1946-08-19

MEMORIAL TO CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-LAYING OF CORNERSTONE THIS DAY BY THE PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, with the
unanimous consent of the house, which I hope I shall have, I should like to mention that at this very moment as we meet in this chamber this morning, another meeting is taking place in the town of Dieppe to lay the cornerstone of a memorial which the citizens of that town are erecting as an enduring tribute to the memory of Canada's armed forces who invaded those shores four years ago to-day.
At the invitation of the president of the government of France and the mayor of Dieppe, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) is being given the' honour of laying that cornerstone.

Dieppe-Memorial
I think it is fitting that we in this house should join in spirit the company assembled around the base of that memorial to recall one of the most gallant exploits in the annals of war.
May I be permitted to read into the records of our proceedings to-day four or five paragraphs of the speech which is being delivered there on behalf of the people of Canada by the Prime Minister.
After recalling that the men of Canada's army who landed at Dieppe that day, the men of Canada's navy who escorted them by sea, and the men of Canada's air force who covered the attack, were among the bravest of Canada's sons and that to a man they were prepared for any suffering, any sacrifice their task might demand, the Prime Minister goes on to say:
Dieppe four years ago was a momentary flash from liberty's revolving light. For an instant that light shore forth like some long awaited signal of hope. Almost as suddenly it vanished. For a while in the darkness of those fateful years it seemed to be totally extinguished. Then came the Dieppe of 1944.
To-day we see the Dieppe of 1942 as only time could reveal its true significance-a beacon light prophetic of victory. That light now shines in the fullness of its glory over the freed and free peoples of Europe.
Here in Dieppe on this anniversary we have in .mind the valorous deeds of all arms of the fighting services of all the free nations. But Dieppe has yet another significance for France and Canada and for the world. It marks a relationship between our two countries which is not without its message of hope to future generations. Three centuries and more ago brave and adventurous souls _ from Normandy sailed from this port of Dieppe across the uncharted Atlantic into the waters of the St. Lawrence. On its banks they helped to lay the foundations of settlement and government in the Canada discovered by the hardy mariners of France nearly a hundred years before. In the course of time the Canada of Cartier and Champlain was to witness the clash of rival arms led by Wolfe and Montcalm. But the country to which these Norman pioneers and their descendants contributed so greatly was to give another beacon light to the world. It was to give, as it gives to all nations to-day, the example of a people of different races, of different languages, and of different religious faiths, once at enmity with each other, now united as a single nation, rich in the^ blending of their separate cultures and cherishing above all else a common heritage of freedom.
In the first world war the people of France sarw the sons of Canada joined with their own sons and those of other liberty-loving nations fighting for freedom on European soil. In the war of liberation the world witnessed the armed forces of Canada and France again fighting side by side on the battlefields of Europe. In the mind of France to-day the Canada of Wolfe and Montcalm has become the Canada of Currie, McNaughton and Crerar.
It was not the men of Old France only who three and more centuries ago crossed the
Atlantic to face unknown perils and privations; nor in our day was it the men of Canada only who crossed to Europe to share the vicissitudes of war. The women of both our lauds, no less brave and venturesome, have played their role in the epic tale of early and present day relations between France and Canada. Many were the missions of mercy in which Sisters of the religious orders of France risked their lives in the days of early settlement in Canada. Centuries later nursing sisters in two world wars came from Canada to minister to the sick and the wounded on the battlefields of France and Flanders. What woman's part has been in all the services we know full well. This page of history has not passed unnoticed. In the hall of fame of the parliament buildings at Ottawa may be seen in marble relief a representation of the part women have played in the founding and restoring of nations. There one sees depicted the Sisters of Old France ministering to the needs and education of the children of Indian tribes in the wilds of North America. There also is depicted the service of nursing sisters of Canada in earing for the wounded on the battlefields of Europe. In the foreground, as the central feature of this relief, is a figure symbolical of humanity; in the background, wholly subdued is another figure symbolizing history. Beneath the memorial appear the words:
"To perpetuate a noble tradition in the relations of the Old World and the New, led by the spirit of humanity across the seas, woman by her tender ministrations to those in need has given to the world the example of an heroic service embracing three centuries of Canadian history."
It is the tradition of mutual service in the many relationships of nations that above all else Canada seeks to perpetuate in Paris to-day. The representatives of many nations are assembled in an effort to silence enmities bred of racial distrust and international strife. They have met to lay the foundations of a new and happier world. To this conference Canada brings as a beacon light of encouragement and hope the story and the example of her own national life. Canada seeks to see the rich rewards of international understanding, friendship and good will shared in ever fuller measure by the peoples of all nations. The people everywhere are praying to-day that those concerned with the making of peace may find it possible to lay well and truly the foundations of a better world.
This memorial will stand to future generations as a symbol of enduring friendship between France and Canada. Is it too much to hope that its foundation stone may also be a record of the country and the year in which the warring nations of our time had found a way out of conflict into eo-operation ? Whait could speak more eloquently of the wisdom of our day and generation? What more substantial hope of an enduring peace could be given to a war-weary world?
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the thanks of the Canadian people from one side of the nation to the other will go out to the citizens of Dieppe for the tribute they are at this moment paying to the Canadian forces, particularly the forces which attempted to
Dieppe-Memorial

find a way to get into the continent of Europe when it was so strongly held by the German forces. It was my privilege eighteen or twenty months ago to visit the site of that invasion. I remember very well walking through the streets of Dieppe, filled as they were with debris, and fenced off at nearly every comer by concrete barriers. I remember standing on the beaches and wondering how any man could come back alive after the fire that must have been showered upon them. I remember standing on the heights and looking down on those beaches where so many were killed. In the midst of that environment I could not help but think that only a miracle made it possible for any of the Canadian forces to come back from the inferno of that raid.
I wondered what it must have felt like to be a member of the Canadian force on that occasion; and it is a matter of regret that at this moment as I look behind me I do not find in his seat one who took part in that invasion and who as a result of his contribution was awarded the Victoria Cross. I am sorry that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) is not in his place.
One memory above all others that I carry with me from that visit to Dieppe was a story given to me by the people of that community. I have forgotten what the official called himself; he was in charge of the affairs of the city after the Germans had been driven out but before the war was over. I was told of the circumstances of that day in 1942 when our boys suffered such heavy casualties- over 3,000, including, if my memory serves me aright, some 700 dead. The story was that the Germans were about to bury our dead in a common grave, when, as I am sure all Canadian people will be glad to remember, the citizens of Dieppe, at that time in a defeated and occupied country, asked for the privilege of giving our boys an honoured burial each in a grave of his own. So they picked out a field for a cemetery on the gentle slope of a hillside two or three miles-perhaps more; I am speaking from memory-from Dieppe; and there, if you go to-day, you will see the graves of the honoured dead of the Canadian forces who fell in that assault. As I moved up and down among the white crosses I saw, as I had seen at other cemeteries in France where the name of the soldier was not known, these words on his cross, "Known unto God."
Mr. Speaker, I think it is peculiarly appropriate that we should be meeting in this house here in Canada when our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is laying the cornerstone of a memorial to our forces, a memorial erected

by the citizens of Dieppe. I think I can say with the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that Canada stands to-day where she stood before, for the right of each nation to determine the character of its own future. We are glad that, our men had a part in liberating France. We appreciate this expression on the part of the citizens of one section of France for the part our forces paid in liberating their country; and we trust that our relationship with that old land will continue to be what it has been for so many years-one of mutual trust and confidence and good will.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: do nothing to prevent the death of our young men of future generations, and of those who are now of military age. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, the boys of the Mount Royal regiment and all the others who were there, it was not to make a sacrifiec; it was to beat the Hun. I am sick of hearing of sacrifice or that the soldier thinks of sacrifice at the moment of battle. They are not Isaacs going to the altar of sacrifice; they are men of flesh and blood who go there to defeat the enemy. I am sure that if they were asked what they were doing there they would say that they were doing a job. They were fighting so that there would be no more war. That was said of world war I, and it was repeated of world war II, but no progress has been made.
I sympathize with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who lost his son during the Dieppe raid. My heart is with him; he has the sympathy of all of us. But all that sympathy will not bring his son to life. It will not prevent his other son and the other Canadian boys from engaging in these wars which are decided by old men, men above military age who forget that God restrained the hand of Abraham when he was about to sacrifice Isaac. That is the history of the past, the history of the Old Testament, and it should not be forgotten in our time. We see these old men coming here making speeches, telling us of the sacrifices which we should not forget. That is true; I am all for praising these men, but something should be done so that history will not repeat itself a third time and the boys shall not be Sacrificed to the fire-eaters and the warmongers of Europe. This is a time when it is more important than ever to understand that the only way to do something in proper relation to the marvellous task which has been performed by our boys and by the boys of all the united nations, is to act in accordance with what they have done, to be practical and to put a stop to that warmongering spirit which has been the disaster of the world, so that it shall not rise again.


John Bracken: I am wondering whether the house would not welcome a brief word from a private member who lived through the Dieppe raid.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Burrard) :: Mr. Speaker, I thank the house for their ^ more than kind reception of me this morning, which I would like to accept on behalf of all those who took part in the raid. 
Had I realized that anything like this would happen I can assure you that I would have been upstairs in my office. Many things have been said about the difficulties and the peculiar circumstances which we faced at Dieppe, but I know that everybody who went there was delighted to go. Despite all that happened we all felt that what was done was worth doing, in that from the operation great lessons were learned. In remembering the large number of Canadians who fell at Dieppe I should say that in the opinion of one who was there, the sacrifice which they, and their relatives who remain, made through their deaths was one that was well worth while.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. M. CLARK (Essex South) presented the third report of the sessional committee on railways and shipping, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many air observer schools were operated during the period of world war II, and what was the location and number of each?
2.	What was the total surplus earned by each of said air observer schools or operating companies?
3.	What amount did each pay for taxation?
4.	What amount did each receive and retain out of the said surplus or by way of bonus or savings or otherwise?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	There were ten civilian operated air observer schools as follows:
(1) Dominion Skyways (Training) Ltd., Malton Airport Ont.; (2) Canadian Airways (Training) Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.; (3) Prairie Airways, Ltd., Regina, Sask.; (4) Leavens Bros. (Training) Ltd., London, Ontario; (5) Winnipeg Air Observer School, Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.; (6) Prince Albert Air Observer School, Ltd., Prince Albert, Sask.; (7) Portage Air Observer School, Ltd., Portage la Prairie, Man.; (8): Quebec Airways (Observers) Ltd., Ancienne Lorette, P.Q.; (9) Dominion Skyways (Observers) Ltd., St. John, P.Q.; (10) Northumberland Air Observer School, Ltd., Chatham, N.B.

Questions '
2.
No. 1 Air Observer No. 2 Air Observer No. 3 Air Observer No. 4 Air Observer No. 5 Air Observer No. 6 Air Observer No. 7 Air Observer No. 8 Air Observer No. 9 Air Observer No. 10 Air Observer
School...	$429,742.58
School...	378,724.23
School...	88,206.52
School...	618,402.36
School...	573,073.05
School...	83,897.39
School...	550,659.00
School...	175,000.00
School...	351,008.31
School...	150,000.00
3.	This information is confidential to the companies concerned and could not be disclosed without their consent.
4.	Nil; with the exception of No. 6 air observer school which was closed prior to the revision of the contract and the earned surplus retained amounted do $39,761.79.


CANADIAN ARMY-OFFICERS AND OTHER RANKS ON STRENGTH-TANKS
Mr. PEARICES:: 1.	How many officers, and how many other ranks were on the strength on August 1, 1946, of (a) the active force; (b) the interim army; (c) the army in Canada, exclusive of (a) and (b) ?
2,	How many tanks, and of what type are there in Canada?
3. How are these distributed as among (a) units of the active force; (b) central schools; (c) reserve army?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the hon. member to drop parts 2 and 3 of this question, and I shall furnish him with the information he is seeking in part 1.
1.	According to returns as at 31st July, 1946;
Other
Officers Ranks Total
(a)	Active force (C.A.S.F.) (excluding interim army) 4,947 33,201 38,148
(b)	Interim army ... 2,613 10,905 13,518
(c)		 Nil 3,736	3,736
7,560 47,842 55,402


Mr. SPEAKER:: Parts 2 and 3 dropped.


PRICE CEILINGS-HORSESHOEING
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is there a ceiling for horseshoeing?
2.	If so, what is such ceiling?
3.	Is such ceiling uniform throughout the country?
4.	If not, what are the various ceilings for horseshoeing, and w'hy is each of them different?
5.	When were such ceilings established and modified, if such is the case, and what was the reason in each instance?
6.	When establishing these ceilings, did the -wartime prices and trade board take into account the increase in the cost of iron, steel and nails?
7.	What was the price of horseshoes and nails for horseshoeing in September, 1939, and what is the said price to-day?
8.	What is the ceiling for horseshoeing (a) in Toronto, and (b) in Riviere-du-Loup?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.
5 and 6. Ceilings on horseshoeing were established for individual operators at levels established by their charges during the basic period, September 15 to October 11, 1941. Such ceilings were established by the wartime prices and trade regulations, which became effective December 1, 1941. Maximum prices for new entrants after the basic period were established at levels comparable to other operators in the same area. Horseshoeing was suspended from price control effective July 8, 1946.
7.	The board has no information as to the prices of horseshoes and nails in September, 1939. Both horseshoes and nails have been subject to price control since December 1, 1941. The original basic period ceilings established by prices charged by the individual seller during the period September 15 to October 11, 1941, were adjusted upward on April 1. 1946, to reflect the increased cost of production of iron and steel, 10 per cent in the case of maximum prices of horse nails and $1.00 per hundred pounds at the manufacturers' level with corresponding amounts for subsequent sellers in the case of horseshoes.
8.	Answered by No. 1.


WHEAT-PAYMENTS TO BROKERS AND COMMISSION MERCHANTS
Mr. FAIR:: During each of the crop years 1939-40 to 1945-46, what amount was paid by the Canadian Wheat Board to brokers and commission merchants on the sale of wheat?


Mr. MacKINNON:: I suggest that this
question be dropped, because the information is given at page 4830 of Hansard of August 15.


James Horace King: Dropped.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION- DECENTRALIZATION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation purchased a site near Montreal, at Outre-mont, for radio headquarters? If so, what was paid for the site?
2.	Has the government reconsidered since last session, 1945, the decentralizing of radio in Canada so as to include two radio cities, one at Toronto and one at Montreal?
3.	What plans has the corporation for carrying out such an arrangement?



Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 3.
3.	The corporation's plans include a building in Montreal to house the services now in three different rented premises and a permanent structure in Toronto to replace the present building bought and adapted for use a year and a half ago.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FULTON:: 1.	How many judges or persons holding judicial office have been appointed up to date by the wartime prices and trade board as a court of rental appeals under Order in Council P.C. 9029, or any other such authority?
2.	What are the names of such judges, the dates of the appointment of each, the region, county or province for which appointed, and the date of termination of appointment if any, in each case?
3.	How much money has been paid to each judge for the duration of his appointment under Order in Council P.C. 9029, or such other authority as is applicable (as now consolidated under Order in Council P.C. 3122 of 1946) for (a) a supplement for additional duties; and (b) transportation expenses (including automobile) in the performance of such duties?


Mr. MARTIN:: Return tabled.


WAR ASSETS-BREN GUN CARRIERS
Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: 1.	How many Bren gun carriers have been declared surplus, and to whom have they been sold?
2.	How many are still held by any department?
3.	How many types of army tanks were manufactured for war purposes?
4.	How many of each type remained in Canada at the close of the war, or since that date?
5.	What has been done with these tanks?


WAR ASSETS-CASH REGISTERS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Is War Assets Corporation responsible for disposition of cash registers surplus after use in (a) canteens and messes of abandoned military camps in Canada, and in (b) dining and recreational services in munitions factories operated by the Department of Munitions and Supply?
2.	If not, what disposition is planned for these cash registers?
3.	Are these cash registers available for purchase in single units by the general retail trade?
4; Do veterans' applications for surplus cash registers receive any special considerations?
5.	At what average price have all surplus cash registers been sold to this date?


CANADIAN SECURITIES HELD IN THE UNITED STATES
Mr. COCKERAM:: 1.	What was the amount of interest paid during the years 1944 and 1945 to residents of the United States by the dominion government on dominion government securities held by United States residents?
2.	What is the amount of dividends and interest paid by Canadian corporations to residents of the United States, during the years 1945 and 1946?



HOUSING


Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What priority is granted to women with overseas service who might wish to secure a house under any of the government programmes?
2.	May a woman veteran, on being married, add her priority points to those of her husband with a view to securing housing accommodation?


Mr. MOORE:: 1.	What was the total production of cement for the years 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1946 in Canada?
2.	How much was exported in each of these years, including 1946?
3.	Has any branch of the construction industry priority on the purchase of cement?
4.	How much . cement was imported to Canada from abroad in the years 1945 and 1946?



RADIO BROADCASTING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National War Services) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend The Canadian Broadcasting Act. 1936. to provide (a) that the chairman shall be eligible to become a contributor and entitled to benefits under any established pension fund of the corporation; (b) for the tenure of office and reappointment of the general manager; (e) for the deposit to the credit of the corporation all fees received from private receiving licences and private station broadcasting licences, without deduction of costs of collection and administration, and (d) authority to advance to the corporation sums up to two million dollars during the present fiscal year and such sums in subsequent years as may be authorized by parliament from time to time on account of capital expenditures.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General' having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

Privilege-Mr. Pouliot


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister when an opportunity will be given to discuss the report of the industrial relations committee?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): It is hoped that the estimates of the Department of Labour may be oalledi to-morrow, and that this would afford a convenient opportunity for discussing the report as well as .other matters connected with industrial relations.


John Bracken: Is it thought that this procedure will be followed in preference to a motion to concur in the report?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That would depend upon the pleasure of the house, but I should think it might be assumed that at this time the house would desire to have 'the whole debate on labour relations take place at the same time; and it was thought that if the estimates of the Department of Labour were called at the time this report of the committee was being considered, the whole debate [DOT]on labour relations could take place then.


John Bracken: All I wanted was some indication from the government as to the procedure that will be followed. I was not here Saturday afternoon, but I gather that some intimation was given that there would be a motion to concur in the report, and that it would be moved to-day. I am not suggesting what should be done, but I think the house should be advised as to the plans of the government.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: A question was put to the chairman of the committee, who said it was his intention to move concurrence. Later in the day, however, he told me it would not be possible for him to be back this morning, and I said I thought it might suit the convenience of the house to have that motion and the estimates given consideration at the same time in order to avoid a duplication of debate on industrial relations. It is hoped that this may be done tcnmorrow, though as the first item to-morrow morning bon. members of the other place have asked that we call third reading of the bill dealing with the Income Tax Act, so that it may get over to them and they may have an opportunity to give it full consideration. Immediately after that it is the intention to have done all that may be necessary to bring before the house for con-63260-3161
sideration the report of the industrial relations committee, and also the estimates of the Department of Labour.


John Bracken: I think it desirable that the labour estimates and this report be dealt with at the same time. May we now understand that there will be a motion to concur in this report, probably to-imorrow?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Mr. MacINNIS:: May I rise to a point of order? I do not think you can have a motion to concur in the report and then go on with the labour estimates, because that means either that a vote will be taken on the report or that we will debate the report and discuss the labour estimates later. You cannot do the two things at once.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: You cannot perhaps do the two things as one, but if they are done in sequence it will avoid duplication of debate.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-eouata): I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am very lenient with regard to the expression of opinion by the press concerning my utterances in parliament. I believe in freedom of speech, and one must be tolerant with regard to the expression of views by colleagues, by the press and by people outside of parliament generally. But this time I hold in my hand a clipping which is an editorial-
James Horace King: Order.


Mr. POULIOT:: -of the Toronto Telegram-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member knows the rules in regard to questions of privilege. When a member rises he should state the question of privilege and be brief and to the point.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly, sir; and I was just about to read the editorial when you rose. It is under date of August 6, 1946:
Mr. Pouliot has taken cowardly advantage of the privileges of the house to use language and make accusations which he must know would likely submit him ito an action for slander had he expressed himself in similar terms elsewhere. It is surprising that the Speaker, who is so .meticulous about his own privileges, failed to rebuke Mr. Pouliot for abusing the privileges of the house.
-which was done this morning. With all due respect for the Chair, Mr. Speaker-and you know I have the deepest respect for you-
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker

I cannot stand for an accusation of cowardice by the editorial writer of this newspaper. The House of Commons has been my battle ground, where I have carried on my fight against the quacks of the medical corps of the army. Of course I made laudable exceptions, but they are few.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member will agree that it is against the rules to make a speech on a question of privilege. He should state his point of privilege briefly and then resume his seat.


Jean-François Pouliot: My point of privilege is that the last man to be called a coward is the member for Temiscouata. If I made those statements in the house it was because in this house I have been fighting for the soldiers who were so badly treated by quacks like Chisholm, and I denounce him. I refer those interested to sessional paper 818 of this session; and I tell the writer of the Toronto Telegram that if he considers Chisholm, the cruel Chisholm, the criminal Chisholm, a great man, he himself is a jackass.



MR. DIEFENBAKER-REFERENCE TO RETURN RESPECTING CAMP BORDEN ARMY REJECTION OR MEDICAL DISCHARGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I rise once more to a question of privilege in reference to the omission of certain letters from a return brought down the other day having to do with Camp Borden army rejections or medical discharges. I think I can simplify the matter by asking that the letters omitted from the file be produced. I do not want to return to this matter on future occasions, but you, Mr. Speaker, are the custodian of the privileges of parliament; and through you, in support of those privileges, I ask that those letters which were omitted be produced. It is not a matter of anyone's opinion as to whether the letters should be produced, for when the return was passed by this house there were no qualifications. The order was that a copy of all correspondence be produced. The correspondence produced indicates that on March 22 Mr. Robinette gave an opinion in regard to prosecutions being taken in this matter. That appears in the letter of March 26, 1945, from Mr. Miall to the director of mobilization. The same letter is referred to in a letter of April 5, 1945, from Mr. Anderson to Mr. Miall. Secondly, there is the omission of Mr. Robinette's letter of October 12, which is referred to in the communication of Mr. Yarcoe, deputy minister of justice, to Mr. MacNamara, deputy minister of labour. There

is also the acknowledgment of that letter on November 13 from Mr. MacNamara in a letter to Mr. Varcoe, which is as follows: "November 13, 1945-"


James Horace King: Order; I would ask that the hon. member do not read the letter. I understood that he was rising to a question of privilege with respect to certain papers which he says have not been produced. I do not think he should use that as an excuse to read letters into the record.


John George Diefenbaker: I submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was showing that the letters did refer to other letters. There is no need for any show of ill-feeling on the part of my right hon. friend. This is a matter which affects the prerogatives and privileges of parliament; for according to sessional paper 258A, two counsel were of the opinion that the report indicated a prima facie ease.


James Horace King: Order. If the hon. member rises to a question of privilege in connection with an order of the house which has been passed for the production of papers, he should state his question of privilege, ask what he wishes, and then resume his seat.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. My question of privilege is this, that law officers of the crown, or counsel, proposed action. The Deputy Minister of Labour first directed postponement of action and finally that action be proscribed. It is because the absence of these letters from the files is in contravention of our rights that I am asking the minister to produce them now.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): My hon. friend speaks about ill-humour. There is no ill-humour at all. There is some regret that he did not wish to wait until I get the memorandum from the law officers in order to give a more complete answer. But since the hon. member insists, I shall give such answer as I can at the present time.
The hon. member complains, first, that an order of the house has not been complied with. The order of the house was for the production of all correspondence between the Denartment of National Defence and/or the Department of Labour, and/or the Department of Justice, and between any one or more of said departments since January, 1944, to date, in connection with certain things.
The hon. member's complaint is that the report tabled referred to four documents which were not produced, and he listed them. The first of them is a letter from Mr. Robinette, K.C., of Toronto, addressed to the Department of Justice. That is not correspondence

Labour Conditions
between the Department of Justice and the Department of Labour or any other department. That is a confidential report made by counsel to the Department of Justice. It always has been the rule there, and so long as I am minister I shall endeavour to have it observed, that counsel whom we consult may give us their report and their opinion in a confidential manner, as lawyers do to all their clients, without feeling that later those reports or opinions will be tabled in parliament.
The next is a letter from Mr. Miall to Mr. Anderson, dated March 26. Mr. Miall was assistant deputy to the Minister of Justice, and Mr. Anderson was another law officer of the Department of Justice. That is not correspondence covered by the order which was made. The order is for correspondence between different departments. It has always been the well-recognized rule that communications prepared for a minister by an official of his department are privileged and are not tabled. There was no reason for making any reservation on this motion because the motion does not call for such documents. The motion calls for correspondence passing between the Department of Justice and/or the Department of Labour and/or the Department of National Defence, and not for intradepartmental correspondence between officials of the Department of Justice.
The third item mentioned is a copy of a letter from Mr. Robinette, K.C. That was a letter addressed by him to the deputy minister of justice and addressed by him as counsel retained by the Department of Justice, and what. I said with respect to the first item applies.
Respecting the fourth item, I have not yet been given an explanation of why it was not presented in the return. It would be a letter of the deputy minister of justice to Mr. MacNamara. I saw the deputy minister of justice about it Saturday morning, but I told him he need not give up his Saturday afternoon to look into it. I called this morning to find out if he had been able to do so this morning, and was told he would have the explanation for me to-morrow morning. So with respect to that item I have not yet the information, and that is because I did not think it was a matter of such urgency that I should ask the staff in the department to work Saturday afternoon to get it for me.
Mr. DIEFENBAJvER: It is not a question of asking the staff to work Saturday afternoon. I have reference to-


James Horace King: The hon. member has
stated his question of privilege, and the Minister of Justice has answered. I will not permit a debate on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether you will permit me to say anything more, but I will say this, that I submit I have a right to say what the minister has stated is not in accordance with the facts.


