so as to permit the Service system to
accept traffic to the point nearest the destination and to turn it over to the landline
companies for onward transmission;
this would
call for a complicated accounting arrangement
and agreement of the commercial companies; or,

(b)

to extend the system to give more complete
coverage; this would tend to build up a competitive system to the landline companies, and
this could not be justified on traffic considerations.

^
000201

�Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act - V
Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a {'information*

I

- 6 Conclusions
22. In the light of the above considerations, the
committee concludes that:
(a)

the equipment capacity of the Service system
would be adequate to handle all government
traffic to points served by the system but complete coverage is not provided;

(b)

the Service system is well suited for handling
certain types of government traffic and is, in
fact, doing so at the present time;

(c) the scheme would require either an expansion
of the system to give complete coverage or a
closer integration with commercial companies
for the transfer of traffic between the Service
• and commercial systems;

IV.

(d)

the financial aspects of the problem cannot be
reported upon without undertaking: a detailed
study; it should, however, be pointed out that
one of the two landline companies is government
operated and diversion of traffic from C.N.T.
would not result in a direct saving to the
government;

(e)

the scheme would require increases in Service
manpower at various centres across Canada, the
extent of which could not be estimated without
further detailed study; unless these increases
were permitted over and above present manpower
ceilings, they would not appear to be in the
general interests of the Services; and,

(f)

the principle of having the Department of
. National Defence provide services for civilian
departments or to undertake activities which
could be carried out under civilian auspices
is one which appears contrary to government
policy and the provision of funds for non- Service activities in the Defence Department
estimates might well conflict with the interests of the Armed Services,

.

.

y

/
'
,
i
*

RECOMMENDATION

. t h &amp; ^ef°r
(.L.«.

u\

/
2 3 , It is apparent f r o m the above,that some c i v i l i a n government traffic is being carried over Service
circuits and t h e committee sees n o reason w h y this p r a c tice should n o t be continued or even extended in i n d i v i dual cases where it is of mutual b e n e f i t . T h e committee
d o e s , h o w e v e r , see serious objections to m a k i n g it m a n dator y that all government traffic be handled by t h e
Service s y s t e m s , and they recommend strongly against
such a policy .
E.W.T . G i l l ,
Chairman.
Privy C o u n c i l Office,
March 17th, 1947.

iS'
000202

�</text>
                </elementText>
              </elementTextContainer>
            </element>
          </elementContainer>
        </elementSet>
      </elementSetContainer>
    </file>
  </fileContainer>
  <collection collectionId="72">
    <elementSetContainer>
      <elementSet elementSetId="1">
        <name>Dublin Core</name>
        <description>The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.</description>
        <elementContainer>
          <element elementId="50">
            <name>Title</name>
            <description>A name given to the resource</description>
            <elementTextContainer>
              <elementText elementTextId="71973">
                <text>Hydra</text>
              </elementText>
            </elementTextContainer>
          </element>
        </elementContainer>
      </elementSet>
    </elementSetContainer>
  </collection>
  <elementSetContainer>
    <elementSet elementSetId="1">
      <name>Dublin Core</name>
      <description>The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.</description>
      <elementContainer>
        <element elementId="43">
          <name>Identifier</name>
          <description>An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context</description>
          <elementTextContainer>
            <elementText elementTextId="72987">
              <text>HY00029</text>
            </elementText>
          </elementTextContainer>
        </element>
        <element elementId="50">
          <name>Title</name>
          <description>A name given to the resource</description>
          <elementTextContainer>
            <elementText elementTextId="72990">
              <text>Memorandum for Chiefs of Staff Committee: Use of Service facilities for government telegraph traffic [final]  </text>
            </elementText>
          </elementTextContainer>
        </element>
        <element elementId="40">
          <name>Date</name>
          <description>A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource</description>
          <elementTextContainer>
            <elementText elementTextId="72993">
              <text>03/19/1947</text>
            </elementText>
          </elementTextContainer>
        </element>
        <element elementId="48">
          <name>Source</name>
          <description>A related resource from which the described resource is derived</description>
          <elementTextContainer>
            <elementText elementTextId="72996">
              <text>Hydra Communications - Policy, RG24, 1250-36 Vol. 1, Library and Archives Canada (LAC) </text>
            </elementText>
          </elementTextContainer>
        </element>
        <element elementId="39">
          <name>Creator</name>
          <description>An entity primarily responsible for making the resource</description>
          <elementTextContainer>
            <elementText elementTextId="72999">
              <text>Department of National Defence</text>
            </elementText>
          </elementTextContainer>
        </element>
        <element elementId="47">
          <name>Rights</name>
          <description>Information about rights held in and over the resource</description>
          <elementTextContainer>
            <elementText elementTextId="73002">
              <text>Canadian Crown</text>
            </elementText>
          </elementTextContainer>
        </element>
        <element elementId="49">
          <name>Subject</name>
          <description>The topic of the resource</description>
          <elementTextContainer>
            <elementText elementTextId="73005">
              <text>Canadian takeover of Hydra, DND, External Affairs, Oshawa Wireless Station, SIGINT, signals intelligence, government communications</text>
            </elementText>
          </elementTextContainer>
        </element>
        <element elementId="41">
          <name>Description</name>
          <description>An account of the resource</description>
          <elementTextContainer>
            <elementText elementTextId="73008">
              <text>Letter and report from E.W.T. Gill (Privy Council Office). Enclosed report is final draft of Committee report on feasibility of using Service telegraph facilities for all government telegraph traffic.  </text>
            </elementText>
          </elementTextContainer>
        </element>
        <element elementId="45">
          <name>Publisher</name>
          <description>An entity responsible for making the resource available</description>
          <elementTextContainer>
            <elementText elementTextId="73011">
              <text>Canada Declassified</text>
            </elementText>
          </elementTextContainer>
        </element>
        <element elementId="51">
          <name>Type</name>
          <description>The nature or genre of the resource</description>
          <elementTextContainer>
            <elementText elementTextId="73014">
              <text>Text</text>
            </elementText>
          </elementTextContainer>
        </element>
        <element elementId="42">
          <name>Format</name>
          <description>The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource</description>
          <elementTextContainer>
            <elementText elementTextId="73017">
              <text>PDF</text>
            </elementText>
          </elementTextContainer>
        </element>
        <element elementId="44">
          <name>Language</name>
          <description>A language of the resource</description>
          <elementTextContainer>
            <elementText elementTextId="73020">
              <text>en</text>
            </elementText>
          </elementTextContainer>
        </element>
      </elementContainer>
    </elementSet>
  </elementSetContainer>
</item>