James Horace King: It is against the rules to debate a question of privilege, and I will not permit it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
TYPOGRAPHICAL DISPUTE-SOUTHAM NEWSPAPERS *-LETT REPORT
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Labour has tabled a copy of the report of the Card commission, which was made some months ago, will he also table a copy of the report of the Lett commission, which was made more recently, in connection with the typographical dispute?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I shall be glad to do so, and would point out that a copy of Commissioner Lett's report was forwarded to both parties, and a press release issued on it. I shall table the report, however.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to ask a supplementary question in regard to this matter. I understand the Vancouver Province is a party to this report, and has given notice to. its employees. Will the minister say if he has made an attempt to bring the parties in the. dispute together as recommended in the Lett report?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes; I have requested Mr. Justice Richards to endeavour to bring the parties together, based on the findings of the Lett report.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Demobilization and reconversion-
570. Naval services, $72,817,856.
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know- what the wish of the committee would be with respect to the method of dealing with these estimates, but in past years when we have been considering them under the war appropriation it has been customary to
Supply-Naval Services

take the various main headings which are to be found on page 275 of the estimates such as civil salaries and wages, pay and allowances, travel, transportation and freight, and so forth. It seems to me that it would make for orderly discussion, if the committee approves, if we were to consider the naval service vote under these twelve or thirteen separate items, having the general discussion take place, as has been the case in the past, on the item for civil salaries and wages. But I am in the hands of the committee.


Mr. STIRLING:: Is it the purpose of the minister to make what we have been accustomed to look forward to as an annual statement with regard to the position in which the Royal Canadian Navy to-day stands?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It had not been my intention to do that. I had thought that we might treat these estimates in the usual way in which the ordinary estimates are considered. I made a fairly complete statement last .session as to the naval position, and subsequently in a number of public addresses, press releases and the like I have indicated "the general character and size of the postwar navy, and my plan had been to proceed with these estimates in the ordinary way.


Grote Stirling: Then I would like to
'take a few minutes to make one or two general remarks as we have been accustomed to do in previous years.
Last year the minister described the then position of the navy with regard to strength, and gave figures as to what he believed the navy would arrive at in the course of the next year or two. He told us that the government's policy favoured an interim force for two years, at the end of which it might be possible for the government to develop a larger and longer policy. He gave the figures which he then had of an authorized strength *of 771 officers and 8,003 ratings. He stated that the actual strength at that time was 534 officers and 3,383 ratings. Then we had a return made the first of this year which increased these figures to 751 officers and 4,364 ratings. In the course of the discussion of these items I have no doubt that the minister will give us the latest figures. The figures he has given indicate that he has very nearly a sufficiency of officers, but there is a great lack of ratings, and I am given to understand that that lack is principally in what I might call the middle ranks. The recruiting is bringing in a certain number of boys, fresh recruits; there are chief petty officers, some of them of the permanent service, and some having received their training
[Mr. Abbott.1
and having developed themselves during the war years have come in through one of the reserve services. But between those two there is a considerable lack of able-bodied seamen and of those who have begun to specialize in their training courses.
The minister also indicated that new rates of pay and allowances would shortly be put forward, and they were subsequently, but they do not seem to have been of sufficient attraction to bring in the required number of recruits. The minister was looking forward to augmenting the ranks of the permanent service by those from the reserve forces who might desire to continue, at least for the two years, and also by those who had already gone back to civil life but might reconsider their position and return to the uniform. The minister will describe, I hope, what progress has been made in that direction. My information is that a certain number did follow that line but they did not remain in uniform again veiy long. They slipped out again for various reasons which the minister may be able to explain.
He also told us what he believed the Canadian navy would attain in the number of vessels in commission. There were to be two light cruisers, probably two light fleet carriers, ten to twelve destroyers and the necessary ancillary craft, and he hoped to have frigates in reserve. There again we should like to have the figures of the commissioned ships of to-day. If I am not mistaken they do not reach anything like that number, and probably cannot reach anything like that figure because of the shortage of ratings. We had quite an argument when the minister was discussing this last year on the figure which he gave of 10,000 officers and men, which he hoped would be sufficient to serve on the vessels described. I think it is more than evident to-day that he has not sufficient officers and men to take care of the work ashore as well as keeping these various vessels afloat.
The position of the Canadian navy is in essence just what it has been over the years. Its main duty is surely that of protecting the trade routes, the incoming and outgoing commerce on which Canada, being an export nation, so largely depends. She has that duty to perform on both coasts, and the minister will describe how nearly in his opinion government policy will provide for protecting those trade routes. During the war Canada's navy received a magnificent tribute from the allies because of the services which she rendered. From very small numbers at the beginning of the war she developed extremely rapidly and she provided the vessels necessary for the convoys, not only for convoying the

Supply-Naval Services
materials which were passing from Canada but taking care to a large extent of the convoys on the Atlantic, at first half way across and then two-thirds of the way, up to Iceland, across to Scandinavia; and after the United States came into the war, they being so short of vessels, Canadian naval vessels had to be used to take care of tankers in the Caribbean. Canada, then, starting from very small numbers, was able to creep up to very considerable numbers, and she carried out a magnificent work.
But we must never forget that, even though the world had a second dreadful lesson of unpreparedness for war, we and the allies were able to overcome that lack of preparedness only because of what a famous United States citizen described as "the phony war," and if war does hit us again we must truly believe that we shall not have any period in which we can slowly, carefully, methodically develop our forces; in other words we must be prepared. And what must we be prepared for? We must be prepared to provide such naval strength as will enable us to look after Canada's interests in whatever war may come. As in the past, so in the future: we can only think of doing that by collaboration with allies.
Next month, I believe, in London there will meet the heads of the services of the commonwealth defence forces. They will speak each for themselves and prepare plans in collaboration with each other for the part which each will be ready to play if war comes, and even in the years of peace during which preparation can be made. I do not know whether at this stage the minister will be prepared to give the committee any indication of the line of argument which our naval representatives will take at that conference.
Besides that, there is still in existence the joint defence committee of the United States and Canada, to which I think representatives of the United Kingdom come, at least in a consultative capacity. I hope the minister will indicate what the government's policy for the future is with regard to the Royal Canadian Navy, in that cooperation with the United Kingdom and the United States, because in those two navies, with which we must collaborate, there will be differences of training, equipment, weapons, munitions, and general conduct of naval affairs. I should be very much interested therefore in learning in which direction in those regards the Canadian navy is expected to lean. If she is going to collaborate principally with the United Kingdom navy, she will be so guided in her actions with regard to equipment and training and ammunition; but if on the other hand it is
expected that on the Atlantic and the Pacific she will principally collaborate with the United States navy, the answers to these questions will undoubtedly be different.
There is another matter on which I hope the minister will inform the committee with regard to his proposals for the future, and that is the great necessity, which exists more than ever after this second great war, to arrange that the navy and the air force shall be most cooperative. It is true that Canada has provided herself or is providing herself with two light fleet carriers. That goes some distance towards the cooperation which I seek. But in the manoeuvres which, small as they have been in the past, will I hope be very greatly increased in the future, both with the United Kingdom fleets and the United States fleets, there will be opportunities for a great deal more cooperation between navy and air than there has ever been yet. I should like the minister to describe the government's policy with regard to the training of' pilots for the air arm of the Canadian navy, and to give us the assurance that cooperative action between those two members of the defence forces is to be carried out with greater intensity in the future than in the past.
Further remarks I think I will leave until we reach the items; but I should like the minister to give us some understanding of what the actual position to-day is with the Canadian navy.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the minister
answers I would ask the hon. gentlemen who compose the committee to look at page 275, "Naval Services," and something will strike them: it is that "pay and allowances," meaning the pay and allowances of the crews of the ships, have been reduced from $98 million to $16 million. That means either that the crews of the ships will be six times less than they were during the war, or that there will be a considerable reduction of pay, that they will receive only one-sixth of what they had during the war-which would be an absurdity. I address my remarks through the Chair to the hon. member for Lake Centre, to my hon. friend from Skeena, whom I like and everybody likes very much; to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to my genial friend the hon. member for Trinity, and all those who fight against bureaucracy; to the hon. member for Nanaimo, and to the hon. member for Yancouver-Burrard, whom we have hailed to-day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this a new party you are building up?


Jean-François Pouliot: I might make a suggestion on those lines. But no; I make a special
Supply-ATaval Services

appeal to all those in this chamber who complain about bureaucracy, that now the time has come to curb bureaucracy. I admire the sailors. I tried to have some accepted in the department, but always there are very high obstacles to cross before a French Canadian is admitted, and not in the department but on a ship, to get his training. All sorts of qualifications are required. It seems to me that the high officials of the department-I except the minister and the deputy minister, for whom I have great respect-do not want a single French Canadian to get on board the ships. That is my idea of it. We receive silly replies from these brass hats; they procrastinate.
Here is my case. Let us look together at page 275, "Naval Services." Last year the amount for pay and allowances was 898 million. This year it was reduced to $16 million, less than one-sixth, which means that there are fewer men on the ships. That is my first point. Yet, incredible though it seems, Mr. Chairman, the salaries of the brass hats are twice what the amount was last year. I expected the minister to announce some kind of reform, the curtailment of useless branches and sub-branches of the department, and what do we find? Civil salaries and wages have increased from $7,000,000 last year, when apparently the crews were six times as large, to $13,000,000, or nearly twice as much. How can anyone who will not denounce it, who will not oppose it, say a word against bureaucracy afterwards? Opinions are free, surely. But this is an encroachment, an enlargement of bureaucracy, and I denounce it bitterly because those who are in charge of the department down there, except the minister and his assistant, are procrastinating asses, and it is impossible to make them move. They are stupid, and it was in spite of them that the men in charge of the fleet made a success of the Canadian navy after Admiral Nelles had left. When Admiral N'elles was there he was a real man.
Here we are, listening to academic speeches about the work the navy has done. It is all right; I agree with that. I agree with all the praise given the navy-but the navy on ships, not the navy on H.M.C.S. Ottawa.


An hon. MEMBER:: Bytown.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, H.M.CB. Bytown.
This morning we honoured one of our colleagues, a hero of Dieppe, and I am glad also to give all praise to-day to the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois), who did supremely well in the navy. If very feiw have heard about it, it is because of that hon. gentleman's exceptional modesty, but he served his country very well and he knows [Mr. Pouliot.J
his business. Besides that, he made personal sacrifices when he joined the navy to do what he accomplished on the high seas for the protection of the homeland during the war. History will tell, and I regret very much that history in this regard has not yet been written. The new members do not know it, but those who were here during the war remember very well how procrastinating the minister of naval services was at that time. His idea was that the first duty of the navy was to act as convoys, and that nothing had to be done for the protection of the homeland until the German U-boat came into the St. Lawrence river within a short distance of the city of Quebec. We had to urge him to protect our shores, and after repeated representations to him and repeated1 requests to the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet, we succeeded in getting some kind of protection for this country. But the country did not exist in the then minister's mind. All he thought of was to provide convoys. Hon. members will admit that I do not exaggerate when I say that. I was shocked when I heard him say so, but now he has gone. He was expressing the idea of some brass hats, Jbut I hope the opinion of the brass hats of the department of naval services will not prevail and that the minister will give them the good common sense reproach which they deserve.
What is the distinction one can make between a brass hat who had no military service, or someone sent here from England to direct the Canadian navy, and our own Canadians who can do just as well as brass hats who never had any service on the high seas? We have gallant men of our own, like the member for Gaspe, who is most unobtrusive and modest, and he has nothing to say about the policy of that department. I am anxious to see who will rise and protest against the bureaucratic requests for twice as much for civil service salaries as was paid last year. It is a scandal and I denounce it bitterly, It it twice as much, as will be seen at page 275. It is nonsensical to table civil salaries of this size, after the war, when the sailors receive six times less than last year.


Mr. JAQUES:: For full employment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman for his support. I wonder who will be number two to support me in the fight against bureaucracy. Will other hon. members remain silent and consent to it and afterwards go out and say that bureaucracy must be curbed?
I am against the encroachments of bureaucracy, and I wonder what support I shall receive. I have the support of one hon.

.Supply-Naval Services
gentleman from the west, and I thank him. I do not always agree with him, but everyone will admit that he has the courage of his convictions. Now I appeal to all hon. members, not only Liberals but all those who have a sense of democracy in their minds and hearts, to protest against it and join me in suggesting that the vote be reduced to an amount SI less than it was last year. That at least would mark some progress. Instead of doubling the amount paid to the bureaucrats of the department of naval services, let us reduce it to J51 less than the amount paid last year. That would mean a reduction from $13,043,806 to $7,038,333-instead of 334. It would represent progress to that extent. It would be slight progress, but it would give us some reason for hope for the future. But if members swallow it as it stands they will have indigestion. They cannot swallow such increases without protest. What is the reason? How many sailors will gain an advantage? Here we are facing an absurd and ignominious bureaucratic enlargement, and I leave it to the members of the committee to decide what will be done. I wonder if the hon. member and I will be the only two to protest against it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Before we go any further, perhaps I should reply to some specific points raised by hon. members. If not I am apt to lose track of them. The hon. member for Yale raised a number of points relating to the present strength of the navy regarding the number of ships on commission, and it might be well for me to dispose of that first. As at July 31 the actual strength of the navy was 8,216, made up as follows: Permanent force, 6,005; interim force personnel, that is those enlisted for the period up to September 30, 1947, 1,137; hostilities only, approximately 1,000; nurses 74. That makes the total I have mentioned. Since the first of the year recruiting has amounted in all to 2,631, made up of 1,430 new entries, 429 transferred to hostilities only personnel, reentries of 380, and enrolments of 392 from September, 1945, to January, 1946.
In terms of ships, as I have indicated during the past year, it is contemplated that when recruiting has been fully completed our strength will be two light fleet aircraft carriers, two six-inch gun cruisers, twelve destroyers, eighteen frigates and twelve escort minesweepers. At present there are in commission one aircraft carrier-the second, as the committee knows, is still under course of construction in the United Kingdom-one cruiser, two destroyers, one frigate and three algerines, that is aside from ancillary craft. When
recruiting has been completed the strength will be as I have indicated, with a certain proportion of the fleet always in reserve.
The hon. gentleman asked me to give some indication as to what the future policy will be. That I can give only in general terms. As I have said on a number of occasions, our plan is to have a relatively small but modem navy of ships of the most modern type capable of operating in close cooperation if need be with either the British navy or the navy of the United States.
As to whether our equipment will be of the type used in the British or United States navy, I can only say what the condition is at present. As the committee knows, our ships have been constructed largely in the United Kingdom, with the exception of the destroyers which are being constructed at Halifax, but they are British type destroyers. At the present time the equipment is British type. There is no indication that that will be changed in the near future, but that does not mean that the navy cannot operate in the closest possible cooperation and collaboration with United States navy. The policy will continue to be as it has been in the past, to endeavour to assure that the closest possible relations exist between our navy and that of the United Kingdom and our great ally to the south.
As to the matter of civil salaries and wages, referred to by the hon. member for Temis-couata, the position is that while there is an apparent increase from last year, from $7 million odd to $13 million odd, there is a very good explanation for that apparent increase, and I emphasize the word "apparent". It is not an actual increase in expenditure; it is simply a regrouping of figures which were shown under different headings in previous years. In previous years the practice was to show under the first item, that is, "civil salaries and wages", only the civil sendee position; in other words, positions coming under the Civil Service Act. The item of $7 million odd for last year included only the cost of those positions. I may say the estimated cost for the same item this year is $4,421,005, which is the figure which should really be compared with the figure of $7 million odd of last year. Added to that figure of $4 million odd for civil service positions is another figure of $8,622,801, which includes all other salaries and wages with the exception of wages of people engaged in ship repairs, to which I shall refer in a moment. The two amounts of $4,421,005 and $8,622,801 make up the total of $13,043,806 shown in the estimates. These miscellaneous salaries and wages of $8 million odd to which I have been referring, or equivalent items, have been included in every
Supply-Naval Services

year's estimates, but they were dispersed under a number of other headings, such as the fourth item in these estimates, operating expenses of properties, which included the salaries and wages of labour engaged in maintenance work; also the twelfth item, "miscellaneous stores and services" previously included the wages paid for all storekeeping labour, magazine workers, civil watchmen, truck drivers, boom defence workers, civil maids, waitresses, laundry workers, and the like. It was felt that the previous practice of segregating only civil service positions under the first heading was somewhat misleading to the committee, judging from the questions which have been asked on previous occasions. I repeat that the first item for this year includes all civil salaries and wages paid for naval work, with the exception of the amount estimated to be spent on wages to ship repair workers.
It is evident, I think, that in the transfer from war to peace we shall now carry on under civil labour a number of matters which in war time it was necessary to carry out with uniformed personnel. A great many jobs which in peace time should be civilian jobs had to be carried out in war time by men who were put in uniform not only to ensure that the necessary discipline could be applied, but also to ensure that these men could be moved from place to place. That is now no longer necessary, and it will be found that a good many men who during the war were uniformed personnel have now become civilians.
When we speak of the navy employing some 10,000 civilians, which was the figure roughly as of March 31, 1946, to look after 8,000 personnel in uniform, and that was the figure as at the end of June, it has to be remembered that a very large number of these civilians are engaged in the work of repairing and servicing naval ships and naval armament which do not come within the category of progress to which the hon. member for Temis-couata has referred. In a moment I shall give a breakdown showing how this portion of civilian jobs is made up. The navy dock yards at Halifax and Esquimalt constitute what are really two very large industrial plants, and they involve the investment of a great many millions of dollars. They provide practically all the mechanical facilities, except the dry dock, which are required to repair, refit and maintain not only the warships, but ships in time of peace. The employees of these establishments are not civil servants in the strict sense of the word, but they are civilians in the employ of the government, and that side of the navy is therefore a large industrial plant. As of the 31st
[Mr. Abbott .1
of March, the number of hourly paid tradesmen engaged on ship repairs was almost 3,000. It should be remembered that the navy has not only to operate-


Mr. ISNOR:: Is that for both dock yards,
east and west?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Will the minister subdivide
it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall do that in a moment-I do not know if I have it-if my hon. friend will allow me to complete this general statement on civil labour and civil salaries and wages.
It has to be remembered that the navy has not only to operate, maintain and service its ships and train its men, but it has to look after this industrial plant to which I have referred, to maintain its buildings and shore establishments. Perhaps I might give a breakdown of the civilians employed in the navy as at June 30, 1946. Civilians, that is tradesmen, engaged in the repair of ships and armament, 2,188; civilians engaged in the repair and maintenance of dockyards and depots, 644; civilians engaged in the naval magazines, 626; civilians engaged in stores depots, 1,579; civilians employed as guards, 492; civilians employed as firefighters, 199; civilians employed as crews in harbour craft and auxiliary vessels, 439; civilians engaged at the reserve divisions throughout Canada, 123; headquarters civil staff, that is here in Ottawa, 1,197.


Jean-François Pouliot: What was that number last year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The highest number was 1,702, as at July 31, 1945. I think the figure for last year would be in that neighbourhood, and to-day it is 1,197, down about 600.


Jean-François Pouliot: Have any establishments in Ottawa been dispensed with since last year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I had better be clear as to just what my hon. friend means by "establishments".


Jean-François Pouliot: I mean office branches.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might just complete this enumeration of numbers and then answer my hon. friend's question, and after that the question asked by the senior member for Halifax. Other clerical workers numbered 791; other hourly paid civilians engaged at small depots, boom defence works and so on, as cooks, timekeepers and so on, 994; and civilians at Newfoundland, 129, making the total of 9,401 as at June 30. In the three months intervening between March 31 and

Supply-Naval Services
June 30, civilian personnel strength was reduced by approximately 1,000, representing approximately a four per cent reduction per month.
Two questions were asked, the first by the senior member for Halifax, as to the division of these men between the two coasts. I shall see if I have that information here; if not I may have to give it a little later. Perhaps this will give a pretty fair idea. On June 30 the number of hourly rate employees at Halifax was 3,313 and at Esquimalt, 1,690. These include hourly rate people engaged in ship repairs. Then the hon. member for Temis-couata asked if any establishments had been discontinued. I do not know that it is possible to say to my hon. friend that any separate department at naval service headquarters has been discontinued, but there has been a steady and fairly rapid shrinkage in the total staff, and that is still continuing. Some of the purely wartime activities have been discontinued, but the broad framework of the organization is that which is needed in peace time as in war time: the intelligence branch, the operations branch, the armament branch and so on. I am just picking those names out of the air; actually I do not know that there are branches bearing these names, but branches or directorates of that kind would be needed at any headquarters, army, navy or air force.


Jean-François Pouliot: But what wartime establishments have been discontinued, please, if any?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall look into that question and give the answer a little later.


Mr. PEARKES:: 'Last year the service estimates were presented to this house in an extraordinary piecemeal manner. We started off with one service, then switched to another, then came back to the first one, then switched to the second. Hon. members on this side of the house urged- that the minister give an over-all picture of our defence requirements and explain the relationship of the three services, one with the other. I should like to emphasize the fact that though there are three services and the personnel of those services wear different uniforms, they must be inspired by a common doctrine; and I do feel that this house, before giving consideration to the estimates of the separate services, should have the assurance that these estimates have been prepared in cooperation and1 not, as in days gone by, behind closed doors with one service competing against the other for the meagre funds which could be made available. Can we have the assurance that the estimates for the three services have been coordinated?
Then I should like to ask the minister to give some further information as to the fleet air arm in Canada, or whatever it is to be called. I should- like to know What aircraft .the personnel of the Royal Canadian Navy are to be equipped with, whether they are to be equipped with aircraft by naval service or by the R.C.A.F., because I see no item in the details here as to types of aircraft or as to funds being made available under the naval estimates for aicraft.
Then there is just one other matter I want to refer to, a matter raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I regret that the minister did not see fit to relieve a degree of anxiety which may be caused1 in the country by the remarks made by the hon. member, who intimated that the policy of the Royal Canadian Navy was being directed by a class of official to whom he referred as brass hats who had seen little or no service afloat. If that is a fact it is a most serious charge against the administration of the department of naval affairs, and I regret that the minister did not see fit, when replying to the hon. member for Temiscouata, to reply to that charge. I hope he will now relieve the country of any anxiety which may be brought about by that statement.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I had better do that at once. This, I think, just emphasizes the desirability of allowing me to answer various members one at a time. The hon. member for Yale spoke; then the hon. member for Temiscouata. It is very difficult for me to retain in my mind1 the points raised by four or five different members in sequence, and reply to them all. I want to try to do it. That is the only point I wish to make. And I have heard the hon. member for Temiscouata so often talking about brass hats.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is high time someone
in this house pointed out that the permanent officials in the various service departments who have risen to the top of their profession have done so by hard work. The majority of them have risen from quite humble beginnings. I think I may be charged as having been a brass hat at one time, and I should have liked someone else to get up to speak on behalf of these senior officers. It is unbecoming for ministers of the crown to sit by and let these charges be made without any attempt to stand behind the senior permanent officials.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend
for the little lecture with respect to brass hats. I have been in the house four or five years, and in my experience I have had occasion to speak in their defence. If I remember
Supply-Naval Services

correctly, the hon. member made reference to brass hats at naval defence headquarters, and I intended-and I still intend-to take issue with him on that point. However, as I say, I thank my hon. friend for the little lecture he has read me.
As the hon. member for Temiscouata has made his annual attack upon brass hats in the navy, and I feel sure he will do so with respect to the army-


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: *-I suppose it is necessary for the minister to get up each year and answer these charges, seriatim, and I shall be glad to do that. So far as his remarks are concerned about the navy being directed by men who have had no sea service, that of course is all nonsense. The present head of the naval service is a distinguished sailor who has had a distinguished record, and a record which I do not think requires any elaborate defence before the House of Commons. This is a hardy perennial every year, when one has to speak about high ranking army, navy and air force officers, and I do not think the hon. member for Nanaimo would expect me to rush to their defence. I will say that we have a very efficient staff, in all three services, and they are men, so far as I can speak for the two departments with which I am concerned, in whom we have the utmost confidence.
I do not know whether any other point was raised, but perhaps I should refer to the future of the fleet air arm. Before doing so let me say that on previous occasions, both in the house and in public statements, I have announced the projected strength in the army and navy, and, broadly speaking, the general composition of the air force. That is not news, and it does not need to be stated again. The house knows it; the country knows it, and there is no change in that policy.
I do not know just how complete have been the details I have given with respect to the fleet air arm, and perhaps it might be appropriate to make a statement on it now. The present plan is for four first-line squadrons of aircraft, plus a fleet requirement unit squadron, and for shore facilities to be shared with the R.C.A.F. The naval air component is to consist of two light fleet carriers, as has been announced, one of which has already been acquired and manned, and is on her way to Montreal on a good-will tour.
In establishing the naval air arm, every effort has been made to avoid duplication of facilities which are already available in the

Royal Canadian Air Force. An agreement has been reached between the navy and the air force based on this essential premise, and naval squadrons have already been operating for some six weeks from the air force station at Dartmouth. Under this agreement the navy operate all aircraft normally operating over the sea which are carried seaward in His Majesty's Canadian ships. In addition they will operate a fleet requirement unit made up of shore-based non-operational aircraft of various types to meet fleet training requirements which could not economically be carried out by the air force. The air force operate all aircraft normally operating over the land and the sea which are normally based permanently on shore with the exception of the fleet requirement unit just mentioned. Further to this, the air force, through their existing organizations, have undertaken the procurement of aircraft and stores for the navy, and also are handling major repairs.
The naval air arm complement has been laid down and approved in principle by the cabinet at about eleven per cent of the total man-power of the navy, but it has been emphasized that the percentage of air strength may in the future have to be raised to perhaps twenty-five or thirty per cent of the over-all naval complement. At the present time we have one light fleet cruiser in full commission, H.M.C.S. Warrior, but a small percentage of the air complement of this ship are Royal Navy ratings, shortly to be replaced by Canadians.
The fleet requirements unit just mentioned is in the process of forming at Dartmouth. This unit, in common with some air force units, is suffering from lack of air mechanics. Two additional first-line squadrons will be formed early next year-we hope about the time the second earner is in commission.
In general it may be said that the air personnel situation is shaping satisfactorily. There has been no difficulty in obtaining volunteers for air crew. A number of naval pilots already flying are ex-R.C.A.F. men. The development of the air arm component is progressing satisfactorily, and it is intended to continue the closest cooperation with the R.C.A.F. as regards joint facilities and training.
In addition it is intended to make a close study of army support, and arrangements are already in hand for army liaison units to be placed in our ships. This of course is in line with what the hon. member for Nanaimo was saying a few minutes ago. The object at present of the air component is to study and equip themselves for any role which they may be called upon to play, including anti-sub-

Supply-Naval Services
marine warfare, air cover, convoy protection, ground support of the army, striking and interception forces, and the like.
With regard to the future of air personnel, it is the intention that officers who enter this arm shall be also trained as naval officers. They will occupy executive positions in Canadian ships in the intervals of their tours of flying duty so their opportunities to attain high executive command in the navy will be the same as those of an officer in any other branch. That, I think, is of great importance, because the normal combat flying time of an officer is limited; and I think it is therefore important that the men coming into the navy as naval flyers should have a full naval career open, to them, and that they should be not only flying officers as such but should also be fully trained to take command of naval vessels in the same way as any other naval officers would do.


Grote Stirling: What is the size of a naval air squadron?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have that information at three o'clock.


George Randolph Pearkes: What types of aircraft are being flown?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Seafires and Fireflies, and there is a possibility we may get some other types of aircraft for training. That is now under discussion. They are the latest type of British aircraft.


Mr. PROBE:: Under what item will it be possible to discuss the general post-war policy? I share somewhat the confusion experienced by the hon. member for Nanaimo.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said in my opening remarks-perhaps I did not make it clear-that our practice in the past has been to discuss general policy under this heading of salaries and wages. It is hoped that next year we may go back to a full civilian basis, but in the past we have had our general discussions under that item. I should be glad if the hon. member would follow that practice here. After finishing the item we will stick more or less closely to the particular item under consideration.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few remarks to make at the present time, and they are personal. The minister spoke before luncheon of my annual attack on the brass hats. I will tell him that it is not annual, it is not monthly, it is not weekly, it is not daily; it is a constant denunciation
of an absurd regime in which the irresponsible have control over the destinies of the nation. I will tell him, and he must take my word for it, that I am not any more impressed by jocular remarks than by insults of the kind I got the other day when I was called a nuisance, an attack which did not go any higher than the sole of my boot. The task I am performing now I hope will not be a task that I shall perform alone. I am most grateful to the hon. member who gave his support to the cause we are fighting for, and I hope we shall not be alone in trying to curb bureaucracy in the war departments as well as anywhere else. Some progress may be made; maybe not, but I will ask as a special favour from the other members who do not give their support to that cause, which is the cause of the people at large and of the taxpayers, at least not to denounce bureaucracy if they are ready to swallow it entirely. Let them keep their eloquence to themselves or act in accordance with their words.
I will tell the minister that confusion has been caused in the minds of the people by the mixing of the various employees in the department who are described as civilians precisely to prevent the Canadian people from seeing that there is no effective reduction taking place in the Ottawa staff of the naval service, any more than there is any important reduction of staff in the other war departments. Either the war is over or it is not. If the war is over, there are many, many men who have earned fat salaries and bonuses for themselves and their dependents during the war without risking their lives, not even their little finger, who must be told that the war is over. That news must be announced to them. The war is over and your usefulness has ceased. I wonder if the minister speaks to them with the genial smile that is his characteristic when he pilots his estimates through.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not always.


Jean-François Pouliot: He should learn to frown.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He does.


Jean-François Pouliot: And he should practice reform in his department. The country expects it. If there are departments where reforms should start right away, it is precisely the war departments.
I have a word to say to the hon. member for Nanaimo, and it is this. I ask him for a loaf and he gives me a stone. I have already praised him. I have the highest personal regard for him, but I hope that he will realize that just because he was once a brass hat, and probably a good one, he should not feel that he must protect and take under his wing
Supply-Naval Services

all the bad ones. For there are bad ones, and by bad ones I mean men who are getting fat stipends from the state and are doing nothing, sitting on swivel chairs here in Ottawa and being considered more important than a Canadian citizen who runs the risk of election and is here to do his duty and protect the rights of the taxpayers of this country. This cause is very important. It is the cause of reform, the same cause for which our forefathers fought a hundred years ago. There on the other side of the house I see a friend of mine who not long ago showed me a testimonial dating back nearly a century ago. His parents were in polities at the time. They were fighting precisely against bureaucracy, and they won their fight, and it is just as sure that we will win, even if it takes time, our fight for freedom, liberty and responsible government. I may be called wrong precisely because I take this matter seriously. If I do so, I do so as a Canadian citizen.
I realize the losses the navy has made. To-day we have paid homage to the heroes who landed at one of the most dangerous places on the European continent at that time. They were supported by the navy, and the navy has suffered losses. But I remember very well that when Great Britain offered us ships because, of what Canada had done during the war, Canada was unwilling to accept that gift. The government said that we should not accept those ships, that we must pay for them. We would not even accept gifts from Great Britain. What an idea!
The other day I was dumbfounded by the statement made in Paris that Canada expected nothing from the meeting of the united nations. I protest against that. It is not within the power of any nation to compensate us for the losses of life that we sustained, but there can be compensation for our losses in ships and other material. I believe that we must get something. If we do not get any material advantage from the united nations at least we should put our own house in order before teaching others to do so.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister said that there were 6,005 of the permanent force enrolled in the navy at the present time. I have here a press clipping dated April 15 last, which shows that at that time there were 5,200 in the regular navy. That means a change in four months of only 800, or at the rate of 200 a month. At that rate it would take two years to recruit 10,000 of all ranks. I should like to ask the minister what the recruiting plan is, and whether there is a campaign on foot, and if so, whether it is going to be stepped up. Just what practical steps are being taken to get men? Is the minister 
satisfied with the present rate of intake? If not, does he propose to take any more energetic steps to get recruits? At the same time would he tell us something about the recruiting of the reserve navy? This same press clipping says that the reserve establishments are to be recruited up to sixty-five per cent only. Will the minister explain how that sixty-five per cent is arrived at, and whether it is contemplated that later on it may be 100 per cent? Perhaps he would give a general statement of how the reserves establishment is getting along.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The figures I gave before lunch for the permanent navy as at July 31 were 6,005. Recruiting there has been proceeding at a satisfactory rate. The difficulty in the navy is the same, I know, as in the army and, I assume, in the air force; it is to get specialists, mechanics, engineroom ratings, and so on. But recruiting is proceeding satisfactorily and if as we complete the changeover from wrar to peace and more ships are put into commission more active steps are required to obtain recruits, those steps will be taken. My officers tell me that they are satisfied with the rate at which recruiting has been proceeding. They are being fairly selective in their choice of men. A lot of recruiting is being done through the divisions. That was the plan-that the divisions would be used as recruiting agencies. A certain amount of publicity material in the way of explanatory booklets, and, I think, posters, was prepared for use by the divisions, but there has not been what one might call an intensive recruiting campaign. It was felt that the time was not yet ripe for that. As I say, the recruiting is proceeding satisfactorily.
As to the reserve divisions, here again we are to some extent still in the reorganization phase. As the committee will appreciate, in some districts where we have good reserve divisions the quarters which are available are temporary, that is to say they are rented, as they are clubs or something of the sort which have been taken over. One very real problem we have to face at the moment is the provision of suitable permanent quarters. It is a problem which, I may say, is also faced by the army in. connection with armouries. Under existing conditions it is neither practicable nor desirable to proceed with any building campaign. So in some sections where we have keen reserve divisions we have a very real space problem. There is also the problem of changing over from a wartime to a peacetime command arrangement, getting suitable men who will take on the command of the divisions in peacetime. That, I understand,

Supply-Naval Services
too, is coming along nicely. There is the usual difficulty that in some cases men who spent several years on active service away from their homes are reluctant for the time being to take on the responsibility of directing a local unit. But we feel sure that a good many of them, after they have had a brief change and rest, will be only too glad to lend a hand there, and I think it is desirable, as in the case of the army, to try to have as many reserve officers as possible, who have had operational experience to take charge for a time of local reserve units.
As to the active list of the reserve part of the navy, the progress since recruiting started on April 15, which is when we renewed our recruiting campaign, has not been as promising as we should have liked. The strength as of July 31 was only 1,080. But as I say, with the divisions settling down from their job of demobilization, and with reserve training becoming active during the summer months, better results are anticipated, and I understand that several hundred applications are now on hand. The actual new entries are 254 officers and 208 men as at July 31; and the retired list as at August 1, 1946 on the reserve side is approximately 3,200 officers, in the Royal Canadian Navy permanent force, 123, and the Wrens, 231.


Grote Stirling: Does that apply to the reserve which the minister gave last year, 18,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is our objective. At the present time we have only 1,080, or maybe somewhat higher, of that projected strength.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: How does the navy intend to dispose of the naval buildings in Prince Rupert? A rumour is going around that they are to be torn down, and the people are much concerned, because there are many semi-permanent or permanent buildings which would be useful for housing, or for factories, and so forth. Another question which has been bothering the city of Prince Rupert for some time, about which I have had correspondence \yith the minister, is this. When is Brigadier Walsh's report on the damage to the streets of Prince Rupert to be put in the hands of the city council? I think the question was last asked in May, and we were then told that it would come out some time in the future. Well, the future is going on and on.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As to the first question, it is always difficult to arrange these discussions in strict order, but I think my hon. friend's question would more properly come under one of the later items.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Well, will the minister hold it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will take a note of his question. I may say that two of the buildings to which he refers are to be used for the naval division in Prince Rupert. Perhaps I had better deal with the question when the proper item comes up.


Mr. BROOKS:: What is the attitude of the department towards men who at the beginning of the war joined the service for say seven years, have now served five and a half or six years, and are anxious to leave to go to universities and become rehabilitated? I know that there are a number of applications for release from the navy, and the attitude seems to be to retain them in the navy against their wish.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am familiar with some of these cases; they have come to my attention, of course. The period of enlistment was seven years, and they signed on as permanent force sailors for that period. They are highly trained, we need those men in the service, and the general rule is that unless there are strong compassionate grounds which would permit of the man being released from his contract, he should stay in the navy for the term of his enlistment. Unfortunately it is that very type of highly trained sailor that we need in this transition period when we are turning over from war to peace, because our permanent force navy was pretty small and we are having to recruit it up to a strength far greater than we had before, so we need these men. But my direct answer to my hon. friend's question is that each case is considered on its merits, and if there are strong compassionate grounds upon which it is felt that a man should be relieved of his contract, the application is granted.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It was not of compassionate grounds that I was speaking; it was in connection with going to university. That has not been considered by the government a compassionate ground?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is not considered as a ground, no.


Mr. SKEY:: The minister spoke of the navy being an active force of about 10,000 and a reserve force of about 18,000. Will he tell the committee on what basis the decision as to this strength was made?


Douglas Charles Abbott: These figures were selected after the decision had been taken as to the size of our post-war navy in terms of ships, and the officers were asked to prepare a man-power programme for manning those ships, assuming
Supply-Naval Services

that so many were to be kept in commission at a given time, so many in reserve, so many for training, so many for shore establishments, and so on. The proposed establishments after being put forward were reviewed by the defence committee of the cabinet and ultimately approved by the cabinet. That is the basis on which that figure was selected. The same thing, I may say, applied to the other two services.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: That is the reason I ask the question. If we are to build any military force in peace time it must be based on a survey of Canada's man-power. I do not think it should be based altogether on the number of ships we intend to man. We have twelve million people in this country. Every military force is supported by the industrial effort and the population behind it. Therefore if we want to build a good peacetime force, whether army, navy or air force, we must have in mind all the time the man-power potential in Canada, and we should so design the force that it shall be capable of expansion to the limits that the man-power in the country will permit. That is a factor to be considered as well as simply the ships they are to man. We must have in mind also the expansion and extension of the force to an economic unit. In the United States they found they had less than ten per cent of trained men in the American navy when they went into the war, and they found that was spreading the trained personnel far too thin. If the navy were again to expand to the 100,000 mark, perhaps an active force of ten per cent of its potential expansion, and a reserve force of 18 per cent of that potential, would be sufficient to man it properly and have a trained personnel to handle the ships and the administration of such a force. Can the minister tell me whether there is any department at naval headquarters under which combined planning takes place-combined operational planning with both the army and the air force?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That would come under the chief of naval staff. The coordinating group, as my hon. friend knows, is the chief of staffs committee, which consists of the chiefs of staff of the three services, with their advisers, and which meets regularly.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: If I might be so bold as to advise again, I suggest that this is the wrong level on which to start planning. It should begin right down in the roots of the service. In my small war service I was on coastal operations, and it took over two years, perhaps three years, in England before the air force properly combined with the navy in an attack which eventually negatived the German
(Mr. Abbott.]
submarine. Planning has to begin certainly at a lower level than the chiefs of staff if policies and training are to be coordinated and carried out with understanding by the junior ranks. M!ay I ask the minister what proportion of the naval department personnel is now engaged in caretaker functions for War Assets Corporation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can give that information a little later.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Do the naval service plan to use jet aircraft on their carriers?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think the same principle will be followed there as in the air force. Aircraft carriers will be equipped with the latest type of aircraft suitable for that particular vessel. That is the ease at the present time. We have the latest type of aircraft flying for these carriers, a type which is manufactured in England. One cannot prophesy in these things. All one can say is that we will endeavour to have the latest and most up to date equipment. The trend seems to be towards jet aircraft on land, and no doubt in sea operations, and if that type is used in sea operations Canada will use them.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Does the naval department plan to continue Royal Roads as a cadet naval training establishment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Is the history of the development of the Canadian navy being written?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Does the naval department expect that Canada will ever develop industrial capacity to back our operational naval force without having to purchase machines, ships, equipment, scientific apparatus and technical supplies abroad?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have never claimed the gift of prophecy. Canada has made very rapid industrial development over the past few years, and I feel that that development will continue. As far as being able to give an assurance to my hon. friend or anyone else is concerned, that we shall be in a position fully to back our navy without getting any type of equipment or material from elsewhere, I would hesitate to make that assertion now.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Can the minister give the committee an assurance that Canadian industrial firms are given an opportunity to tender on naval contracts for equipment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no question about that. Canadian industrial firms are furnishing large quantities of equipment for destroyers which are being built in Halifax, as my hon. friend knows.

Supply-Naval Services


Mr. HARKNESS:: Of the establishment of
10,000	in the permanent navy, how many are officers and how many are ratings? Also, of the 6,005 we have at the present time, how many are officers and how many ratings, particularly ratings below the rank of petty officer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I gave some of that information this morning.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But there was no breakdown below the total figure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps that question had better stand and I can give the information later. Do I understand1 the hon. member wishes to have a breakdown as between officers and men in the authorized establishment of 10,000 and1 a breakdown of the present total figure of 8,000 in the navy, as between officers and men?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The actual breakdown of the 6,005 in the permanent navy and interim. The others do not enter into it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can give the breakdown of strength as at May 31, 1946, of those actually serving, and I will get the other information later. Officers: 775 permanent force; interim force, 293; hostilities only 557; Wren officers, 43; nursing sisters, 67. That gives a total of 1,735. These will have been reduced since that day. I have not the latest figures. Other ranks: permanent force, 5,028; interim force, 1,172; hostilities only, 1,194; Wrens, 407; nursing sisters, nil, or a total of 7,801. The totals are: 5,803 permanent force; interim force, 1.465; hostilities only 1,751; Wrens 450; nursing sisters 67, a total of 9,536, which has since been reduced. I will get the others and put them' on later.
Mr. MclVOR: I should like to tell a brief story of the efficiency of somebody in the department of naval services. Last session the minister said that- if any boy was necessary to farm work be would be relieved at once or as soon as possible. Some days after that I interviewed officials of his department telling the story of a fanmer who needed his boy at home. Less than three days after the interview the boy was brought back home from the occupational forces in Germany and landed on the shores of Canada. Not all the work done by the Department of National Defence is blundering. To me that was efficient service, and it helped a farmer who otherwise would not have been able to put in his crop.


Mr. MUTCH:: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. The question might appropriately be asked also on the estimates of the Department of National Defence, Army.
It has to do with the matter of demobilization. Unfortunately I have not before me the naval order which is involved. I am assured that a similar situation exists in the army. The question has to do with army routine order 2232 and appendix and some amending P.C.'s-the numbers of which I can give the minister if he requires them-and with members of the various services who were discharged from one branch of the service in order to serve in another. To my knowledge the interpretation which is being put on this routine order as amended by these seven various P.C.'s is that personnel serving in one branch of the service, in the army itself, the air force or the navy, on being discharged for the purpose of being commissioned or appointed to another, would not, according to the terms of the routine order, be given a discharge button for the service which they performed in the original branch to which they were attached. My information is that those in authority in both the army and the navy branches, which are under the minister, are interpreting the routine order to apply to those who were discharged in order to enlist in another branch of the service. But it has happened that some members who served creditably in the army or navy, and some for a considerable period of time, were selected for service in another arm for which they volunteered and for which they were adjudged fit, but for one reason or another they did not succeed in serving meritoriously in the branch of the service to which they went. A considerable number of these persons are now in the position of having meritorious service in the army or navy and have been discharged as a result of misconduct or their service no longer required in the navy, and they are unable to obtain anything to show that they did have a period of meritorious service. Is the minister aware of this condition, and will he look into it in both branches of the service in order that the situation may be rectified? May I point out that it has already been accepted in principle by the board which reviews the service of persons who were dishonourably discharged in order to see whether or not the benefits which Canada has awarded to those who served with merit should go to these other men. The practice is now that if a man has meritorious service in one branch of the service and is discharged and reenlisted or reappointed to another branch of the service from which he is dishonourably discharged and thereby deprived of these benefits, he does in fact receive them for that period of meritorious service which he had in the former branch. That being so I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that this consideration is being denied at
Supply-Naval Services

the present time to the men to whom I refer. I speak positively with respect to the army, and I am informed on reliable authority that the same applies to the navy. I should like to have the assurance of the minister that provision will be made for bringing the matter of service buttons on the same level as the benefits which are available for the period of meritorious service.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall look into the whole question which has been raised by my hon. friend and make a statement a little later. I was not aware that action was being taken in the way he has indicated, but I shall give a statement in the course of these estimates or on the army estimates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This morning a certain amount of discussion took place on the number of civilian employees in the naval branch of the department. I have two or three questions that I should like the minister to answer if he can. Are some of these people employed because the permanent navy is not up to full strength? If so, what numbers of these civilian employees are actually covering off jobs which would be carried on by the regular navy if it were up to strength?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can answer that very quickly. None of them are being employed to fill jobs which would be filled by the navy if it were up to strength.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If none of them are used for that purpose, are many of them used in demobilization activities which will presumably come to an end this year? What likelihood is there of a reduction in the number of civilian employees?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite a number have been used in connection with various demobilization activities, which, as my hon. friend points out, are being reduced all the time and which should be largely at an end by the end of this year. As he will appreciate, there is quite a good deal of work to be done in storing, classifying equipment, and that sort of thing, and after it has been done and the equipment has been turned over to War Assets we sometimes have to guard it for a time. It should be possible to effect a further considerable reduction in the number of employees. As I pointed out this morning, quite a few are employed in permanent activities in the dock yards and in the east and west coast naval magazines, the principal ones being at Renous, New Brunswick, and Kamloops, in British Columbia, and in things of that kind.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Will the minister tell us what the reduction is likely to be, approximately, when demobilization activities come
[Mr. Mutch.1
to an end? I was thinking particularly of one item which showed that 1,197 of these civilian employees are at naval headquarters. Probably it would be possible to get rid of a considerable number of these.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear. I thank the hon. member for Calgary East. We are three noW; we are making progress. I appreciate what he has done, and I thank him on behalf of those who would have less to pay in taxes if we had not such an abnormal number of do-nothings in the department of naval services in Ottawa. I am no better informed now than I was this morning and at three o'clock, and it is now twenty minutes to four. I still expect a right and clear answer from the minister showing the reductions which have been made in each of the units or establishments or branches of the naval services department compared not with July but with September, the month which followed V-J day last year. We must know how the minister has been working to cut the ties of bureaucracy in the department; it is not a matter of expressing vague sentiments and cloudy ideas about the reductions which have been made. I want to have the information in black and white; I want to know how many of these do-nothings were in each branch last year and how many are there this year. The minister will not put in my head the thought that after both wars are over, the war against Germany and the war against Japan, the usefulness of all those in his department has not ceased. I do not cast aspersions on all, but naturally there must be some the minister can dispense with. I do not know the number of men who have been dropped from office since September of last year, and I should like to have a tabulation of those figures. It should be easily made up, if the personnel is as efficient as it has been described. This is for those engaged in civilian occupations, sitting in swivel chairs here in Ottawa.
With regard to the sailors, brave as they can be, let me tell the minister of an experience I had many years ago. I spent a Yule-tide at a dock yard, and I saw the number of servants the commanding officer had at his disposal. They were fine boys. One was shining silverware; another was shining brass; another was shining boots, and one could not interfere with the work of the other. One was cleaning silverware; another was cleaning china; another was cleaning the porcelain; one had the key to the wine cellar; another was serving wine; another was serving water and another was serving bread and butter. They were like the sands of the sea and the stars of the sky. I do not cast any aspersions on the navy, but I know the work being done

Supply-Naval Services
by those men. could have been done by a butler and a handyman; two men could have done that work very easily. But there was a cloud of servants, and we cannot say anything because they are in the navy. Well, even if it is done that way in England why should we follow that example here in Canada? It is time to stop those practices. It is unfortunate that they should be carried on when men are needed in agriculture, in the forests and everywhere else, when work is not done because we have not enough men at our disposal. There we have these men serving their country shining silverware, shining brass, the one shining the brass and not shining the silverware, another shining the boots without shining either the brass or the silverware. This is very important, and they take it very seriously. They take it for granted; that is the noble tradition.
Coming to that noble tradition, is there anything more foolish than that they should wear a black tie to mourn the death of Lord Nelson? Not only that; they wear the most absurd trousers, with seven creases to indicate the seven seas. Those uniforms are most uncomfortable; they are ridiculous, and they are not changed because it is the navy tradition to wear trousers symbolic of the seven seas and a black tie to mourn Lord Nelson.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Why not?


Jean-François Pouliot: Because we live in modern times. The Victory was a great ship, but it is tied to a wharf in the south of England. Does my hon. friend belong to another age, or does he live in the year 1946? I should like to see him in a sailor's uniform.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As a matter of fact I excel my hon. friend, because I have been in a sailor's uniform and he never has been.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is true, but now my hon. friend could not wear the same uniform, which is very unfortunate. Here we are with the hon. gentleman who leads the house, who is most congenial, but who still mourns Lord Nelson. Let him mourn Lord Nelson.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why not?


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely; let him mourn Lord Nelson as much as he likes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are proud of him.


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely, we are all proud of him; he was a great man. I would not say a word to the contrary, but the sailors of the Canadian navy should do something else than mourn Nelson, and wear those long pants that are like bells.


Mr. KIDD:: They have done something else.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I know, and I do not deprecate what they have done. I admire them, but they are most uncomfortable. They complain about it, and when I speak like this I express the grievances of the sailors of this year 1946, the sailors who did so well during the war and who survived it. Somebody should improve their lot by at least making them comfortable. Perhaps there are many young men who would be ready to enlist in the navy but do not do so because they think they would look foolish in that uniform.
Mr. QUELCI1: You would not want them to wear kilts, would you?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. I leave that to the hon. member for Winnipeg South.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Don't worry; I'll be back on that subject.


Jean-François Pouliot: I leave to him the little petticoat which adorned him when he came into the house during the war, and I leave to him the other article mentioned by my hon. friend. But, sir, we are here for reform, and to reduce the number of idle men in this department, I suppose there must be some who will be idle, since there are some everywhere, but let us have as few as possible. And let us give the boys in the navy a chance to be comfortable when they go out, a chance to dress properly according to modern times and in accordance with modem uniform traditions of the nation. This is not a joke; I am talking seriously. I believe in the comfort of these men and the comfort of all those who are in government employ. The other day I asked for some improvement, I was not successful; I was told it was not desirable, but I still believe it is desirable to make men comfortable.
The minister is not a fanatic or a bigot; I hope he will change the policy of the department which now requires that no Canadian may apply for enlistment in the navy unless h,e is as learned as Pico della Mirandola. Why should a man need to have a university degree in order to be a sailor on a ship, or a stoker, or an assistant to serve meals?


Douglas Charles Abbott: He does not.


Jean-François Pouliot: Some fine fellows whom I knew personally applied and were turned down because their education was one year short- of the standard required by the department; the minister knows that. Therefore I hope the navy will become modernized, not only with regard to the- guns on the ships but also in regard to the comfort of the crews, so that all ideas of bygone days may disappear and' the navy shall live in our time, in the year 1946.
Supply-Naval Services


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: I believe it was suggested by the minister this morning that we should deal with the items as	they	appear	on page 275. The	first itemis	civil	salaries	and wages. Shall	this item
carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, sir.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister was going to answer my question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am a little lost in the maze here. I gave some figures this morning on this item of civil salaries and wages, made up	to June 30,	which is about six	weeks orso	ago.	As the	committee will realize, these
estimates seem to be a kind of movable feast; you have to make fresh estimates every now and then, and it is a little difficult to know just what will be wanted. I will have a more up to date estimate made, if it is possible to do so, and give it to the committee either later to-day or at a later date. Speaking generally, however, our estimates for the year are based on the assumption that there will be a further reduction of at least one thousand civilian employees from the present figure. I hope and believe that the reduction will be substantially in excess of that, but these estimates were prepared some time ago, and obviously it is difficult to know just how rapidly the demobilization, both, of men and materials, can proceed, so it is necessary to make provision for the situation that may exist. However, I say now that our financial estimates are based upon a further reduction of at least one thousand, and I believe it will be greater than that. I think that answers the question of the hon. member for Calgary East, and I shall try to get a little later information for the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I was amused to hear the hon. member for Temiscouata, whom many of us consider one of the older traditionalists of the house, criticize the traditions of the navy.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not at all.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that in my constituency we have a well-organized and efficient sea cadets corps. They did excellent work in the last few years. The boys are being trained in navigation, seamanship and general administration connected with ships. The community has purchased a large headquarters, and has provided some cutters and other equipment. They have excellent opportunity for training because of their proximity to the Columbia river. I suggest to the minis-

ter that naval stores be made available to these corps, and that the naval department do everything possible to supply these sea cadets corps with available equipment such as small boats, navigating instruments, and life preservers. There are many small items which could be transported for the use of these sea cadets corps. What is the policy of the naval department in this regard?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I agree with what the hon. member has said about the sea cadets corps in his own district and the sea cadets movement generally. So far as equipment is concerned, the practice is to make modern up-to-date equipment available for sea cadets corps. The method is to issue it to the reserve division nearest the point where the cadets corps operates, and the division issues the supplies on loan as required. In other words it is decentralized to. the extent that the local division is given the responsibility of accounting for the equipment lent to the local corps, but naval headquarters determine how much should be provided. I can assure the hon. member it is the policy of the department to be as generous as possible in making suitable equipment available.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: We had the same experience in my constituency with the sea cadets corps. We wanted to get a ship which would be suitable for training, because we are located right on the lake front, with a good harbour. The corps offered as much money as it could get together, but it was told that the amount collected was not sufficient to purchase the ship. It would seem to me the department should give some assistance to the sea cadets corps so that they could continue. I suggest the navy department give some consideration to this matter, so that suitable boats may be made available.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall look into the points raised by the hon. member. There is a generous provision, to the extent of $829,000, in this year's estimates for the sea cadets corps. As the committee knows, this is a joint enterprise. The sea cadets corps are under the auspices of public-spirited private citizens who give direction and guidance. The navy assists in the work of the corps by furnishing a finapcial appropriation to help with instructors, equipment and so on. However I shall look into the point the hon. member has raised.	_


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: What are the plans for the fleet air arm? Where does the minister intend to get recruits?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I discussed that matter at some length just before the luncheon adjourn-

Supply-Naval Services
ment. It was put on the record in some detail, so that if the hon. member will look at Hansard to-morrow he will find the statement there. If he does not find covered the point he has in mind, I hope he will ask a supplementary question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I hope the minister
realizes that the questions I have been asking about these civilian employees have been in an attempt to get a reasonable explanation as to the apparent disparity between the amount of money being spent by the naval branch and that spent by the army and air force on civil salaries. I have suggested two possible reasons, one of which was that some of these men were being used to cover up vacancies which exist in the permanent naval ranks. The minister says that is not so. If it is not so, and if there is to be a reduction of perhaps only a thousand in the number of these men-and the minister hopes it will be greater-it must be that there is still a considerable disparity, even if we accept the figure of $4,424,000 for civil servants alone and $8 million odd for people who do not come under the civil service generally. The amount for civil salaries and wages in the air force, with a lot more men to begin with, is still $5 million odd and in the army, with a very much larger number, it is $7 million odd.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But they do not operate
dock yards.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In the air force and
navy there are a considerable number of establishments of one kind or another partly operated with civilian help, and I suggest that offsets this dock yard element. Is there any other reason for this apparent disparity?
[DOT]-because there certainly is a disparity of some considerable amount.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I suggest that if my hon.
friend analyses other estimates he will find that there are some civil salaries and wages carried in the army estimates, for instance, under other headings. We have attempted this year in connection with the navy to bring them under this one item. As I said this morning, that differs from the practice in previous years. I agree with everything said by the hon. member, or by any other hon. member, that it is desirable to cut down the number of civilian employees. Let me assure the committee that I am driving at that every day. I realize that the proportion appears high, although I am not prepared to say it is too high. Indeed I do not think it is, to-day. I am told that in the navy, by reason of the operation of dock
yards, and some other activities, the ratio of civilian employees is higher than in the other two services. I am advised that that is true in the case of the admiralty, although I have no personal knowledge of that.
I am glad this matter has been brought up, because it will second my own efforts to cut down the number of civilian employees to the lowest possible number consistent with the maintenance of a strong and efficient navy.
I take no exception to the criticism of the ' hon. member respecting civilian employees, but I am only doing my best to explain why there are these numbers. I assure the committee I am doing my best to see that they are kept within proper proportions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I thoroughly agree with the minister that all civilian employees should be listed under one heading so far as civil salaries and wages are concerned. He has indicated that that is being done for the navy. If it has not been done in the army and air force estimates I would request that civilian salaries under those departments be brought in under a separate heading, so that we may have a better opportunity to make comparisons and to know to what extent civilian salaries and wages are being paid in those two services. ,


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Going back to the matter of recruiting, on what date does the minister say that the 10,000 men will be enlisted?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We rather hoped that we would be close to that objective by about the end of the present fiscal year. The staff tell me that that would suit their plans very well in arranging the manning of various ships and changing over from war to peace. It will certainly not be earlier than the end of the present fiscal year, and probably not until a bit later. To be more specific, we hope to have something around 8,700 by the end of this current fiscal year, March 31. Our second carrier will not be in commission, we expect-, until some time next year. That of course has a direct relationship to the number of permanent force personnel we wish to take into the Service. She carries a complement of about 1,000 men.
.Mr. MERRITT: In February the minister was quoted as saying that one carrier and four destroyers will probably have to be carried in reserve because of the 10,000-men limit. So from the figures he gave this morning it appears there are very few destroyers in commission-only two out of twelve-and one
Supply-Naval Services

frigate out of eighteen. Therefore it would seem to me that the 10,000 objective will not be much affected by the carrier.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We cannot just leave her standing idle. Even in reserve she carries men.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I understand that, but not a full complement.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: At the present rate of recruiting, 200 a month, it will take twenty-five months to reach 10,000. If we are going to have 10,000 in this fiscal year, as there are only about six months left the rate will have to be quadrupled and you will have to take in about 800 a month. I throw out this suggestion. As an extra aid in recruiting I cannot think of anything better than that the minister himself should go out and speak in some of the principal cities in Canada and encourage young Canadians to join the service. With such encouragement I am sure that a large number would come forward. The minister can be the best recruiting agency we could possibly have, and probably he will cost less than others.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I sincerely thank my hon. friend for his very generous tribute to my oratorical and persuasive powers. Nothing would please me better than to do the sort of thing he suggests, but he will appreciate that for the last four or five months it has not been easy for me or for any minister to get away from Ottawa. I hope that the session will soon be concluded-and while I am frank to say that I do not intend to go on any recruiting tour immediately after the session is over, I appreciate the suggestion my hon. friend has made. I was hoping long before this to make at least a trip to each of the two coasts and see our establishments there. I have done it only in a quick sort of way, spending a day or two only in each place-not from any lack of desire on my part, but solely because of more pressing duties at Ottawa.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I did not offer the suggestion lightly, and I hope the minister will not only visit the establishments but speak publicly in aid of recruiting.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sincere when I say I appreciate my hon. friend's suggestion.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Quite a number of Canadians are now serving in the British fleet air arm, continuing their training over there perhaps more extensively since the war is over. Is it part of the minister's programme to bring these young men back to serve in our own fleet air arm?
(Mr. Merritt.]


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have a very considerable number who served with the British fleet air arm during the war. It would' not be possible to take all of them, because there were a larger number of them than our complement wmuld permit, but that is the source from which we have been drawing most of our flying personnel.


Mr. ADAMSON:: The minister in reply to the hon. member for Trinity stated that the liaison or cooperation between the three services was on the chief of staff level. I want to make a comment on that. It is the practice now in the United States and in the United Kingdom forces that every officer who attains command must have a knowledge, and in the United States a very extensive knowledge, of the functions and limitations of the other two branches of the service. While the navy in the United States has not a separate air force, nevertheless the liaison is at a much lower level than chief of staff, and I suggest that the minister consider seriously establishing a joint staff college so that every officer at the commander level or the squadron leader level, or even lower, may have the opportunity to understand the operations and limitations of the other two services. It is obvious that as war becomes more and more scientific and the velocity of projectiles much greater, a knowledge of the operations and limitations of weapons, and a knowledge even of the outlook of the other services, is very important for any officer in command to have in any future war. I think every one of them should have that. At the chief of staff level you find officers who are very jealous of their prerogatives, and the cooperation is apt to be on the surface rather than genuine. A man on the chief staff level is inclined to take the view: That is all very well, but I am running the navy. The same attitude will no doubt be found in the other services at the chief of staff level. But if all officers who are likely to take command had a knowledge of the functions and limitations of the other two services, I believe you would have a much more effective and efficient defence service. I suggest that to the minister. I do not know what plans have been made in that regard. I merely heard his reply to the hon. member for Trinity.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion, and I can assure him that thinking along those lines, and probably something more than thinking, will develop in the not very distant future. We have an army staff college at Kingston which representatives of the other two services attend; also an army training station at Carberry and an operation school at Courtenay, British Columbia. On

Supply-National Defence
both coasts the air force and the army are cooperating closely with the navy. Anyone who has seen' any thing of war realizes that no army in the future is ever going to fight without an air force in close liaison.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And no navy in the future will fight without an air force.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Right, and under certain conditions no army will fight without a navy. I agree that there should be the closest possible liaison between the three, branches of the sendee, and that is what we are endeavouring to achieve. I mentioned the chiefs of staff committee, but that liaison is carried on at all levels. The director of plans for the navy is constantly in touch with his opposite number in the other two services. The personnel members committee meets regularly to discuss personnel problems. The research and development branch, as the committee knows, is headed by Doctor Solandt, who was formerly Colonel Solandt. That branch coordinates research development for the three services. So we are making real headway in attaining good liaison between the three services.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I think every junior officer should know the functions and limitations of the other two services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Before we proceed to another item, Mr. Chairman, the minister was going to give the war establishment showing a breakdown of the 10,000 officers and men.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will give that later, or perhaps on the army estimates.
571. Defence research. Subject to allocation by the treasury board, $14,495,861.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What does this item contain? I see there is no reference in the back of the book.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have been proceeding so expeditiously here, Mr. Chairman, that I have not even got my estimate book here, but I shall have it in the course of a few minutes. Meanwhile I can explain briefly what this item of defence research includes. We have taken in this item the amounts which were included in the different services for research and development and have included them in one item which is to be voted as a separate item. The sub-department of the Department of National Defence, research and development, as I said a moment ago, is under the direction of Doctor Solandt, who has been appointed director-general of research and development for the armed services. This is the appropriation' on which
those activities will be carried on for the remainder of the current fiscal year. I think, speaking from memory, this is for a special amount to cover the expenses of the director and his staff.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Do I take it that this concerns research into new weapons?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Speaking broadly, perhaps that is a fair statement. The branch will conduct in close liaison with the national research council research into new weapons, as my hon. friend says, although a great deal of that work will be carried on in the individual departments, in the three branches of the service under the direction of the specialists there. In addition this appropriation will cover operations such as the Suffield development in Alberta, chemical warfare branch research, and development there, and the general supervision of and inquiry into all branches of research as they affect the defence services.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Including, I presume, the newest of weapons?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I think it is fair to say that. Doctor Solandt, director-general of research, was in the United Kingdom not long ago, when he attended a conference of the research and development people in other parts of the commonwealth. One of the leading research and development men in the United Kingdom was out here shortly before that; and just recently we had a visit from Major General Bevis, of Australia, who is the master-general of the ordnance in the Australian army and who is keenly interested in research and development in his country, and1 spent some time with our people here learning the plans which they have for handling it in our service.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I stepped out for one second, and because of tire phenomenal speed with which things are going through here-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not forgotten my hon. friend's question. I have asked the deputy minister to get me the information, and I may have to give it a little later, when we are discussing the army estimates. But I will give him a complete answer.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I notice that in the estimates for the three services there is roughly $60 million for ammunition and bombs. Do I understand that this $14 million is the total amount for research, and that that $60 million which is in the three service estimates is for the production of present operational equipment entirely? Is that all new production?
Supply-National Defence


Douglas Charles Abbott: Most of the item to which my hon. friend is referring under ammunition and bombs is a carry-over of commitments from the previous fiscal period. We had very large contracts outstanding for ammunition and bombs, and this is largely an item for unliquidated commitments. When I have my estimate book I may be able to give the breakdown of that. This item of research and development is completely apart from that; and incidentally I may say that included in those other items there would probably be, indeed I know there are, considerable expenditures for the actual production of items which might be classified as development, if you will, but which can be used for operational purposes as well. But the $14 million' under item 471 covers, as I say, the amounts appropriated in the three services for research and development as such, together with an additional amount to cover the costs of the work which will be undertaken by the new head and his staff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
569. Army and related services (commitments $25,843,524), $283,170,171.
John Oliver Probe: The estimates of the Minister of National Defence for the current fiscal year include, according to this document before us, $104,793.40 on ordinary account and some $488,608,641 on demobilization and reconversion account, roughly a half billion dollar requisition, and, compared with estimates we have been talking about before, roughly 200 per cent of our federal expenditure on health and welfare. This estimate is doubtless considered necessary by the Minister of National Defence to implement the financial outlay implied in the resolution, which has been standing on the order paper now for some months, which reads:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Militia Act whereby provision will be made for a permanent force of officers and men in number as may be authorized by 'the governor in council, and for the employment during the period of demobilization of such members of the military forces as may be deemed necessary for the orderly carrying out of such demobilization.
In connection with this expenditure I wish to remind the committee of a resolution presented to parliament by the minister of defence in the government of 1910. In that resolution the minister of the day sought to provide for a permanent force not exceeding
10,000.	That number was a 100 per cent increase over the force authorized prior to world war I. The argument of the then minister of defence in support of his resolution was that the internal unrest in Canadian

labour-the Winnipeg strike was in progress at that time-as well as the defence of Canada against foreign aggression, necessitated that increase from 5,000 to 10,000 in the personnel of the permanent force.
The estimates of the Minister of Justice this session showed an increase in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police requirements of nearly $4,000,000, or fifty per cent over last year, a total amount equal to roughly the full permanent force requests following the first world war. I presume therefore that the Minister of Justice has judged that his department is now properly equipped to attend to the peace, order and good government within Canada's borders, so we may conclude that after the demobilization expenditures of the Minister of National Defence have been paid, the balance of the half billion dollars for which he is asking will go to the maintenance of Canada's post-war navy, army and air force.
From the facts I have stated, it must be most evident that the government of Canada has somehow committed its people to an extremely large peacetime expansion of armament from the custom of the past. One third roughly of all the money to be voted by parliament this session goes to the Minister of National Defence for expenditure in the second year of peace. The permanent force is not limited in number, as it was in 1919, but permission is being sought by the minister this session to create a force in numbers as may be authorized by the governor in council. Such a procedure is contrary to all peacetime precedent.
Many of the most bitter conflicts between the people and their king in English history dealt with the peacetime maintenance by the king of a standing army. The Bill of Rights of 1688 contained this clause:
That the raising of a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of parliament, is against the law.
Civil war has been waged in England over this principle in past centuries and now the Minister of National Defence in effect asks for a blank cheque on which he will place his own figures. With this power of the minister I must disagree, as did the citizens of England disagree with Charles I and James II.
The story of frontier America portrays an evolution in the maintenance of law and order that I feel I must recall to the house. In the unorganized frontier areas, each citizen by his own strength, and acting on his own concept of law or of right, protected his domain or pillaged his neighbour. Individual strength was the law. From the confusion of this system, in which might was right, a delegation of

Supply-National Defence
law enforcement powers was made, after considerable trial and error, properly to empower delegates of the community as a whole. The individual was protected in his lawful aspirations by the combined strength of the community, and under this system the strong and the weak, neighbour and stranger, lived in a security that was lacking when each man was his own sheriff.
A similar evolution is in making in the world community. The feudal barons who protected or pillaged their dependents and neighbours, have yielded their powers in the common good to a national authority. National military leaders in past conflicts have for the duration of the war accepted assigned military tasks from a supreme commander selected for his qualities proper to the occasion. In peace time the same delegation to an international authority must be made by national bodies; for it has long been self-evident that no single national state can defend itself against an aggressor, nor can a single aggressor state successfully strive against the combined forces of defending allies. Darius, Napoleon, Wilhelm II, Hitler, have all failed to disprove this thesis. The professional general does not defeat the citizen army. The volunteer strength of Canada's civilian turned soldier has matched Wehrmaeht in the past and is quite capable of doing so again should the necessity ever once more arise.
All arguments for the maintenance of a permanent peacetime force are invariably based on the need for preparedness against some foreign attack. To use such an argument on behalf of any peacetime force, that this country is able and prepared to equip and maintain for action against any possible aggressor nation, is ridiculous. Modern methods of warfare would make the defence of Canada, with its huge land areas and small prepared forces, an impossibility, and this I am certain that no exponent of military strategy could1 safely contradict.
Why then is the Minister of National Defence asking the house for an appropriation for such a peacetime military force? The Canadian people have no interest in becoming an aggressor nation. By ourselves we cannot repel an aggressor. The duty of the Canadian parliament to organize modern armed forces arises not only or even mainly out of our defence needs but out of our obligations as a member of the world community, pledged to help the maintenance of peace. In the Atlantic charter the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States held out to all the people of the world the hope of four freedoms based on a world organization for the maintenance of peace and 63260-317
of security. This world organization, the united nations organization, is struggling to achieve that which its predecessor the league of nations failed to do. In its aim to secure international security it already has many powerful unfriendly critics. Not the least vocal of these critics are the proponents of nationalism and national armaments. The C.C.F. party feels that Canada must play a positive part in making the united nations organization the effective instrument for which it was designed.
At the opening of the San Francisco conference last year, President Truman said:
This conference will devote its energies and its labours exclusively to the single problem of setting up the essential organization to keep the peace.	.
The charter of the united nations, drawn up at that time and concurred in by Canada, states, in article 43:
(1)	All members of the united nations, in order to contribute to the maintenauce of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the security council on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements armed forces, assistance and facilities including the rights of passage necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
(2)	Such agreement or agreements shall govern the number and the types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
(3)	The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the security council. They shall be concluded between the security council and the members, or between the security council and groups of members, and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their constitutional processes.
While no indication has been given to the members of this House of Commons as to agreements, as mentioned in article 43 of the united nations charter from which I have just quoted, respecting Canada's role in an international protective plan, and while no such agreements have as yet been presented to this house for ratification, the C.C.F. members of the house are prepared to support a negotiated contribution by Canada to such a protective force, and are prepared conditionally to approve the mustering of suitable armed components in anticipation of such agreements being secured and ratified by the House of Commons.
The conditions which the members of the C.C.F. group feel should be assured to support such an interim set-up are as follows:
1.	That the number of officers and men be set, not by governor in council but by the parliament of Canada.

Supply-National Defence

2.	That the Canadian force be recruited on a volunteer career basis with candidates accepted on an aptitude basis only.
3.	That the terms of service be such that promotion will be based upon general personal ability, or upon special ability in scientific military research; that upgrading of personnel in military science and technical research be continuous for all ranks throughout the entire period of service, with syllabi drawn up to include studies in history, economics and world citizenship, as well as technical studies solely applicable to the service.
- 4. That the present undemocratic forms of drill and discipline be reorganized in favour of rational treatment of all ranks.
5.	That pay scales of pay and allowances, amenities while in service and1 pension privileges on discharge be more nearly equalized for all ranks than is the case at present.
6.	That the basis for admission to, and study in, all military institutions be individual ability only, without regard to race, creed or colour; that the curriculi of these institutions be based on modern social and military needs, to include the historic study of the causes and results of war, and that all permanent force personnel be automatically eligible for admission.
7.	That all scientific discoveries of the Canadian force or of military research laboratories be made available to the united nations assembly on a reciprocal basis, and where research results have humanitarian value, that the findings be passed on for the general benefit.
8.	That army, navy and air force be integrated into a unified group for combined operations under a single staff, under direction of and through continuous liaison with the united nations protective force as required and when established.
9.	That non-technical staff (of high ranking officers) be drastically reduced and senior staff officers regularly reexamined and retired from the service to make way for younger and more efficient officers.
10.	That the present military districts headquarters staffs be retired on discharge of active army, and that the complements of area staffs and national defence headquarters staff be reduced to such number and with such functions as to maintain efficient military requirements.
11.	That all activities of and appropriations for the Canadian armed forces be subject to continuous review and control by a standing committee of the House of Commons. In that connection may I say I regret that under item 571 not one word was said by the Minister of National Defence with respect to

parliamentary review, other than by officers of the treasury board, of the defence research estimates in that section amounting to $14,495,861.
12.	That no members of Canada's armed forces, by virtue of such membership, shall be debarred from full exercise of the normal rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
13.	That the Canadian government establish crown companies for the sole manufacture and use of armaments, and that our ultimate aim be that such manufacture and use be under control by the united nations organization.
The members of our group feel that to implement the policy I have broadly outlined will be an effective way to realize Canada's duty to maintain the obligations toward world security under the united nations organization, provided further that our spokesmen at the conference press for early implementation of section 43 of the charter. Not one word has thus far come from the conference to the effect that Canada is vitally and honestly interested in securing implementation of section 43. Without this implementation the united nations will succeed no better than did the league of nations. The world wants no more national armaments, and the discovery of the atomic bomb has made national armaments a fallacy. Fighting forces are for attack only. Modern warfare makes the civilian population bear the whole brunt of defence, whether it be fire fighting, first aid or antiaircraft defences. The minister apparently is presenting no plan to prepare Canada for defence; therefore, if it be for attack, let it be according to plan of the united nations.
It was Pascal who said:
Strength without justice is tyrannical
And justice without strength is a mockery.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman has made a very interesting speech. I agree with part of what he has said, and thank him for his support in reducing the number of brass hats. There are other suggestions with which I do not agree. The Department of National Defence is made up of men who are of the same type as those who were in charge during the first world war. I should qualify what I said about brass hats. Brass hats are men whom we see only in time of war. Beside that they are ignored and we do not know where they are. They are like rats which hide behind the walls and in time of war come out and eat the good Canadian cheese.
On occasion, sir, I have spoken outside the house, and I deeply regret the feeling that the eight provinces have against Quebec. I will explain to you, sir, why such feeling exists. It

Supply-National Defence
is precisely because of conscription. I congratulate the minister and his assistant on what has been done with regard to amnesty for soldiers and the draftees, but, as always, that measure is not entirely satisfactory to the men. In the first place it is unsatisfactory because it comes too late, and second because national registration was abolished at the same time that the amnesty was proclaimed. When I congratulated the hon. member for Lotbiniere on what he did with regard to the soldiers and draftees I told him that the amnesty proposal was apparently a good thing, but it was drafted in such ambiguous terms that no one could know what it meant; and it comes late. Now there is at least partial amnesty, or words mean nothing. Men who want to be discharged will get out of the camps at an early opportunity, but, sir, it was a long fight against conscription-but it was not described as military conscription. It was a long fight that was carried on; it was carried on mostly against prejudice which had been created by government; agencies, by the radio, by the vicious information board, and by all other means- propaganda to teach Canadians that their duty was to join the colours, and that if they did not do so they wTere not acting as good Canadian citizens.
The matter was taken up from a racial angle. The English-speaking members of the Quebec legislature were so silly as to say, I think with only one exception, "As we are of British allegiance w'e must be in favour of conscription," meaning military conscription. So it was put on a racial basis; the matter was discussed on those lines from beginning to end, on the stump, over the air, in the press, and all those who did not agree with that policy, which was exactly the same as the policy propounded by the brass hats in the first war, were not good citizens, not good Canadians. That was the policy; it was brought into the mind of everyone, one after the other. Everyone had to believe that the duty of all Canadians, and the only duty, was to join the colours; if he did not do so he was not doing well, he was not doing what he should. Here in this house, from the seat I occupied at the other end of the alley, I asked the Minister of Labour what was the duty of each Canadian citizen during the war. His answer was quick; he said his duty was to join the colours, to enlist in the army, and suggested that those who were not enlisting were not doing their duty. That was most absurd. There was a law; we had the Natural Resources Mobilization Act, to the effect that the boys should report to the registrar for medical examination, and that they should report to the camp when they were called by the registrar. They 63260-3171
did so; nevertheless they were covered with shame just because they were not enlisting. Those who were sick or unfit went in to enlist. Some of them were discharged at once, but they were considered1 as heroes just because they had signed a paper for overseas service.
The propaganda went on and on. There were full pages in the newspapers asking the boys to enlist, to do their duty. From the start a distinction was made between those who enlisted and those who did not, though they were complying with the law. That distinction was maintained. A button was given to those who had enlisted. Those who did not enlist could not get a job unless they had been discharged by the army for medical reasons. They were put aside; they were in a category by themselves; they were like the untouchables of India. Because some farmers believed in the promise made in this house by the Prime Minister himself that farmers would be exempted, a promise that was denied the following day by the Minister of Labour; because they took it for granted that the word of the Prime Minister was the solemn word of the government and of those in charge of the business of this country, those men were run after by army police and were given treatment that is a shame in a civilized country.
To come to my proposition, to the principle I was explaining, it is that there has been a vast amount of propaganda in this country to create the opinion, the same opinion that was created during the first war, that all men of military age who were physically fit should enlist in the army. After that was done; after all those who did not believe that the farmers, the railway men, the fishermen, the miners, those making munitions and arms, those making clothing and shoes for the soldiers, those working on ships at sea and building ships in the dockyards, should enlist were publicized as slackers; after some parents had lost children and friends in the war and there was a veil of mourning over the country, then it was said that conscription, the only thing that was needed for the prosecution of the war, was not imposed because of the province of Quebec. That is the type of propaganda that has been so strong in the other provinces against the province of Quebec, because in Quebec during the war the people kept their senses and thought exactly as I am sure all members of this committee now think. But during the war there was great excitement. Everybody was beating the drum; everybody was waving the flag. Then the opinion was different from what it is now, when the war is over. How many times have I and the other members who were fighting for the farmer been insulted and humiliated in this house, just because we had the firm conviction
Supply-National Defence

that the army alone, brave as it could be, could not win the war by itself. It deserved the help of all those men who were not slackers, all those men who were doing their duty. There is now a reaction, perhaps, in the minds of some people; but many still believe the province of Quebec is not the loyal province she actually is, that the province of Quebec has not done her duty, not because her sons did not enlist just the same as they abided by the law, but precisely because of that propaganda which has worked against the province of Quebec and which has been instigated by men who lived upon the money voted to support those who were m the fighting lines. It is most disgraceful; and it is precisely because that propaganda has been going on during five years of war that it will take a long time to redress the wrong that has been done to my native province in the minds of the Canadian people and in the minds of other nations as well. I ask the hon. gentlemen who are members of this house to think of us, to think how much the province of Quebec has suffered, precisely on account of the propaganda which has been instigated by a few men who are known as jingoes and junkers in this country.
We have been told many times that the province of Quebec was ruling the country, that everything was done to please that province. It was not true; the province of Quebec was slaughtered under the roses. The province of Quebec never had the influence to rule the government, because we had conscription when we were told there was no conscription. My hon. friend was not a minister of national defence during the war, but all ministers of national defence during war time, after the death of Hon. Norman Rogers, who had been a private during the first great war and who was a great man, were just the puppets of the brass hats, the junkers and jingoes who infest national defence headquarters at Ottawa. That is all they were. Ralston and McNaughton were just puppets of the men in N.D.H.Q.; no one can deny that. Those men at headquarters were ruling; they were the brass hats; they were the war lords; they were the war criminals. When I think of war criminals there is one I have to denounce to-day, and denounce bitterly. It is that man Chisholm, who made soldiers suffer so much during the war. And now Chisholm, shame to us, shame to the world, has been appointed to the united nations in charge of health. I wonder if he is playing a game of bingo at the casino Monte Carlo with the Minister of National Health and

Welfare at the present time. I do not know; it may be so. They are like Siamese twins; we cannot separate them.
But, Mr. Chairman, I receive abuse; I receive humiliation. I received it during the war, when I was alone, fighting for the railway men. There were members in the House of Commons who belonged to the unions; there were members in the House of Commons who were real labour men. But none of them raised his voice. I was surprised when the presidents of the two great railways said exactly what I have said on behalf of the railway men who were doing their duty in the war.
I could say much more, but I shall conclude by reading a letter I received to-day from a military organization. I shall not read all the letters I received. But when I fight for the men who are sometimes called the underdogs I do so in fulfilment of my duty. I fear no one in the fulfilment of that task. I consider that we in the House of Commons have a task to perform. I realize that there are progressive thoughts in the minds of my'hon. colleagues, even if they do not speak aloud, even if for one reason or another they do not dare to express themselves. But I know they are progressive, because otherwise they would not be so kind to me as they are now, and as they so often are.
This letter to which I have referred comes from the Canadian Combat Veterans' Association in British Columbia. It is dated at Vancouver, British Columbia, August 16, 1946, and says:
Jean Francois Pouliot, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Pouliot:-
I have just read your remarks recorded in the Hansard debates of August 1, 1946. I have particular reference to your pertinent observations concerning the defects in the administration of the Canadian (Military) Pension Act, pages 4154/4158 of the debates. You will, I know, well understand why this association assumed the responsibility of bringing to the attention of parliamentarians, of all political affiliations, the defaulting character of the administration in question. These conditions, as you well realize, have not grown up overnight but are implicit in the administration and call for the most drastic remedies.
On behalf of the membership of my association, who are men with actual service in a war theatre, without exception, I would like to express our very deep thanks for your courage in illustrating to parliament-by concrete cases- that, for some reason, justice does not freely operate for those who have sustained injury and disablement and handicap of ruined health as members of the armed forces of the nation. In so far as the criticism of the Minister of Veterans Affairs is concerned, interrupting your remarks, you may discount what he says, as while he is a man of very wide attainments of a scholastic nature, he is not representative of the

Supply-National Defence
front-line veterans of Canada, as his war-time history shows he was "temperamentally unfitted for front-line service" . . . With this knowledge, you will now perhaps understand why unnecessary evils have grown up in the administration in question as the outgrowth of political expediency rather than justice being honoured. I mention this fact in passing, but it is necessary you should possess- this information if you are to succeed in your endeavours in fighting for the under-privileged classes.
English-speaking Canadians who have seen service in either world wars I or II, hitherto have gathered the impression that little assistance would be forthcoming from French Canada in the herculean task of streamlining the administration of the legislation in question. Your stand, however, in the dominion parliament-the first of its kind-on these vital issues is a definite assurance to men like myself, representing influential groups of ex-servicemen, that the public opinion of French Canada is slowly but surely being oriented to the literally giganti* task of streamlining the process of justice, so that, in the very near future we may indeed build for our children and the generations who will follow us a democracy " of which no citizen need blush."_ Your address in parliament, if publicized, will be, I believe, a substantial factor in merging all men and women of goodwill to our common objectives of a Canada united in spirit and in truth, where injustice has no place. To-day, injustice is enthroned, and hence our national disunity.
From what has transpired in parliament, it is obvious there is a rising tide in the country led by able and fearless men who are determined that the peace is going to be won, where it can only be won, in the spiritual sphere, and that injustice, as such, has no place in the peace. As you so clearly point out, the call now is for men to stand on their feet for what is right and the Great Guidance will direct our path to the goal of a true Christian democracy.


Major James William Coldwell: Who signs that?


Jean-François Pouliot: Walter H. Kirehner, secretary of the association. I could say much more than that; but, before closing, I wish to express my thanks to the minister for the interest he has taken in some cases which I have submitted to him; and my thanks also go to his able parliamentary assistant, who has shown patience in the correspondence I have had with him. But that correspondence would not have been necessary if we had not had in charge of some branches of the department men who were incompetent and unworthy of that office.
It is time to clear up the situation and to follow the suggestions already made by four members of parliament, three in connection with air services and one in connection with the army. It is time to make a check on the progress that is made, not in vague terms, but a check made to abolish some of the establishments. I know of some where the girls have been knitting since the close of the war, but they are receiving salaries just the same. The country has no need to pay them. I do not see why we should have any sympathy
for people whose task is over. They did very well during the war, but there is no more work for them. There are many men in the country who were faithful servants and helped do a job, but their job is over. Men should be set back, and women should be set back until there is another job.
I hope that war will never call for' more personnel in N.D.H.Q. than in any of the other war departments. I read that letter precisely to prove that point, and if I cannot secure the assistance of parliament I will get it from outside-and it will be very easy. I will get it, not from the officers of the last war-very few of them-but perhaps from some noncommissioned officers, and certainly from the soldiers in the ranks, those who have been outside and who want parliament to accomplish something.
Until now, what are memoers of parliament to say to their constituents, except that they [DOT] have passed a series of books of legislation, a Justinian review of past action by the parliament of Canada in the year 1946? We have passed legislation by the bushel. But the people are not interested in legislation, legislation that is passing in such quantity that no one can read it.
Tire people want reform, and I have tried for a long time to get it. In the interests of reform I have appealed to those who are Liberals and who call themselves Liberals. I thought their number was large enough to accomplish reform. But it is in the hands of the jingoes and the Junkers of N.D.H.Q., who were so well represented in parliament during the war by the megaphone of Arthur Meighen, when he was leader of the Conservative party.
I appealed first to the Liberals, and then I appealed to the Liberal-minded members of other groups in the house. Then I tried to do something for Canada, seeing that Canada was ignored, and that we should have a Canadian spirit-but without success. Party ties were too strong.
I now make an appeal for reform. Whether a man belongs to the Social Credit group, the C.C.F. group, or the Progressive Conservative party, and especially if he belongs to the Liberal party, he must have in his heart a strong desire for reform. I appeal to all those who are the grandsons or the great grandsons of reformers, and I ask them to listen to the voice of Canadians from coast to coast asking for reform in government, asking not for more government but for less government, and for more efficient and more competent government. This was my request, and it is not my yearly performance. It is a performance that I intend to give every time I have an opportunity to act here in accordance with
Supply-National Defence

what I say in my constituency and in addresses outside this house which I have had the honour to be invited to give. When hon. members try to raise matters earlier in the session they are told to wait until the estimates come before the house, that they will have full opportunity to discuss the matter then. It is now the 19th of August, toward the close of the session, when these estimates come up. Earlier in the session it was the seeding season; then it was the berry season; we have now reached the apple and plum season and wre are still discussing estimates, and members are tired and sick of it as I am myself. If I speak now it is because I have a duty to fulfil. It would be much more pleasurable for me to be at home, and if I am here to-day it is in an endeavour to obtain reform.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh!


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear the obstacle, the big obstacle, in the way of reform. Let us put them out and send them back home, so that other ministers w'ho are ready for reform can accomplish something. I am not going to stand any longer for interruptions from any quarter. What I do now I do from a sense of duty. I have a duty to perform.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The only one.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I am not a Pharisee; I am a publican. This duty should be done by a minister of the crown who is good only to make jokes. I did not know who was the guilty party, the obstacle in the way. I thought of some ministers, but I never thought it was the Minister of Veterans Affairs. But now the cat is out of the bag, the big cat, the big tomcat. We know now, and I hope the Prime Minister will get rid of him at the first opportunity so that we can progress and reform this country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I
would hesitate very much to delay the progress of a very hard-working parliament; but in all my years in this house, and they are rather long now, I never listened to such twaddle in my life-twaddle-that is what it is. Hon. members here are anxious to get on with the real business of the nation, and they have to sit and hear an attack made as it was made by the hon. member for Temiscouata on gallant officers, very gallant officers, in the Department of National Defence, an attack which demeans him and does not enrich the parliament of Canada. I know these officers. They may be brass hats; some of them have been brass hats according to their stations and their capacities.


Mr. McIVOR:: They are good heads.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have patriotic
hearts; they have fought for Canada, and I despise and condemn as strongly as I can the demagogic attack make by the hon. member for Temiscouata upon great Canadians. They are grand Canadians, Canadians who would die for their country to-morrow. You, my hon. friends in this house, know that, what I say is true and that the hon. member's attack is twaddle. More than that, it is a condemnation of our parliament and of our democratic system, and I am one member of this house who is not going to tolerate it. I will fight it as long as I am a member of the house, whether a minister or not. I will fight such unutterable and demagogic nonsense on the floor of this house every time, regardless of party.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the Minister of National Defence at this stage going to make a general statement on his estimates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had not proposed to do so any more than I did on the naval estimates. I thought that the general outline of our plans given last session and in statements since had pretty well indicated the general policy and that it would expedite the business if I were rather to answer specific questions asked by hon. members.


George Randolph Pearkes: Since the opportunity to debate defence matters has been rather limited during this session I should like to make a few remarks on the army's role in defence generally and to keep them as applicable to these estimates as possible.
I imagine that a large proportion of the moneys that are to be voted in these estimates has to do with the demobilization of the personnel and 'the cleaning up of various bills outstanding. I think I would be voicing the opinion of members on all sides of the house when I say that we were pleased that the demobilization has been carried out as expeditiously as possible and we rejoice with those people in the country who are welcoming back their loved ones who have been overseas. Generally speaking, I do not think there is any doubt that demobilization has been carried out as expeditiously as it was reasonable to expect. We realize the difficulties there have been regarding shipping, and if there have been some disappointments with personnel not being home as soon as was expected, in the great majority of cases perhaps these were unreasonable expectations.
There are, however, or two points in connection with the demobilization programme which have not met with the entire approval of the country. It will be remembered that last session members from this side of the

Supply-National Defence
house urged a more general application of the principle that those who had seen the longest and hardest service be returned to Canada first. We realize that it was not possible to carry out entirely the principle of "first in, first out". But we feel that more consideration might have been given to the proposal which was made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that those men who were entitled to wear campaign medals should be given a greater degree of priority in being brought back.
There is a group of men to whom I feel special reference should be made, and those are the individuals who have been referred to as key personnel. Although they had a high point score, many of them were retained in the forces against their wishes in order that others might be demobilized. I refer to the clerks, the provost corps, the cooks, and a certain number of officers, regimental and staff. I feel that a word of praise should be coming to this class of men, because the speedy demobilization to which I referred earlier was due very largely to the sacrifices that this class of men made.
I should also like to express regret that it was found necessary to demobilize entirely, I believe-I can go only by press reports-the C.W.A.C. Those girls in the service did remarkable work. The majority of them are also anxious to return to their homes. But some were willing to stay on in the service. I believe it would- have been well worth while maintaining a small nucleus of girls in the service upon which we could build, and so develop the experience in the years to come that, in the event of the unhappy circumstances arising again of Canada being plunged into war and our having to utilize the woman power of the country, we should not have to go through the difficulties which we met with, owing to lack of experience in the middle of this last war when the C.W.A.C. was first organizing. There are many branches of the army work which women can undertake, and the chances are that by study and experience in times of peace we could, find that, if another war broke out, the women of the country would be better prepared to take their place in the ranks with the men than they were during this war.
One other aspect of demobilization to which I should like to make reference is the position of the permanent force personnel who, by means of their satisfactory service during the war, gained promotion and now find, in some cases, that they have to resign their commissions and join the ranks, if they still wish to stay on, at a very much lower grade of rank than they had earned during the war. I
realize that in many cases it would be necessary for officers and non-commissioned officers to step down a rank or two, but it is difficult for the man who has earned a commission on the field of battle and has perhaps risen to the rank of captain to find, when he wants to continue his service in order that he may reap the benefit of the pension to which he regards himself as entitled, that he will have to step down in some cases to almost the lowest ranks in the army.
One other aspect which has some connection with demobilization, and to which I referred earlier in the session, is the withdrawal of the Canadian occupational force from Germany.
I feel that some criticism on that action should be advanced, or at least that we should demand a full explanation-an explanation which the Prime Minister promised when I raised the question some months ago-as to why that force was withdrawn at that time. There was a feeling, expressed in a Gallup poll which was held some months ago, that Canada was in some measure abandoning her responsibilities in the great and vital task of the recivilization of Germany, in years when the German people would have to decide whether they would adopt a form of democracy or some form of totalitarian government. I realize that men who had had long service in the field would be anxious to return home and might be loath to continue their service in the occupational forces. A certain number of volunteers was obtained for the purpose of providing the numbers to which Canada had agreed. Other men were detailed for that duty from the establishments in Europe or in England. But apparently there were not sufficient personnel available to make up the numbers which were required, without imposing hardships on men who had seen a good deal of fighting. There is the feeling amongst some of our allies, which to a certain extent was expressed in the British House of Commons, that perhaps this country, which had never let down any of its allies during the war, was rather letting them down during this critical stage, the early days of peace. When it was suggested that it was hard that our allies should have to bear the burden alone, the reason advanced for our withdrawal was, I understand, that it was for administrative reasons. If Canada hopes to hold a position and to carry out any commitments whifih the united nations may call upon her to do in the future, we must learn how to overcome "administrative difficulties".
Leaving that: on a question of general policy, it has not been easy for the members of this house to follow the general pattern of our defence policy, because many of the announcements regarding policy and the
Supply-National Defence

developments which are to follow have been made outside this house, and it is only by press reports that one has been able to glean information in the endeavour to patch the pieces together so that one might get the over-all picture. But I gather that it is the policy of the government, a policy with which I feel all parties will agree, that Canada must take every practical step which is po^ible to defend her own territory and to be prepared to meet any obligations which may be assigned to her by the united nations organization when their defence committee starts to function properly. I believe the country as a whole is anxious to support such a policy. The country realizes that we are close to a great war, the issue of which at times was very much in the balance. The country also realizes that modern armaments cost a great deal of money: huge expenses are required for modern equipment in the air force, in the navy and in the army. I do not believe that our people would object to voting the sums which are necessary, but they want to be absolutely certain that the money is being spent as judiciously as possible and in a way which may be expected to achieve the results for which it is voted.
In order to ensure the efficiency of our fighting forces, during the last session hon. members on this side of the house made certain suggestions. It will be remembered that the hon. member for Vancouver South suggested that there be a standing committee , on questions of defence, made up from all parties in this house. When that suggestion was repeated at the beginning of this session the Prime Minister made remarks to the effect that he thought that might be a very good idea. However, nothing has happened. We have urged that there should be a closer coordination of the three services. I cannot help feeling that there is no evidence that there is a closer coordination at the present time. There is on the order paper a resolution to continue the two ministers of defence. Well, an argument may be put forward for retaining a minister for air for a limited period while demobilization is going on and while the air force is readjusting itself to peacetime conditions. But if we are to have any common doctrine between the three services,
I think the first step should be to get those services under one minister.
As other indications of lack of determination to have the three services properly coordinated, I suggest the location of some of the headquarters of the new commands is indicative that the importance of a close liaison between the different services is not fully realized. I can refer only to conditions on the

Pacific coast. During the war, the army, the navy and the air force all had their headquarters at Jericho beach in Vancouver. These headquarters have dispersed. The air force remains at Jericho; the navy has gone over to Esquimalt, and the army has gone to Edmonton. A similar condition exists on the Atlantic coast. There may be administrative reasons for this, but it seems to me that it gives one the impression that perhaps the great importance of a close liaison between all the services is not fully appreciated.
Another point which was emphasized during the last session was the recommendation I made myself that, in order to ensure as far as possible that we drew up the right pattern for our defence forces, the heads of the services, the heads of industry and of the professions and sciences, should be assembled to form what I referred to as a Canadian Haldane committee in order to decide the general pattern for the three defence services. None of these recommendations was adopted. One is almost forced to the conclusion that perhaps the government has failed to realiize the effect of the development of new weapons and of changing conditions, and the effect that should have upon the position of our forces, with the result that to-day the government is committing the nation to a long-range programme of heavy expenditure without having fully realized the new position in which, I suggest, Canada now finds herself.
That new condition, I suggest, is this. Prior to the outbreak of this war. Canada's defence policy -had for many years been based on the assumption that, if -war broke out, she would be required to send a force overseas to fight what I may describe as an empire war, certainly a war fought in conjunction with other empire forces, somewhere other than on the North American continent. For years it has been our proud boast that we have not had to defend our southern frontier, that our relationships with the United States have been so satisfactory that it has -been quite unnecessary for us to make any real preparations against the possibility of attack by our neighbour to the south.
Therefore it has been possible for the general staffs so to arrange their organization, so to arrange their plans, that the main purpose of the Canadian defence forces would be to take part in a war, not in Canada but in some other part of the world. The years 1914 and 1939 bear out the efficiency with which, those plans were made, and their effectiveness. Those plans were based mainly on the assumption that there would be a period of rather leisurely mobilization and a period of further training which would be available to the troops that

Supply-National Defence
Canada was going to send overseas. And as in 1914 there were many weeks before the Canadian troops were actually engaged, so in this war, in 1939 and 1940, there were fortunately many months before our forces were required to be battle-worthy.
I wonder if these conditions exist to-day. If one stops to ponder for only a moment, he is forced to the conclusion that there are only three powers which could possibly launch this world into world war III-the British commonwealth of nations, the United States and the Soviet Republic of Russia. You may take any combination of those three powers you like, and it is inevitable that Canada then becomes a major theatre of war and that Canada's shores are on the highway between any of the combinations of these opponents. There would foe no time for leisurely mobilization; there would be no question of sending troops away from our shores. If the tragedy of world war III comes, then world war III is going to be fought in Canada. Therefore our Canadian organization for defence must foe based on the premise that we have to fight here, and we have in peace time to make our plans, not for the same leisurely mobilization, not for that period of training after the outbreak of hostilities, but for an organization which will be able to stop the bomber from coming to Canadian targets without warning.
That, I submit, requires most careful thought before we commit the country to any type of defence forces which does not have that primary factor as the first consideration for the organization which is prepared in peace time. As I say, we have never had an over-all picture; but I am forced to the conclusion, from the information I gather from the press, that the government's policy is not visualizing any great departure from that policy which has stood us in such good stead under entirely different circumstances in the past. We are still basing our peacetime army organization on an increased nonpermanent militia and an increased permanent [DOT] force. I see in these plans, in what I know of the type of unit which has been authorized either for the permanent force or for the nonpermanent militia or reserve army, as it is now being called, little which would indicate that it will be ready to meet a sudden attack on Canadian shores, launched with the new weapons of the scientific era.
I feel, so far as details are concerned, that they will make the non-permanent militia a little bit brighter and a little bit bigger, but I am afraid that the non-permanent militia officer has still to makfe great sacrifices both in time and in money. He will find that he will have to devote a great deal of his time 63260-318
to bringing the units up to strength. His efforts will be largely devoted to recruiting and holding the men by social activities rather than to training the men to take the field at a quick and early notice. I feel that while the proposals, as far as I can gather them from the press reports, indicate that the permanent force is to be divided into what I should call three sections; one, to look after the administration ; two, to be central schools and, three, to be a brigade group or a small field force, that field force at the present moment is terribly under strength; it is short of equipment; its armour is obsolescent and the units will be starved of trained personnel in exactly the same way as they were starved during the years between the two wars.
The field force is referred to as a brigade group. A brigade group is not a modern formation, although the grouping of certain specialized units might be referred to as a brigade group. The whole virtue of brigading together certain units was that the personnel of these units would be familiar one with the other and would be exercised in working together.
A few weeks ago I asked the Minister of National Defence whether these units were to be concentrated or distributed across the country. I suppose, for administrative reasons, he said that they were to be distributed across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I fear that we are going back to the same old story of little companies of permanent force troops at various provincial capitals prepared to put on a guard at the opening of the legislatures, prepared to provide some sort of little display at county fairs and so forth. If we are to have a field force which is to be of any value at all, that force must be concentrated and trained together so that one may know the other. Skeleton formations will not be the answer to these sudden attacks.
I have grave doubts as to the effectiveness of the grouping of these units. We have not been told exactly which units are to form the permanent force. Again one can only get the information from the press reports. I feel that this field force is woefully short of the technical units. During the last years of the war just ended, the principles which were enunciated by such great leaders as Alexander, Montgomery and Crerar were for the overwhelming concentration of supporting arms behind a small group of infantry or armour which conducted a penetration on narrow fronts. From what I can learn of the organization of this field force, it is lacking in the technical units and in the supporting arms which would be able to adhere to this policy.
To date, I think one must admit that the numbers joining the permanent force and the

Supply-National Defence

numbers of those who are in the interim force and have expressed a desire to join the permanent force are disappointing. I do not know why that is. On the whole, the new rates of pay are satisfactory. The standard of education which is required of perhaps both officers and men may hardly be practicable of achievement.
In regard to the various items in the estimates, there will be some room for criticism in regard to administration particularly. There is justifiable questioning as to whether this new command organization will make the necessary reductions in personnel in the districts and in national defence headquarters which one would believe that it was designed to do. We cannot have greater commands superimposed upon the districts unless we see a reduction in the number of personnel either in these districts and subordinate staffs or in the staffs at national headquarters.
In conclusion, I am forced to say that I believe the organization is faulty because the government has not taken a realistic view of the up-to-date requirements of the type of defence which Canada needs to-day, which is not the type of defence organization that was in vogue twenty-five years ago. I doubt whether the government has realized the danger of modern warfare. Therefore I feel that some of the expenditures in these estimates are definitely wasteful and unwarranted because they will fail to be effective.


Mr. IRVINE:: I understand a commonwealth military conference was held in Britain last week, presided over by Field Marshal Montgomery. I wonder if the minister is prepared to say what were the problems discussed there, what policies, if any, were agreed upon, and whether Canada was represented at such conference.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I would call it a commonwealth military conference. What did take place was that Field Marshal Montgomery was having a meeting with his chiefs of staff and senior officers, and invited our chief of the general staff to attend. No questions of policy were discussed; it was not a conference at which matters of policy were to be discussed. It was more an exposition of tactical problems and a general discussion of matters of that kind. It was not a discussion of matters of policy, but a general roundtable conference, discussion or exposition of modern tactical procedure. The chief of the general staff returned this morning. I understand that at the same time Sir Arthur Tedder held a discussion with his senior air officers. The chief of the air staff was invited to attend that conference, and did so.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I was hoping that on item I the minister would say something with regard to the Royal Military College at Kingston. Since he did not do so, perhaps he would answer one or two questions in that connection. First, why was the Royal Military College at Kingston closed for the training of gentleman cadets? When was it closed? On whose authority was it closed, and when does his department expect to reopen it? If the minister would answer those questions I shall have one or two more to ask later.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not recall just when it was closed, but it was during the war, I think in 1940 or 1941. The question as to when it will be reopened and under what circumstances, has, as my hon. friend knows, been brought up in the house on a number of occasions. In answering the various questions I indicated that it was the intention of the government to continue the Royal Military College, but that under what conditions had not been determined. In order to assist me and the officers of my department in arriving at a sound conclusion in that respect, a special committee was set up under the chairmanship of a distinguished soldier, Brigadier Sherwood Lett of Vancouver. That committee completed its hearings in July; there was prepared and submitted to me some two or three weeks later a report, which I now have and which is being studied. It is an excellent report, which I found extremely interesting and which is going to be of great assistance. I am not yet in a position to state on just what basis the Royal Military College will be reopened. I announced, of course, that it would not be reopened on the old basis this fall. We have ample supplies of officers, for the moment, for our post-war forces. I hope to be able to make an announcement perhaps before parliament reconvenes; but, if not, certainly at the latest before the end of the next session.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I wish to impress upon the minister as strongly as I can the fact that the public are expecting an announcement, and I think that announcement should have been made this session. It is now getting late in August. I do not agree, with what the minister has said. He did not answer my question, on whose recommendation the college was closed for the training of gentleman cadets, whether it was the recommendation of the chief of staff or of the committee. It was not closed in the last war, but it was closed during this war. I am informed, though I believe there is a difference of opinion in that regard, that the closing of the college was a mistake. Many young men across Canada are to-day

Supply-National Defence
being deprived of the opportunity of attending the Royal Military College because, as the minister and his officers well know, a young man cannot enter the college when he is nineteen, twenty or twenty-one. It is these boys of sixteen, seventeen and eighteen who are losing that opportunity. For that reason, if the committee will bear with me for a moment, I should like to place on record something of what the college has done. I do so because only a few days ago we in Kingston celebrated our 100th anniversary of the founding of the city, and for seventy years the Royal Military College has played an important part, not only in the life of that city, but in the life of the whole country.
The motto of the Royal Military College is "truth, duty, valour." This challenging motto is the anvil upon which the destinies of gentlemen cadets have been shaped since 1876 at the Royal Military College, Kingston. The carefully kept records of graduates' careers tell something of the success the Royal Military College in preparing Canadian youth for tasks of leadership, but the sum. total can never be stated. If the purpose of the founding of the college was to train young men in the profession of arms in order to provide leadership in times of national crises, then that purpose has been and is continuing to be served.
Following an enviable record in the first great war, the cadets and ex-cadets brought even more honours to their college with their service in the second conflict. A total of 1,419 cadets were engaged in service, including sixty-two who were doing special war work. One hundred and; thirteen gave their lives in action, 637 awards and honours to R.M.C. alumni have been announced to date. The Victoria Cross was won by Lieut.-Colonel Cecil Merritt, the George Cross by Air Commodore A. D. Ross, and a Companion of Honour by General H. D. G. Crerar. As a result of their service in the second conflict, knighthoods were awarded to four ex-cadets: Lieut-General Sir G. N. Cory, K.C.B.; Lieut-General Sir A. E. Grasett, K.B.E.; Brigadier C. F. Carson and Brigadier E. O. Wheeler, the last of whom is the present surveyor general of India. Commander of the Bath was awarded to fifteen graduates, Commander of the British Empire to fifty-five, and Distinguished Service Order to seventy-seven. Other awards included sixty-nine foreign orders. A total of 199 ex-cadets held the rank of colonel or above in the army or equivalent rank in other services. Altogether 280 graduates of the college have attained such rank since the college was founded. Twenty-nine attained the standing of general in the second 63260-3181
war, twenty-eight in previous wars. This number includes those serving in both the British and Canadian armies and in other services.
The first step in the history of the college was the passing of an act to establish a military college in one of the garrison towns of Upper Canada by the imperial parliament in May, 1874. The Royal Military College was founded in 1876 by Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, then, prime minister of Canada. The linking of Alexander Mackenzie's name with the R.M.C. recalls one of the delightful bits of personal history from the early years of Canada's development. Thirty years before his choice of the site for the college, Mr. Mackenzie was employed as a stone mason on the self-same site when Fort Frederick was being erected. As he worked he could see the great natural beauty of the site as well as its strategic position in the military scheme, so what more natural than to select it for a military training school when he became prime minister?
Cadets have come to Kingston from all parts of Canada and, upon graduating, all have entered for a time into a life of duty to the country and to the empire in the military, air and police forces. The story of their exploits in the interests of the great commonwealth is a wonderful one. Mention might be made of a few; of Girouard and Rhodes in South Africa; of Bridges, the first G.O.C. of the Australians in the first great war and founder of the R.M.C. of Australia; of Luard and Straubenzee in China and Malaya; of Kirkpatrick, Heneker, Cory, Nanton, Lotbiniere in India; of Perry, Sanders and Macdonnell in the R.C.M.P.; of Stairs who died in 1892 while with the H. M. Stanley expedition in Africa; of Massey-Baker in Papua; of Bishop, Twining and Burstall, Macdonnell and Panet; names to conjure with during the heroic struggle of 1914 to 1918.
During world war II, former cadets held strategic positions on all fronts. General Sir G. D. Rhodes, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., was in charge of military transportation in Iran from the Persian gulf to the Caspian sea. At the same time Brigadier Sir C. F. Carson, C.BE., M.C., also an R.M.C. graduate, was directing similar activities in Iran.
Two chiefs of general staff of the Canadian army, Lieutenant-General K. Stuart, C.B., D.S.O., M.C., and Lieutenant-General J. C. Murchie, C.B., C.B.E., are also graduates of the college, as are Major General J. V. Young, C.B., C.B.E., and Major General J. H. MacQueen, C.B.E., masters general of ordnance, and Major General N. E. Rodger, C.B.E.,

Supply-National Defence
quartermaster-general of the Canadian army. Major General Chris Yokes is also a graduate of the famed military college.
Though the teaching at the college has been primarily for the purpose of training officers for the army, the accomplishments of its graduates are by no means limited to the military field.
Amongst those, past and present, who have achieved distinction in civilian capacities are: Sir Percy Girouard, one-time governor of the East African Protectorate; Lieutenant-General Sir A. E. Grasett, lieutenant-governor of the Isle of Jersey; Colonel P. C. H. Primrose, one-time lieutenant-governor of Alberta; Colonel Colin Gibson, present air minister; Major-General A. B. Perry, C.M.G., former commissioner and S. T. Wood, C.M.G., present commissioner of the R.C.M.P.; F. H. Peters, former surveyor-general for Canada; Lieutenant-Colonel R. E. Kent, alderman and several times mayor of the city of Kingston; R. T. M. Scott, and W. Heighington, well-known writers of fiction, and numerous other lawyers, doctors, engineers, editors and industrial men.
For many years the command of the college was held by imperial officers, but that practice was discontinued in 1919. The present commandant is Brigadier J. D. B. Smith, C.B.E., D.S.O.
The grounds comprise a peninsula between Kingston harbour and Navy bay and consist of about forty acres. The buildings are grouped on three sides of the square. The oldest and most historic building is the "Stone Frigate", a dormitory, and one of the original buildings of the old naval yard; the newest is the mess hall and gymnasium. At the entrance to the grounds on highway No. 2 is the memorial arch, erected by the R.M.C. club in 1923. This is undoubtedly one of the finest memorials in America. The splendid sturdiness and strength of its aspect dominate the approach to the college. Its panels in bold relief, its groupings of military attributes, its helmeted head sculptured on the keystone, its inscriptions and tablets-all will repay close inspection. The arch is a fitting memorial to the memory of former cadets who died in the first world war.
The college has accommodation for 200 students, and it was planned to have the "Stone Frigate" supplanted by a modern dormitory adjoining the new mess hall. The excavations in solid rock had been made for the new dormitory, when all work at the college was suspended in favour of more urgent activities following the outbreak of war in 1939.

I thank hon. members for giving me their attention, and I have placed these facts on the record only because I believe some recognition is due the Royal Military College. Therefore I make no apology in offering my appeal to the minister. I suggest if the Royal Military College is not used, why is Royal Roads being used for boys in the navy.
Before taking my seat, I should like to refer to two other matters which affect my riding of Kingston. First, I would associate myself with other hon. members who have referred to the manner in which the minister's staff, or some in the department, are dealing with men who are returning from overseas and who wish to join the permanent force. There is something wrong about this. The men I have in mind enlisted in the permanent force before the war, and perhaps served for five or ten years before going overseas. I have in mind one man particularly who joined the army as a profession. He was in the R.C.H.A. when war broke out, and proceeded overseas, first as a lance-sergeant, and then, after getting overseas, receiving his command as a subaltern. Following that, he was promoted to the rank of captain. This man, in his early thirties, led a battery in France during the present war.
This man is now back here, and I am asking the minister what he is going to do for him. I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs will agree with me that in our committee on veterans affairs which passed on twelve pieces of legislation we had to ask civilian employers to take some of these men from the service. When they come back, and show a desire to continue in the permanent force, they are told that they must lose their commission. Surely there is something wrong with that. Surely a man in his early thirties should not be asked to revert to a lower rank, particularly when there is no guarantee of employment in civilian life. This setup is wrong. I know there are various depots across Canada manned by men who are new in the service.
Then, these men who are making then-applications are orphans. The R.C.H.A. is established at Petawawa, and a man going to the depot must be paraded before his officer commanding, only to find that he must leave the service. And what is happening at Petawawa is happening everywhere. No one is acting for these men, with the result that, as I have said, they are orphans. A man with fifteen years' service before the war comes back from overseas, and expresses a desire to give more service.
Then, when a man is put back in the ranks, what happens? This man has gone out to fight for Canada and the empire, but upon returning to his own country he finds that he must

Supply-National Defence
become a junior to some officer or non-commissioned officer or warrant officer, and must take instructions from him.
I appeal to the minister to issue instructions so that this may be changed. I am afraid there are too many young men on the general staff to-day who are not taking a kindly or fatherly interest in these returning men.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are trying to build up. an efficient army.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I say that the minister should find appointments for these men who came back from the last war. It should not be difficult to find a place for a man who has been a competent officer-and I am not referring to those who have been incompetent. Surely there should be some place for them in the interim army.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are accused of having too many officers.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: A reply to a question I put on the order paper shows that ten per cent of the officers in the army at the present time did not serve outside Canada. There are ten per cent with the rank of subaltern and five per cent with the rank of captain who, I say, have places found for them. Someone looked after these men. Men who rendered service in the permanent force and during the war have been replaced by them.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: When the house rose at six o'clock I had been speaking of the Royal Military College at Kingston and of returning permanent force officers who had fought gallantly overseas and who are not now getting the breaks they should get. Some of them are in their early thirties, and if they could continue in the service for another four or five years they would be eligible for pension. Employers of labour are compelled, under legislation parliament has passed, to reinstate their civilian employees who have returned from overseas service, and I submit to the minister that his department should set the example in looking after these returning permanent force officers. The same question was raised when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police estimates were before the committee. Some of these permanent force officers returning from overseas have lost promotions which they should not have lost, and that fact
should be recognized. Some of them have had fifteen years' experience in the army, and surely they should receive more consideration than a boy who has been in the service for only four or five years. Instructions should be issued to the general staff that these men deserve and should receive more consideration than they are getting.
I also want to say a word or two about bands for the permanent force. What is the policy of the department in that matter? Are the bands being demobilized, or is it intended to continue them? Personally I think they should be continued. I think we should have a band to every one thousand or fifteen hundred men in the interim army. Back in the dark days in the 1940's the bands were being dismissed. It was a shame and disgrace to whoever was administering the army at that time to let the bands go out of existence, and a great deal of credit is due to the units themselves in maintaining bands out of the canteen funds. But I do not think we should have to depend on the militia units across Canada to maintain the bands, and I should like to know what the policy of the department is in regard to them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I have already said all I can say at the moment as to future policy with respect to the Royal Military College. I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. friend has said as to the outstanding record which has been, won for the college by its graduates. They have served w'ith distinction in the two great wars in the last thirty years, and what my hon. friend said was certainly no overstatement of the magnificent record which the graduates of the college have won for themselves.
As to ithe promotion of permanent force non-commissioned officers and other ranks during the war, there has been some criticism on the other side of the matter, namely, that promotions have been too rapid and too great and that a good many permanent force noncommissioned officers have been retired on substantial pensions which in some respects are out of proportion to the rank which they held at the beginning of the war. I know that what my hon. friend is referring to are the permanent non-commissioned officers now in their early thirties who in some cases have been found unsuitable by the selection committee as commissioned officers in the postwar army. Any minister of national defence, indeed any minister, is obliged to rely on the advice of his officers, and a selection committee was set up for the selection of personnel to form part of the post-war force. I would not for one moment constitute myself
Supply-National Defence

a one-man selection committee for the postwar army. That would be most improper. But I have looked into the question of the selection of officer personnel for post-war army, and in a number of cases where permanent force non-commissioned officers have not been found suitable for retention in their present rank I find that in every case they have been given the opportunity of reverting to the rank they held before the war. It is understandable that some of them would not be suitable for the post-war army. In war time there is a largely expanded personnel and one can use a great many officers in operational duty who, by reason of educational standards or otherwise, are not suitable for the comparatively small number of highly specialized officers required in peace time. That is the case with a good many of the permanent force non-commissioned officers to whom my hon. friend has referred. It has been found that, by reason of educational standards or in a great many cases lack of operational experience, they are not suitable for retention in the post-war army. We must proceed on the assumption that, with a small army for the post war, we must make that army as efficient as possible, and we cannot afford to be influenced by consideration of sentiment. We must endeavour to get the ablest and most suitable material that we can possibly get for the officer corps. Unfortunately, because we had such a small army prior to the outbreak of the last war, we were obliged to use a great many permanent force non-commissioned officers as instructional officers in Canada. AVe have a great many officers who, through no fault of their own, were not able to see overseas service. We had to keep them in Canada for instructional purposes. I can only answer my hon. friend's plea that consideration should 'be given to this class of soldier by saying that it is being given and that the selection committee for officers in the post-war army is doing its best to see that the officers selected are the very best possible, taking into account educational qualifications, operational experience and the like.
On the subject of bands I agree with my hon. friend that it is extremely important that there should be adequate bands. Through no one's fault in particular it was felt early in the war that bands were not necessary, but that lack was early recognized and I can assure my hon. friend that we will see that proper provision is made in the post-war army for a suitable number of bands.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Thus far no member of the Social Credit group has had anything to say on this occasion in regard to defence,

not because we are not intensely interested in the subject. I believe that many Canadians are in grave danger of becoming unrealistic toward the matter of defence. I was alarmed when I heard the speech of the hon. member for Regina city, because it indicated that there is already developing in a considerable number of people a tendency to become victims of phantasy regarding matters of defence. Here are we, Canadians, eleven and a half or twelve millions of us; we have the finest land on earth, stretching thousands and thousands of miles. That land has to be defended. Someone must defend it. There are only three ways in which it can be defended.
One is by our cooperating with the members of the British commonwealth, the greatest team for defence of freedom the world has ever known; another is by cooperation with the United States and the other American countries in a scheme for western hemispheric defence; or, standing alone and trying to defend ourselves. There are a good many who will be somewhat offended because I have left out of consideration the united nations organization. I do not hesitate a minute to say before this house, and before the country in so far as anyone is interested in what I say, that the united nations organization is going to be just as useful in defending the peace of the world as the league of nations was, and no more. So that, if we rely on that organization, we shall by just so much betray the trust which is placed upon us in this fateful time. That is the point of view which Social Crediters take.
I was very much pleased with the speech delivered by the hon. member for Nanaimo. It indicated a disposition to face facts as they are; it indicated that the speaker knew what he was talking about, that he was living in a world of realities and intending to face that world realistically. I think we Social Crediters must associate ourselves with the words of the hon. member.
As I recall it, the minister stated that our navy is to be prepared to cooperate effectively either with the United States or with Great Britain. I assume that the minister has a similar aim as regards the Canadian army and the Canadian air force. I gather that the minister plans to make each of our three fighting services into a high-grade, efficient fighting unit, a unit adapted to defend our country with the greatest measure of striking power economically possible for Canada as a nation. AVith such a policy the Social Credit party is fully in agreement; and I wish to assure the minister that, in going forward with the responsibilities of his exceedingly difficult task, so long as he continues to face in the direction

Supply-National Defence
he now is facing and so long as he continues to go forward with " full speed ahead", he will have our complete support.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I hope I may be pardoned if I say a few words regarding a matter which was discussed this morning, namely, in connection with the services at Dieppe to-day. I had an opportunity about- eighteen months ago of being in the town of Dieppe. I saw the graves that were spoken of this morning, of the men who died there; I saw the beach on which they died; and I saw the hills and fortifications surrounding that beach. I am not going to elaborate on this, but the thought occurred to me then and it has occurred to me many times since, that the sacrifice which was made there was hardly worth while for the information that was obtained. I felt then and I feel now, that the price which was paid for that information was too high, and I believe it could have been obtained by other means. As a surprise attack, I think the operation would have been impossible: with the surprise element gone- and we all know the Germans knew our men were in the English channel and about to attack-it did appear to me, and I am sure it must have done to a great many, that the task they were asked to accomplish was almost as hopeless and possibly as brilliant as the charge of the Light Brigade.
I agree with the hon. member for Lethbridge in the statement he made regarding the hon. member for Nanaimo. I listened to his statement this afternoon: it was one of the best summing-up of any situation, military or other, which I have heard in this house. We of the House of Commons are fortunate to have a member with the practical experience in military matters of the hon. member for Nanaimo. Few men in Canada have his experience or -his knowledge of such problems, and this house and the country should be very grateful for the information which he has given us this afternoon. He outlined the situation; and I congratulate the hon. member for Lethbridge upon his very short speech in which he also outlined the situation as we see it in Canada. He mentioned what he regards as the two alternatives. Well, we live in a time of hope, though possibly in years to come it may seem like wishful thinking. But I am not one of those who despair of the united nations; I hope and1 expect that they will accomplish something as far as world peace is concerned. If they do not, it will be a very sad thing indeed for this world. We can only wait and see; we should know in a few months what the situation will be as regards the united
nations' programme, and what are to be the military commitments as far as Canada is concerned to the organization. If we have full assurance from the united nations and are satisfied that their ideas are practical, perhaps we can then base our defence programme upon w'hat we learn at that time. But there are two other alternatives, as -has been mentioned here. The first is, coordination and work with the British commonwealth of nations. We have cooperated with the British commonwealth in two great wars, and I wish to say here that I feel, and I know practically every hon. member and everybody in Canada feels, that we were justified in entering both of those wars, that we -had to enter them not only for the defence of our country but in defence of the ideals for which we stand. We cooperated, as I say, with the British commonwealth of nations. In the future, whether we have a united nations' programme or whatever we have, the British commonwealth of nations must stick together, and our entry or whatever our contribution is to the united nations should be more or less upon a commonwealth programme.
I might also say that if it had not been for the unity of the British empire and the British commonwealth of nations in the early part of the recent war it is doubtful whether we would have the freedom we enjoy to-day; and had not England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand fought for that freedom in 1941 it is unlikely that the United States or even Russia would be in the position in which they are at this time. The empire saved the world.
The third alternative is cooperation with the United States. Well, we can cooperate with the United States as a commonwealth of nations; and if the- British commonwealth of nations and the United States stand together, the freedom of the world will be assured whether we have a united nations' programme which is satisfactory or whether we do not.
My main object in rising was to obtain from the minister, if I could, information regarding a matter which I know has occupied the minds of a good many people in recent months. It was reported here some months ago that either the parliament of Great Britain or the war department there, I do not know which, had put out feelers to see whether Great Britain could train troops in Canada. We remember that a few years before the war it was definitely stated that Great Britain had asked to be allowed to train airmen in this country. I know it was denied in this house that Great Britain had made that request. I am satisfied that
Supply-National Defence

she did not make the request, because countries do not make requests, even sister countries in the British commonwealth of nations. But I am also satisfied that some intimation was given that Britain would like to have trained airmen in this country before the last war. Limited as she was in her own borders, with her small area, it was only logical and reasonable that she would like to train her airmen in some country where there were greater opportunities for the purpose. I ask definitely now: Has Great Britain in any way intimated that she would like to train troops in Canada? I can see the benefit it would be to us.
The hon. member for Nanaimo this afternoon demonstrated logically to the committee, as I am sure he has demonstrated to the rest of the country, that the world situation to-day being what it is, if another great war broke out our soldiers would be fighting, not on the continent of Europe or in some other part of the world. We can reasonably expect that in such an event they would be fighting here on their own soil and in defence of their own country. What greater asset would there be in the defence of this country if a sister nation like Great Britain or Australia, or any other sister nation within the commonwealth, had men trained in this country, men who had been acclimatized here, men who knew the terrain, the climate and the people?
If Great Britain has not asked to be allowed to train troops here, it would not be out of place for Canada to suggest that she might do so. We have the report, and it is in the press, that having failed to obtain this opportunity in Canada, Great Britain is sending troops to Australia for training, where there are large areas and great opportunities for combined and operational training.
We have been jealous of our sovereignty in Canada. We have heard a good deal about that. I remember in 1938, one of the reasons advanced why Canada could not allow Great Britain to train her airmen here was that it affected the sovereignty of the dominion. Well, Australia is not afraid of her sovereignty. We did not lose our sovereignty because airmen from all parts of the commonwealth trained here during the war, and we shall not lose our sovereignty if Great Britain or any other sister nation of the commonwealth trains men here during peace time. I am not going to labour this point.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will answer it as soon as you are through.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I expect the minister to answer it. The hon. member for Nanaimo spoke about wars to-day not having the acquisition of territory in view. That is very true. 
In the old wars one nation, for territorial or other reasons, fought another, taking away part of its territory. The last war, however, was fought between fascism and nazism on the one hand and democracy on the other. If there are wars in the future they will be more for the purpose of advancing some ideology than for the purpose of acquiring territory; and if we wish to preserve, as I know we all do, our present way of living, then the nations that love freedom and democracy must combine to work hand in hand in every way possible to preserve their freedom and their ideals.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am glad the hon. member for Royal has brought up the question of the training of United Kingdom troops in Canada, because I saw the press reports to which he has referred. May I make the statement that there has never been any request, formal or informal, that United Kingdom troops should be allowed to train in Canada. A wreek or so after these reports appeared in the paper, Major-General Keightley, who is director of training for the British army, was in Canada; we had an opportunity of discussing the matter with him, both the members of my staff and myself personally, and he definitely ruled out any question of British troops training in Canada. In saying that, I do not preclude for one moment the exchange of personnel, which I hope will take place between our forces and those of the United Kingdom; but I am glad of this opportunity to dispel once and for all these rumours that the Canadian government has been requested to allow United Kingdom troops to train in Canada and has not allowed them to do so.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Can the minister explain, then, why United Kingdom troops are now training in Australia?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I can explain it, but I have a shrewd idea. There are certain conditions there which are peculiarly suitable for the training of troops in the new weapons of warfare and which do not exist in Canada. May I put it in that way.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There are a few questions I should like to ask the minister, but before I state them I must express strong disagreement with the lack of faith which the hon. member for Lethbridge has in the united nations organization. I will not say much on that question at this time, except to observe that if his view were shared generally, the united nations organization would be bound to fail. If the organization is not successful in developing techniques for

Supply-National Defence
world peace, with all the difficulties involved, then this generation will not know a world worth living in.
The questions I should like to ask the minister are these. In British Columbia we had the Pacific coast militia rangers, a branch of the militia, which I am sure the minister will agree did splendid work. Since the war has ended, members of the Pacific coast militia rangers have formed an incorporated body, and I should like to know whether the minister is considering this and similar organizations as civilian rifle clubs when it comes to granting the benefits which the Department of National Defence has extended to civilian rifle clubs in the past. Again, I notice in Reynolds Neios of London, England, of July 14, that the United States is forming an arctic army of 4,500 officers and men, iwho will be trained in Alaska and in arctic waters. These men will comprise land, sea and air forces. Can the minister tell the committee whether any arrangement has been made for cooperation between the Canadian military authorities and those of the United States with regard to manoeuvres and operations of that type? One other question. Are there going on in the north at the present time any manoeuvres which can be regarded as a summer supplement" to the Musk-Ox exercise?


Douglas Charles Abbott: At the present time there are no operations which could be considered comparable with Musk-Ox.
On the second question which my hon. friend has raised, as to whether we are cooperating with the Americans in the training of troops, that is a matter which would normally be discussed through the permanent joint board for defence. I shall have to see whether there is anything in that regard, but I doubt whether it would be desirable or necessary to make a public announcement in the house.
As regards the Pacific coast rangers, I will ask my parliamentary assistant to reply. He is more familiar with the question than I am.


Hugues Lapointe: The question of the Pacific coast militia rangers has received considerable study by the department. My hon. friend will recall that at the last session there was a-question of permitting the members to retain the rifles which they had used, and that was eventually settled. The question of perpetuating the P.C.M.R. and other similar organizations which were established during the war and providing for the reactivation in time of war is under consideration at the present time as is that of the different rifle clubs and associations which existed before
the war. The question is receiving the active consideration of the general staff at the present time and a solution should be had shortly.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This afternoon I expected that the minister would make a few remarks in reply to the extremely pertinent questions posed by the hon. member for Nanaimo. One of the matters which he dealt with is of such importance that I should like some information on it. I refer particularly to the composition of our permanent force. I have read the newspapers fairly carefully and all that I know about our permanent force has been gleaned from newspaper sources. From that source I gather that it will consist of 25,000 men, and that included in it there will be a brigade group. Apart from that, hon. members and the country generally know practically nothing of it.
The term "a brigade group" is an elastic one. I should like to know what the group is to consist of. On occasions during the past war a division was broken up into brigade groups. Such groups ordinarily consisted of three infantry battalions and their headquarters, a regiment of field artillery, a battery of anti-tank artillery, ack-ack batteries, company engineers, army service corps, a field workshop, field ambulance, along with several other minor odds and ends of various kinds. That was a brigade group. When it was actually performing in a fighting role it ordinarily had attached to it an armoured regiment and sometimes more artillery. I should like the minister to tell us what the brigade group of the permanent force is to consist of. Is. it to be a brigade group such as I have just outlined, which would consist of about 4,500 men, or, with the addition 'of an armoured regiment, about 5,200 men? Is it to consist of a lot more units? That is a matter upon, which we should have further information.
I should also like the minister to tell us where this brigade group is to get its training; where is it to be concentrated, if it is to be concentrated. When this plan came out first I understand that the brigade group was to be held in one particular spot where it could carry on the training and be available as a striking force to go immediately into action. I believe those were the words by which it was described when we first heard of it. My understanding now is that it is to be split up into units spread all over the country, and quite evidently it is not to be a force which is to be available for immediate action at any time. If you have a brigade group and another group of people spread across Canada and you want to concentrate them for immediate action it will take considerable time.
Supply-National Defence

I know that from experience. These are questions in connection with the brigade group on which we should have some information.
Furthermore, if the brigade group is as large as the one I have described; in other words, if it is to consist of approximately 5,000 men, what is the remainder of the permanent force going to do? Before the war we had an authorized permanent force of 10,000 men. Actually I do not think we had at any time any more than 5,000 men in the permanent force before the war. If you allow 5,000 or
7,000	men for the brigade group it will still leave between 18,000 or 20,000 men in our post-war permanent force. I should like to know what they are to do. From my knowledge I presume generally that part of it will be used in administrative work of various kinds; part of it will be on the staff of national defence headquarters, Canadian military headquarters, and so forth, and part of it will be used to train the reserve army, but it is really not very much good. The reserve army, so far as I can see, is going to be a glorified pre-war non-permanent active militia, as stated by the hon. member for Nanaimo this afternoon, trained, as well as everything else being done, by 5,000 men. I have, as a matter of fact, a shrewd suspicion that a large number of these 18,000 men are to be what I would call wasted away in holding down a whole lot of administrative jobs, which will consist chiefly of men sitting behind desks and signing an innumerable number of forms of various kinds, on the bottom of each the following words will be found "passed to you". It would go to somebody else in the department, and he would also sign the form and pass it on to somebody else.
As one who took a considerable interest in the militia before the war and who is taking a considerable interest in it now, actually I am fearful that that is what will happen to a large number of these 18,000 to 20,000 men who will not be in this brigade group. I should like some clarification of that, and perhaps I shall have a few remarks to make on the matter later.


Hugues Lapointe: With regard to the first part of the hon. member's remarks concerning the composition of the proposed active force, may I say I believe that the information has been given in various press releases. Possibly it did not give all the information which my hon. friend wishes, but he will understand why. This information is of a technical nature and normally would not be given in such releases. However, if my hon. friend desires it I shall be pleased to give him the type of units which it is proposed will form the brigade group to which he has referred.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is it the type of thing I have just described, or something else?


Hugues Lapointe: It is a little more detailed than what my hon. friend mentioned. It has been given to the press, as I have already stated. Besides the brigade group headquarters, it will consist of two armoured regiments, three infantry regiments, one artillery regiment, one medium battery, two anti-aircraft batteries, two coast batteries, one anti-tank battery and the various signal sections and troops of a single brigade group. I think my hon. friend knows what I mean when I say "E" section, "X" troop and "Y" troop. There will also be a R.C.A.S.C. infantry brigade group company, one independent brigade ordnance field park, then the various R.C.E.M.E. units, which will go under the heading of the composite brigade workshop, and five various "L.A.D.'s" who serve the units which I have just mentioned. I think my hon. friend will agree that this is information which could not very well be given in a press release, and neither would it interest the general public.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How many men all told?


Hugues Lapointe: Approximately 8,000. I am having that figure looked up to give the accurate one.
As regards the remainder of the 25,000 men to which my hon. friend referred as doing practically nothing, may I say that they form part of various static establishments which are dispersed in the various districts and commands, and which are necessary for the maintenance of the brigade group and for the various army schools established throughout the country. For my hon. friend's information, may I say there are thirteen engineer companies, one for each district, and a district signal section for each district. There is also a supply and transport company, R.C.AJ3.C., for each district. Perhaps it will make the position clearer for my hon. friend if I tell him that in each district the following units will exist: a district headquarters; a works company, R.C.E.; district signals; district company, R.C.A.S.C.; district medical company, R.C.A. M.C.; district workshop, R.C.E.M.E.; detachment of the pay corps; detachment of the dental corps, and also personnel of the Canadian provost corps as might be detailed for a provost section in each district. It is also proposed to have schools for the various corps which will compose the brigade group, and I think my hon. friend will agree that all these establishments can very well absorb the remainder of the personnel to which he was referring.

Supply-National Defence
With regard to the brigade group, I now have the figure, which totals 7,259 as being the establishment for the proposed field force.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The brigade group seems essentially the type of brigade group we knew overseas, except that it has two armoured regiments instead of one, as is normal. But there is a terrific anomaly here; it has two coastal batteries. How they are going to pick up these big, heavy coast guns and gallop about the country with them, I do not know.


Hugues Lapointe: If my hon. friend will permit me, I gave him the field force, and it includes two coast batteries.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In future, when the
parliamentary assistant is talking about this group, perhaps he would be wise to leave out these coastal batteries, because I can assure him they are extraordinarily difficult to get mobile.


Hugues Lapointe: I know that; I am not an expert on the subject, but I have seen them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Apparently this brigade group is really simply the normal brigade group we became so familiar with overseas during the war, except that it has two armoured regiments instead of one, but that sometimes happened over there as well. It takes in 7,259 men. Apparently the remaining
18,000	men are to be scattered about the country in engineer detachments, signals, army service corps and so on in each military district. We had detachments of all these people in each military district before the war. That is nothing new; that is the same old thing. Probably we are to have more than we had before the war; but the point I am getting at, the thing that struck me in reference to this set-up from the beginning, is that if you have a permanent army of 25,000 men it seems to me the organization and set-up is extraordinarily bad if you have only 7,259 men with whom you can fight. In addition, I should like to know whether these 7,259 men are to be concentrated in a brigade group which might be used as a small striking force, or if they are to be scattered across the country.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend will quite understand that in the period of organization these various units may be stationed wherever their permanent stations happen to be, without any need to group them together. But it is proposed that this brigade will undergo periods of training as a group.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I still do not think I have had an answer. The parliamentary assistant says they will undergo periods of
training as a group. That is what we did before the war in the non-permanent units which had companies or batteries or whatever it was scattered over quite a section of the country. We were brought together and went to camp to train for seven days; and we did a fair amount of reasonably effective training. But if you are to have a brigade group that is any good at all you must have them together; you must be training them, not for a week or two weeks or three months or some other period some time in the future; they have to be together all the time. The group must be training and working together, particularly if there is any truth in the rumour I have heard that this is intended to be an airborne brigade group. If this brigade group is to remain scattered across the country from Vancouver to Halifax it is not a brigade group at all; it is a few scattered units who are on permanent army pay and, as the hon. member for Nanaimo said this afternoon, are available to put. on demonstrations from time to time, on July 1 and other festive occasions. As a fighting force it is not of much use. I really think the minister should take back this scheme for a Canadian post-war army, take a look at what happened during the last war and what may happen in the future, with the technical advances in warfare which have been taking place, and then bring in something that will do us at least some good. If we had a brigade group that could be a fighting force and that was ready to go some place and do something I would say that would be at least a good start. But if we are to have a so-called brigade group which is scattered all over the country in dribs and drabs and in that position, is no good for anything as far as fighting is concerned, then the government have done nothing and are wasting the money of the taxpayers.


Hugues Lapointe: I did not notice in the remarks of my hon. friend any very helpful suggestions. I might point out to him that at the present time the only logical thing to do is to have the units of this brigade group mobilized and recruited in various parts of Canada. I do not think my hon. friend could achieve any good results at this time if he tried to organize that field force or fighting force in one section of Canada. Not only that; as I have told the hon. gentleman, it is proposed that this group will be brought together for collective training. My hon. friend has had personal experience in that type of work. He spent a good deal of time training in England during the last war. He knows that, however you might have been brigaded or in a division, the amount of time any unit spent in actual collective training
Supply-National Defence

as a group, a brigade group or a division, was much limited. Each imit was left to train by itself most of the time, except for special manoeuvres which were part of the collective training, and that is what it is intended to do under the present proposal.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The hon. member for Calgary East mentioned that this brigade group which is being so thoroughly discussed was widely mentioned in. the press as being the nucleus of an airborne group. May I ask the parliamentary assistant or the minister whether it is the intention to make this group into an airborne mobile group?


Hugues Lapointe: I am informed it is proposed that this group might be trained in airborne operations, and to that end an establishment is being created to permit of possible training in that line.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: How does the parliamentary assistant propose to transport this group in airborne operations?


Hugues Lapointe: I understand the establishment proposes to have a joint training scheme with the R.C.A.F. in Carberry, Manitoba.
Mr; SKEY': That is the answer I expected and the one which, as a matter of fact, I had been seeking.


Hugues Lapointe: Why did you not ask right away? We would tell you.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It might interest the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence to know that it requires at least six squadrons of thirty transport aircraft to transport a group of 5,400 men, and that the R.C.A.F. at the present time proposes to have only two squadrons of transport aircraft of a much lesser number than the thirty with which they operated during the war. Therefore all I wish to say is that it is farcial for the Canadian army to develop an airborne group which the Canadian air force cannot carry.


Hugues Lapointe: I think the hon. member wants to be fair, I told him it was intended to train that brigade group -as an airborne group. I believe that for purposes of training it is not quite necessary to have the squadrons to which my hon. friend refers. I quite agree that if this group were called upon to go into action as an airborne group, possibly he would be quite right. But I only said the group would be trained. I am informed that adequate facilities exist to carry out that training.


Douglas Scott Harkness: While we are talking about a brigade group, I should like to ask another question. I was wondering if the parliamentary assistant could translate his delightfully vague statement, the fact that this brigade group will be drawn together for training, into a definite and specific statement as to when it will be drawn together, and if it will then stay together.


Hugues Lapointe: It is proposed that the group will be brought together summer and winter, and I believe the present localities being considered for such are Wainwright and Borden.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the parliamentary assistant mean this coming winter?


Hugues Lapointe: It will be necessary to get the group together first.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Last session we were slowly winding up the estimates for world war II. These estimates now coming down may very well be the first estimates for world war III. We here this evening are discussing estimates from the point of view of national defence. In other words, a majority in parliament has accepted the principle that national defence is necessary. According to the estimates, we are to get a few more tanks, a few more planes and a few more ships; and we are calling that national defence.
Mark you, this is costing the taxpayers of Canada a great deal of money. But I would look at it from this point of view: Is it national defence, in the light of modern technology? I have before me a clipping from the New York Times magazine of June 23, 1946. This article is by Albert Einstein and states:
Being an ingenious people, Americans find it hard to believe there is no foreseeable defence against atomic bombs. But this is a basic fact. Scientists do not even know of any field, which promises us any hope of adequate defence. The military-minded cling to old methods of thinking-
How true!
-and one army department has been surveying possibilities of going underground, and in war time placing factories in places like Mammoth cave. Others speak of dispersing our population centres into "linear" or "ribbon" cities.
Reasonable men with these new facts to consider refuse to contemplate a future in which our culture would attempt to survive in ribbons or in underground tombs. Neither is there reassurance in proposals to keep a hundred thousand men alert along the coasts scanning the sky with radar. There is no radar defence against the V-2, and should a "defence" be developed after years of research, it is not humanly possible for any defence to be perfect. Should one rocket with atomic warhead strike Minneapolis, that city would look almost exactly

Supply-National Defence
like Nagasaki. Rifle bullets kill men, but atomic bombs kill cities. A tank is a defence against a bullet but there is no defence in science against the weapon which can destroy civilization.
Further to that line of argument I have here a heading from an article appearing in the Saturday Evening Post, of July 13, 1946. The heading states: "Your flesh should creep." The article is by Joseph and Stewart Alsop,' and the head note is as follows:
Did our national safety die at Hiroshima? Can we protect the country against atomic warfare? Experts of the general staff, after calmly studying frightful possibilities, see no military defence-and only one hope. Here are the facts -cold turkey.
In the light of that, I submit that the setting up of a few more tanks or a few more aeroplanes is useless. What you are seeing to-day is the atomic bomb brought into actual warfare. Yet in your selfishness, your fright of modern planning in society, your fear of giving up your little pieces of private property, you are going to wait until the crisis develops; then we shall be catapulted into the war, and the military will take over and do the planning. Democracy will not be allowed to work to bring in a planned order of society.
AVhen that day comes the civilian population will take the rap, and where will your army be? It will be away out somewhere with all the cities and communications cut out behind it. I rather pity the Minister of National Defence in this day and age when he comes to the House of Commons with a defence scheme such as this. It reminds me of the English comedian who describes Harold at the battle of Hastings, when he said, "There sat 'arold, on his 'orse, with 'is eye full of arrer, and 'is axe in 'is 'and." What we are doing has just about as much application to our modern scientific age.
If this nation is to survive this period of war and strife-and seemingly capitalism does produce wars-there is still hope of raising democracy among the people of the world, so that they will be able to stop it in time. But if they do not, we shall get well paid for it. A planned society would plan our cities and plan our life, and we have yet time to do it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just as in Russia.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: That in itself would set the pattern for the rest of the world to follow, because there are other things which stem from a planned society. World trade takes a definite pattern when you operate in a planned society, as we did during the war. We would not be going out trying to cut the other fellow's throat; we would be back on the old lend-lease principle that we had during the war when we were trying to survive, a principle of trade under which we went out to help the other fellow as well as to help ourselves, rather than try to beat the other fellow to it. We know we can expect a depression or a falling off in trade, a struggle for world markets, and so on. Let us not kid ourselves. In the international markets of the world there are two systems competing with each other. There is the barter or bulk sales system, wherein the total state trades with the other states, and there is the method of laissez-faire.
The planned order at the present time has not the majority of governments on its side. But remember this, that it is winning victories among the people. In the backward countries of the world our society has a tendency too often to stay with the old landlord, moneylending classes in those countries. And the revolutionary psychology that comes in and says, "We will redistribute the land among the people", is the one trend influencing the people, with the result that we are losing them.
When we go out to try to establish business relationships we have to use armed force in order to establish trade among those populations. Here on the home front we consider labour as a cost factor in production. Remember this, that the day war breaks cut this time it will be a different set of circumstances. I think it was Hegel, the German philosopher, who said that history repeats itself twice, first as a tragedy and then as a farce. We have had two world wars; look out for the third.
Keyserlingk, who is the managing director of British United Press, points out in an article that there is a boundaryless conflict going on between the communal method of living and the individual method of living. If you want to establish a society in which you can get the support of the people you will have to deal out a great deal more justice at the present time than you are doing. Your total war will not just take on national proportions; it will split society right down the middle, on an international plane, and you will have a class war on your hands. However, if people of good will control any such organization as the united nations we shall not face that catastrophe. But let us not insult our intelligence by calling this national defence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have listened with interest and some amusement to the doctrines of the hon. member for Skeena, which are nothing but indoctrinated communism. It is all very well to speak in Canada of a planned society. There has been much done by various administrations toward certain measures for a planned society, but Canada is never going to stand for a system of government
Supply-National Defence

that will drive us into a brutal system of communistic control. We still believe in Canada in a measure of freedom and free enterprise, combined in certain cases, of course, with a measure of control by the orderly processes of government. But as one to whom Canada has been very kind, and as one who has benefited from the orderly processes of democracy in this free and generous land, I must repudiate with all the strength at my command such dangerous doctrines as those just enunciated to this parliament by the hon. member for Skeena.


Mr. LENNARD:: Several weeks ago the minister said that he would welcome any suggestions that would curtail spending either by the government or by the Department of National Defence. I therefore draw his attention to the Canadian inspection board.
On April 1 of this year the United Kingdom and Canada inspection board ceased to exist, and from then on it carried on as it does now under the name of the Canadian inspection board. From April 1 to July 1 that inspection board cost this country over $600,000. At that rate it will cost Canada this year over $2,500,000.
On that board, as of July 1, 1946, there was a personnel of 1,180, made up of civilian employees, hourly paid, 275; civilian employees, salary paid, 865; seconded service personnel, 36; on loan, not paid by Canada, United Kingdom staff, four. Of that seconded service personnel twenty-six from the army- one major-general, one colonel, five lieutenant-colonels, nine majors, nine captains and one lieutenant. How that one lieutenant got in there I do not know.


An hon. MEMBER:: He had to do all the work.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He must have been a Liberal.


Frank Exton Lennard: Besides those, there were air force and navy personnel to bring the total of seconded staff to thirty-six. The breakdown of pay and allowances shows that the pay and allowances for this year increased from $53,688 to $212,000, or an increase of $158,312. My thought is that apparently up to April 1, the United Kingdom were paying the greater part of the shot, but now that the Canadian authorities have taken over, they have reduced the personnel considerably, and those seconded from the army, navy and air force have been reduced in numbers, so that there should be no need for this great increase in pay and allowances.
In addition, this board maintains expensive offices in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and

perhaps elsewhere. The board maintains also a laboratory for research work, in spite of the fact that the government has already a research council to do such work.
I come to one branch of this inspection service, that dealing with leather inspection. What leather have they to inspect to-day other than boots? We have no mounted regiments. They were all mechanized during the war. Nor have I heard of any leather upholstery being put in tanks, and even if it were, we are not building any tanks to-day. So that brings us down to boots. I would imagine that we have enough boots in defence stores to-day to last any one of the permanent force sendees for years to come. I suggest that the present inspection staff in the leather branch are on enforced vacation. In Toronto -and I presume the situation is the same in Montreal and other inspectional centres-the staff appear at the office in the morning and, if there is nothing to do, they are told to get out, go home, fade away. That is happening day after day. I urge the minister to go through this inspectional board from top to bottom, and I am sure that, if he does so, he will be able to save this country one million dollars without in any way impairing the efficiency of the organization.


Hugues Lapointe: Perhaps I might be
permitted to say a word in answer to the hon. member for Wentworth. The staff of the inspection board has been considerably decreased. I wish to assure the hon. gentleman that that matter is still under review and that further decreases will take place.
As regard the officers of the army and R.C.A.F. who, during the period of the war, were seconded to the inspection board, that matter again is at present being reviewed. If their work is necessary on the board it is proposed that the organization will absorb them and they will cease to be seconded from one of the services.
In a consideration of the requirements for inspection during peace time, it must- be borne in mind that the inspection organization was an integral part of our war production scheme. However, the extent of its activities should not be related solely to the size and requirements of the armed services, nor does the fact that these services are being considerably reduced decrease by so much the activities of the board. In the assignment of duties to the inspection board this has been taken into consideration. But another factor which has been considered is the coordination of inspection facilities with other government departments. Furthermore, in addition to its normal direct inspections, the board is also required to carry

Supply-National Defence
out such development or trial and test work as it may be expedient to allot to it. I can assure the hon. member that such research work

it may be laboratory work-which may be done by the board is not such as is duplicated in the other research establishments, under either the army or national research, but that in fact the creation of the defence research and development sub-department of national defence has in mind the coordination of the research work in order not to permit such duplication to take place.


Frank Exton Lennard: May I refer the parliamentary assistant to the fact that for the item in connection with machine guns, rifles, et cetera there is no amount required this year, and also that many of these proving grounds where shells and armaments were inspected have been closed down.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is not any item this year for that.


Frank Exton Lennard: I said that, but I am just answering the parliamentary assistant.


Angus MacInnis: It was not my intention to say anything here, but I am not going to let the Minister of Veterans Affairs get away with calling "communism" when confronted with arguments that he cannot answer. I happen to know the hon. member for Skeena well. I know the hon. member is not a communist, and it is not communism to warn this house that we are living in the age of the atomic bomb; it is not communism to urge that we make full use of the united nations; it is not communism to urge this house that we should plan our affairs so that we shall avoid some of the disasters of the kind we have got into in the past. None of these things is communism.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs says that he is one of those people to whom this democracy has been very good. I, too, am one of those people to whom this democracy has been very good. But there are people in this country to whom this democracy has not been good. That is not necessarily the fault of democracy. There are two kinds of people to be feared: those whom a system has treated too well, and those whom a system has treated badly. One will try to keep a bad system which has been good to them, and the others will try to overthrow a good system which has not been good to them. It is between these two that we have, as intelligent human beings, to try to steer a moderate course. This term "communism" can be used so easily and so flippantly without any meaning. Just about a year ago no less a man than Winston Churchill was calling such a man as Clement
Attlee, the present Prime Minister of Great Britain, a communist, also Herbert Morrison, Ernest Bevin and those other men who to-day are doing yeoman work in the interest of democracy. Intelligent men should speak in intelligent terms at a time as serious as the one in which we are now living.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I want to ask the minister a very short question; will he say for what purpose Canada's post-war defence forces are being designed; to fulfil what purpose?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I can answer that very easily. Canada's post-war defence forces are designed to provide, first, a representative group of all arms of the services. We need them now as a permanent professional trained army. In addition they are to provide a force to train the citizen army, the non-permanent active militia, the reserve army-whatever you want to call it-which has been the basis of Canada's fighting force in two wars and would be the basis of our force in any war we fight in the future, assuming we fight a war with an army, which I take it we would. The purpose of this relatively small force is to provide a small but highly trained and skilled professional force which can be expanded in time of war, primarily to train the citizen soldiers who would have to fight that war. That is about as briefly as I can put it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then, I understand, the permanent force is designed for training purposes only and not for the defence of Canada or for an overseas commitment. Is that a correct statement?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, if-which may God forbid-we should get into a war in the next two or three years they would be available to the extent of their numbers, but obviously a force of eight or nine thousand troops together with training cadres and administrative personnel would not have any perceptible effect in any war that we can contemplate. So that I think we must look upon our permanent force as a small, highly trained unit to perform the functions which I have mentioned. Obviously, if our commitments under the united nations call for something more than appears to be now indicated we may have to reconsider our plans, but I think it is fair to say that we should try to make our policy as flexible as possible in order to meet changed conditions with respect to the type of armed forces that are needed, with respect to new weapons, or whatever it may be. There is nothing static about the thing. I do not think I can answer my hon. friend's question more directly.
Supply-National Defence


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister in answering my question need not have any heat in his voice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not intend to put any heat into it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: My question was directed, entirely without any guile, to get some information which was not in any of the press releases.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not intend any heat; I may have been a little more forcible than was required.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then I suggest to the committee that the minister's answer leaves open, as I thought it would, the whole question of the defence of Canada, and that we should not consider that these forces are in any way adequate or even designed to defend Canada in case her borders were attacked.
I want now to go on to another question. I have here two reports, dated May 17, with respect to proposed standardization of equipment with the United States, and in these press reports it is stated from "official circles" that a programme is under discussion between the Canadian government and the United States government for the standardization of equipment of the armies of the two countries and for coordination of training methods and military organization and a joint erection and staffing of defence and weather stations in the continental arctic zones. Would the minister make a statement as to whether or not there is any truth in this report, and if there is, what progress has been made toward such standardization?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I have seen the particular report to which my. hon. friend refers. I know there have been a number of reports relating to the standardization of equipment between our armed forces and those of the United States and also those of the United Kingdom, and I know there was a group of' officers and civilians from the United Kingdom out here some months ago who were looking over the field. I am sure there have been no definite decisions taken as to standardization of equipment. As I think I have said on other occasions, it is an end which we in Canada are extremely keen on; we should like to see it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: It is most desirable.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is most desirable. We should like to see, so far as it may be practicable, standardization of equipment between our forces, those of our neighbour to the south, and those of the other members of the com-
CMr. Abbott.]
mionwealth. Naturally, as a junior partner we are not in a position to initiate such a move, but we can do everything in our power to encourage it, and1 that is what we intended to do. Considerable headway has been made along those lines. I cannot conceive of any war we would be fighting in which Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States would be fighting on opposite sides, and therefore it is pretty self-evident that we all have an interest in standardizing equipment as far as possible in order that the industrial potential of our countries can be available one to another.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I entirely agree, of course, with the policy of standardization, but I should like the minister to tell the committee if he can, what is in the mind of the government as to high policy in this connection. Is it proposed to standardize on a commonwealth-United States basis or upon a Canada-United States basis, or would both methods be used? Is there any decision on the policy level with respect to that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I can add very much to what I have already said. Both the United States and the United Kingdom are studying the matter now and we are studying it with them. There is nothing I can add to that.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: My next question relates to the Canada-United States defence board. I understand that we have a military mission in Washington, a considerable establishment in London, and of course we have our own chief of staff here. In addition, there is the United States-Canada joint defence board which was set up during the war. Would the minister state how that board fits into the other activities which presumably are carried on separately from the actual board itself; that is, the activities of the mission in Washington and C.M.H.Q. and the more normal forms of liaison between countries?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will see if I can answer that, not in complete detail but in broad general terms. Canadian military headquarters in London is purely a wartime organization which is being rapidly run down and should be pretty well cleaned up by the end of the year. Just what our permanent arrangements will be in London, I am not yet in a position to say. Normal arrangements, as my hon. friend knows, with other countries are to have our military attaches with the embassy or diplomatic mission. They would ordinarily look after our military interests in a foreign country. In the United Kingdom the military staff would ordinarily be attached to the high commissioner's office. In the United

Supply-National Defence
States, in Washington, since some time early in the war, we have maintained a joint staff mission which has had representatives of the three services. That has been in addition to the ordinary military attache staff at our embassy in Washington. It is proposed to continue that mission for a time at any rate, because it was found extremely useful during the war. It can handle matters rather more easily than can be done through the usual diplomatic channels. Just what the final size of the joint staff mission in Washington will be, I am not yet in a position to say. It is, however, being substantially reduced from what it was during the war. My idea -would be that if it is continued as a permanent feature we should have one top man, a senior officer who might alternate between the three different services. At one lime we might have a senior officer from the army, and then from the navy and then from the air force, with appropriate subordinates in the other services. The permanent joint board, as the committee knows, was set up on August 17. 1940. in order to advise the respective governments with regard to joint plans for the defence of this continent. It was created, as its name implies, to be a permanent joint board of defence, following a discussion between the late President Roosevelt and the Prime Minister (Mr. King), and the thought would be that it will continue as a permanent instrument for an exchange of views between the two countries, to advise the respective governments with respect to the defence of this continent. It is an advisory body pure and simple; it does not determine matters of policy. It is composed of men who have experience in military matters, experts in that line, capable of advising their respective governments, but it is not a policymaking body. From my own limited experience it seems to me it has performed a useful and necessary function and I would hope, and I believe, it will continue to do so in the future.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I wish now to turn to an entirely different subject, and that is the question of the non-permanent militia or rather the reserve army. Any information I have is to the effect that the reserve army is not getting men at the present time and that it is becoming very difficult for some units to keep up any kind of interest or esprit de corps with a slate of -officers and practically no men. It appears to me-and that was really why I asked the original question as to the future purpose of the armed forces of Canada, what purpose they were designed to fulfil-'that the most important thing the .minister could do to help the reserve army come up to strength, apart from what I asked him to do this afternoon about going around drumming up some recruits for us, would be to make an over-all and public statement as to the role of Canada's reserve army in the future years.
The hon. member for Nanaimo pointed out this afternoon how that role might quite easily have changed from one of a force which would provide an- overseas striking force to a force designed to defend the confines of our own country against an aggressor. It is my view that the hon. member for Nanaimo is very likely right and that is the real role of our reserve army, which the minister properly said is our chief bulwark of defence. It seems to me that if that statement were made it would have a very good effect in bringing men to join up in the reserve army. But so long as they do not know exactly why they are in the force, or are invited to join it, and- so long as no one has asked them in Canada's name so to do, I feel that we may easity go along as we did in the first ten years after the last war.
I well remember joining the militia myself in 1929, and I like to think we were a fairly good unit. Yet there was a total of thirty men in the company to which I was posted, of whom fifteen men paraded, and that was ten years after the war. We increased that very-much indeed in the next ten years when these young Canadians had a consciousness that there was a job ahead of them. I am quite sure that statement of the basic purpose of the reserve army and of -the training policy which would be followed would do wonders to build up the kind of reserve army of which the keen officers who have taken up reserve army duty are thinking.
Assuming that by his one-man recruiting campaign and statement of policy the minister recruits these men, how are we to keep them in the militia? I have had considerable experience with that, a very happy experience in one way and an unhappy one in the other. It was a happy experience in the chaps I met, even though they were few, and the mutual interest we had in our unit, and a very unhappy one in the support given by the government to the effort which was being made by the officers and men in the reserve army.
What we needed more than anything else was, of course, the sinews of war, the money To keep a man in the reserve army you must pay him. He must have his pay. Before the war, as the minister knows, we just handed it over to the regimental fund to pay for the light in the armoury on the extra night in the week that we paraded. We were allowed to put on our lights one night in the week. If we wanted to use them for two nights the
Supply-National Defence

men put up their pay for it and for other barrack purposes. I think it might be a good idea, if it could be arranged, that men training in the reserve army be paid a day's pay for each parade, and be paid perhaps more frequently than the way we got it before the war, which was once a year. Of course we never saw it; the exceptional time we did see it we blew it in all at once. It would be a great advantage to the men to know they would get that cash periodically. It would be a splendid way of helping the officers to keep the turnout on parade up to scratch during the training season.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It cost every officer lots of money in the old militia days.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister is indeed right; it cost every officer a considerable sum out of his own pocket. I was not making much money and therefore I did not pay much out, but I paid out much more than I could afford.
The next important thing is to provide the men with training equipment. In an infantry battalion before the war we had six Lewis guns. The rifles, such as we had, were not allowed out of the armoury. They were filled up with grease. No man could ever learn how to look after his rifle because he was not allowed to look after it. Further than that, there were not enough to go round. We have now all sorts of much more modern training equipment. I hold in my hand a newspaper clipping. I follow the minister from Cornwall to Ottawa and to the other places where he gives these press releases.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was a speech I made at Cornwall, not a press release.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: It suggested that only fifty per cent of the reserve army will be recruited and that apparently equipment will be provided for only fifty per cent in the case of the infantry; and in the case of the artillery and armoured regiments only thirty-three per cent of the equipment will be provided. I take it, from the fact that we are having only fifty per cent of the' men, that they will get only thirty-three per cent of the fifty per cent.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What is my hon. friend quoting from?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am quoting from an Ottawa press release dated April 16. If I am not making myself clear I shall read it. It
says:
About 50 per cent of the reserve force will be recruited so equipment will be provided for
90,000	troops during the initial period of organization.
[Mrr. Merritt.]
The reserve force infantry will be armed with 100 per cent of its equipment; the artillery and motors 33J per cent; field and medium artillery, 50 per cent; anti-aircraft artillery, 25 per cent; armoured fighting vehicles, a small scale of tanks and self-propelled guns.
I suggest to the minister that this year, if ever, is the time for a more generous scale of equipment for training purposes to be provided to these units. I think he knows and I know that when we get rid of the demobilization vote in these estimates there will not be as much money available for the armed forces as there is this year. It seems to me that when you take into consideration wear and tear and breakages in training the thing to insist on for the reserve army is a much higher percentage of equipment than thirty-three per cent of fifty per cent. I assure the minister that in a reserve army the presence of training equipment is the thing that makes the training go. When you are doing it as regular soldiers you cannot improvise and imagine everything, and with a Monday-night soldier it becomes altogether too difficult. If you do not have the equipment the simple answer is that you do not train in that particular arm. The probability is that the battalion does ceremonial drill where you otherwise might be doing training on one of the weapons.
The next suggestion I wish to make is that the time element is important in the training of a militia unit. You have two or three hours one night a week in which to do all your training.- In that time you must have an inspection and roll-call and do a certain amount of administrative work. In the cities the armouries are downtown and the facilities for training outside the four walls of the armoury are indeed limited. I suggest to the minister that, as an aid to the training of the reserve army and to make the training more interesting there should be in each city certainly, and possibly in many towns, a troopcarrying company R.C.A.S.C., as a permanent part of the active or reserve army, which would be available to lift the unit which wants to go out of its armoury to train in the field. Thus it could do so in its training time and not be forced by lack of mobility to sit around in the armoury. I am sure that the men would respond and find their parades much more interesting and useful to them if they could take advantage of the outdoors to get some of their training and not have to wait, as they did before the war, until the summer camps to do their outdoor training. They never had a chance to do it at all in the winter.
The last matter that I want to bring to the attention of the minister has also to do

Supply-National Defence
with keeping the men interested in the reserve army. I refer particularly to another means of transportation, namely boots. Before the war we had a very difficult experience with our boots. In depression times the men were wearing out shoe leather. We went to our camps in low shoes and all sorts of absolutely ill-suited footwear. It was a great tribute to the men that they ever managed to last out one of these camps with the kind of thing that they had on their feet. There was no free issue of boots by the Department of Natibnal Defence. I ask the minister not to hesitate to give a pair of boots to a man who joins the militia. The officers will look after getting his kit in if he tries to run away with them and does not attend parades. They have always done that with his other kit; and a free issue of boots with no reservation would be a wonderful thing for the reserve army.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt my hon. friend to say that I commenced that policy before the war, the free issue of boots.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Did you ever get them?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: On repayment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I have no recollection
of it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it was in 1938.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am afraid it was not
started quite early enough to come within my experience. This business of boots is a very homely subject, but there is nothing more important to a reserve army soldier. I want to conclude by telling the minister of the difficulties we had in the first three months after mobilization. Because there were no boots for the militia there were no boots for the active army. The particular battalion of which I was a member went overseas in December, 1939, and of course we had trained from September 1. We got our battle dress and our boots about one week before we went overseas. In the meantime we had to excuse men from parade, men who were keen and wanted to parade, because they were literally walking around in their bare feet, with only the uppers of their boots still in working order; and none were available from ordnance stores. Of course that is another reason why the reserve army should have boots during peace time.
Just to sum up, I am certain the minister will get a fine reserve army, which he has not now because he has not the men coming in,
if he declares thie purpose and policy of the reserve army and provides pay, training equipment, transport and boots. If he just looks after those five things I think he will have very great success; if he does not I am sure he will not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard for what he has said about the reserve army; and I thank him also for the suggestions he has made, all of which are most definitely constructive. With him, I do not think we can over emphasize the important role the reserve army, the non-permanent active militia, plays in the military set-up of Canada. As I said a little earlier, it has been the backbone of our fighting force in two wars, and I cannot contemplate any future war in which it would not carry out a similar role. The young men, officers and other ranks, who give of their time and energy in training with the reserve army are rendering a real form of public service. I am glad he has brought that point forward, because it enables me to add emphasis to what has already been said.
We are going to try to make service in the reserve army more attractive than it was before the war. Rates of pay will be the same as those for the active force which, as the committee knows, have been increased. We now have available ample supplies of what to-day is modern equipment. It may not be modern a year or two years or three years from now, but it is modem to-day. We are not so fortunate with respect to accommodation. I realize that in a great many centres there are not suitable quarters for reserve army units, and it is difficult to ask men to turn out and train when they are not furnished with the proper surroundings in which to do so. At the moment we cannot do very much about that, because with the existing shortage of labour and materials it just is not possible to do very much to add to existing facilities in that respect. That handicaps us, too, on this question of equipment. One of our most serious difficulties to-day is to provide suitable storage space for the very large quantity of mechanized and motorized equipment used in a modern unit; and we have that difficulty all over the country. That is one reason, among others, why it is not possible to issue full equipment according to the establishment for all reserve army units, because in a great many cases there is simply no place to store it.
I do not know that I can comment in detail on the other points raised by my hon. friend. As I say, I think all the suggestions he has made are decidedly of a constructive
Supply-National Defence

nature, and I can assure him they will be given careful consideration both by myself and by the officers of my department.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I am not so unwise as to attempt, in the presence of so many distinguished soldiers, to discuss the technical aspects of a defence force. But I do consider myself competent to say a few words about the problems relating to personnel; and on that account I am grateful to the honourable and gallant member who has just spoken for bringing the discussion back from the stratosphere to the -man who wears the boots. In what the hon. member said to the minister he wisely emphasized the importance of maintaining interest and esprit de corps in the army which he called the Monday-night army. We used to call it the Friday-night army; but it is the same army, the chaps who come out once a week.
At the moment it is true, as it was true after the last war and as it will be for some little time yet, that much of the glamour is gone from the uniform, so far as those who have seen actual service and those who are older members are concerned. But if the scheme -which has been outlined is to succeed in the future we shall depend eventually, and very quickly, upon the chaps who are now fourteen or fifteen years of age, in whom we must develop an interest in the non-permanent militia, or whatever it may be called, so that they will seek to join it. Those who have had some experience will realize the importance of boots, the importance of being properly shod. Those who have had the experience of being improperly shod will never forget it. In my judgment it is absolutely true that it is necessary to offer the young fellows of this generation, as it would have been -wise with a previous generation, the inducement of pay to make it possible and profitable for them to sacrifice their leisure time in training.
There is, however, something else. I do not think it is any accident, and certainly the fact has some significance for me-I believe it is a fact-that the first or second regiment to be mobilized in each district at the outbreak of war was a kilted regiment. When the Minister of Veterans Affairs rose to take part in this discussion this evening I thought, "Here it comes," but he got off on another tack and did not mention one of -the most important morale building features of the army. A little later another Scotsman, the hon. member for Vancouver East, took part in the discussion. Again I thought, "Here it comes," but he too forsook the argument I am about to make and with which I am sure both those hon. gentlemen will heartily agree. I refer, of course, to the restoration of the

kilt. For centuries almost, the British army, under the influence of the Irish or sometimes of the Sassenach himself, attempted to abolish the kilt. It is true that during a period of the war they did succeed in getting the soldiers into these battle rompers for purposes of uniformity and for other well established reasons. At this moment I am not going to say anything about the use of battle dress under service conditions, but certainly there is no condition of training which will equal or supersede the experiences which members of the kilted regiments, not only in the British isles but in this country, have been able to endure. If you are to attract the youth of the country into the permanent forces as well as the non-permanent forces you must make * the conditions of service attractive.
Something was said about the kilt this afternoon, and I was reminded of a circumstance in connection with one of the kilted regiments in the city from which the minister himself comes. I was there at the time; I know something about it. It was almost impossible for a Canadian of Scottish descent to get into that regiment, because there was a line-up of volunteers blocks long, composed of French-Canadians, Irishmen, and compatriots of that gallant Scotsman, from Windsor who now represents Spadina in this house. The popularity of the kilt is beyond question. If anyone needs any further indication of that I would refer him to the record of the regiment whose uniform I have had the honour of. wearing, although I never had an opportunity to fight w-ith them. When they lost the kilt in Canada, and were put in what they used to call battle rompers, and were sent to England, the first thing that the rank and file of the regiment did when they got to England was to buy out of their store of money which, as everyone knows, w'as none too plentiful, sometimes at outrageous prices, a kilt, to w-ear when they went on their first leave.
There is something about the kilt which appeals to those with Scottish blood in their veins, which others profess to laugh at, which most admire, and which nearly everyone tries to crawl into whenever Highland regiments are open for enlistments.
I spoke about this matter at the close of the last session, when the minister said to me-very graciously, I thought, but not very satisfactorily-that the Highland regiments would be permitted to wear the kilt when they were -walking out. Since when has the descendant of a highlander, or anyone acting in his name, been "permitted" to wrear the kilt?
I do not make these remarks with any intention of being flippant or of amusing the com-

Supply-National Defence
mittee. but rather to discuss a point which has been brought to my attention by representatives from a considerable number of kilted regiments in Canada. I think I can promise the minister prolonged, serious, repeated, possibly I should say endless raids on his time and patience until there is some recognition of the desire of Canadian youth, whether they be of Scottish descent or not, to wear what is traditionally the costume of fighting men.
I think one of the things that happened in Canada was that when we dismounted the cavalry we remounted too many of them on swivel chairs in. various positions of authority. While I admit the distinction with which they served-and without spurs, in those places-I think they lost something of their appreciation for the traditional garment of fighting men.
Therefore I am not happy about the suggestion which has been made that they are going to continue to issue the kilt to the bands, and to permit the officers and other ranks to wear it while walking out. I know, from my experience and observation in the past, which of the cadet corps in the various centres were the most quickly brought up to strength. I know which regiments were, leaders in most of the districts of Canada, in the period immediately preceding the war. I know the ones which were high in their rating of proficiency, partly because they often had the greatest numbers. The reason they had those members was not unconnected with the historical privilege of wearing the kilt.
To the minister and' his parliamentary assistant I would say that this is a warning of things to come. This matter will come up again and again and again, until you take those battle trousers away from the Highland regiments in Canada, and begin again to issue traditional dress. I speak, not threateningly, but as a promise. With all his undoubted ability and popularity, I am quite sure that the present minister or whoever may eventually succeed him will not succeed in downing this request.
There is one other matter which I think is important to training; perhaps I should say there are two things. The first is to sustain interest. One of the things which killed interest in nearly every non-permanent militia regiment or battery, or whatever it was, in the time between the two wars, was the lack of material with which, to work, and a lack of changing and constantly modernized manuals of training. It did not take the bright lad who was interested in his unit very long to learn as much or more than his instructor, when the only things taught were those which
were in the book. Consequently I point out the importance and the urgency of a constantly changing manual of training.
That leads to the other point, namely a constantly alert and constantly brought up to date instructional cadre. We have laid a great deal of emphasis upon formal education, sometimes unfortunately upon social connections, in the selection of officers and, in fact, the selection of rank and file in the permanent service. Someone has suggested that we have set the educational standards too high. I do not know whether that is so or not. They are idealistic. I should think that if we are to get the numbers we want we may have to reduce them to some extent. But there is one place I hope the minister will not reduce the requirements; that is, in this cadre. If we are to make of casual training something with a continuing interest-and reserve army training has to be casual-we must have good instructors. At the non-commissioned level we should have boy leader types, scout leader types, with instructional ability. I may be setting a high standard, but when a young soldier reaches the point where, with justification, he knows that he knows the score as well as the man whose official position it is to teach him, he may become dissatisfied, lose interest and quit. So that we must provide men who can keep ahead of these lads, or we will lose the interest of those who are there to learn. When you lose their interest, you lose them.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I will not take long, because I have not worn the kilt since I was nine years of age. I agree with what the previous speaker has said. We must not curtail the length of the kilt. After having listened for what seemed like about an hour and a half I wish to tell the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that if he follows out and models his future army after the 29th battalion, which won the last war, he will have sufficient reserves to carry him along.


Mr. COCKERAM:: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. MACKENZIE; Here come the Irish.


Alan Cockeram: I have been informed that in speaking this afternoon the minister made some reference to my calling senior officers at headquarters brass hats. If he will read the speech I made in the house recently he will find that I did nothing of the kind. If he will look at the remarks I made last fall he will see that I had a good word to say for them.
However, my reason for bringing up the question of officers and senior officers was that in my opinion there was a surplus of senior
Supply-National Defence

officers in the services. I think it is the duty of the minister at this time to curtail expenditures and to get down to normalcy as soon as possible.
Something has been said regarding commands. Five new commands have been set up. There are eleven district commands, and another one has recently been established at Whitehorse. It is my opinion that since parliament is going to vote money to have a permanent force and interim army of 25,000 officers and men, we shall find that a great proportion of them, instead of training in the field, will be carrying on jobs in offices, with the result that the actual training force will be limited,
I should like to speak with respect to some aspects of training. I was at Whitehorse recently, and I found that the Royal Canadian Air Force signals had taken over the signal services from the United States army, whereas the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals had, during the years prior to the war and during the war, carried on the signals services in the northwest, and had given good service to the people of that community. If there is to be a signal service in the northwest it should be run by one of the services. You can go right down the line and find duplication of services all along. One thing the minister should set himself to do is to cut out duplication wherever it exists. For example, are there to be headquarters for the three services in the city of Toronto, M.D.2, and the same throughout Canada? If so, it means that we shall have thirty-three district officers commanding the three services throughout Canada and a corresponding number of headquarters. It does seem to me-and I am sure that the hon. member for Nanaimo must have brought this up-that the commands are likely to get top-heavy. I should like the minister to look into that at the first opportunity.
I come now to the question of Whitehorse.
I do not know what commitments Canada made regarding the maintenance of the Alaska highway. But there is a very small force of men in Whitehorse and, if that small detachment of men is to maintain the highway, it will not be long before it gets into disrepair. If we have to maintain that highway, that section of the country offers great opportunity for the training of engineers in bridge-building, roadwork and many other types of experience which they cannot get in eastern Canada. It is a great potential training ground, not so much for infantry as for the outside engineering services. I do not know what latitude is allowed to the officer commanding in Whitehorse, but I know a number of men in Whiter horse desired to get back into the service and

they were told that they could not get back unless they were first sent to Calgary to take their basic training. The idea of sending them to Calgary for basic training, after they have been several years in the army, seemed to me a little stupid. I wonder whether the minister is going to carry on all these senior officers in defence headquarters as well as the districts- deputy ministers of this and that, holding the rank of major and brigadier?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No deputy minister holds that rank.


Alan Cockeram: Every deputy minister is a brigadier, to the best of my knowledge.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not one of them.


Alan Cockeram: Then you must have replaced them in the last few days.


Hugues Lapointe: They have never held that rank.


Alan Cockeram: I meant deputy branch heads, not deputy ministers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; all directors are colonels.


Alan Cockeram: That is fine. Would the minister give us a list of the commitments for $25,843,524 mentioned in the item? The reason I ask is that the hon. member for Wentworth brought up this evening the question of the Canadian inspection board, and I am wondering why 1,180 men should be kept on the strength of the board to look after a small number of contracts. Will the minister give us a list of the items?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Answering some of my hon. friend's other points first, I know he paid a visit to Whitehorse and had an opportunity of meeting at first hand some of our personnel on the Alaska highway. In April of last year it became necessary for the Canadian government to take over the Alaska highway, the northwest staging route, the air fields on the way to Alaska and the land lines providing communication with those air fields. There was no organization capable of taking on the Alaska highway other than the Canadian army, and the army agreed to take it over. We have set up special facilities, engineering units, to do that work, which is under the direction of Brigadier Walsh, a capable permanent force engineer officer, and, by the way, a graduate of McGill, which is in his favour. The air force naturally took over the northwest staging route and the maintenance of the air fields. The land lines were the means of communication between those air fields, and the air force took them on too. That required a considerable number of technical personnel, details of which my colleague the Minister of National

Supply-National Defence
Defence for Air would be in a position to give. It was no easy task for the air force to take on. They were not anxious to do it. They do not want it now and they are keen to turn it over to a civilian agency as soon as possible. The same applies to the Alaska highway, although we are glad to get experience there for our engineers.


Alan Cockeram: I did not suggest that the highway be turned over to a civilian agency, but that it would be a good training ground for the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals, operating in the northwest territories.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Royal Canadian Corps of Signals continues to operate in that district, but we have not the personnel to operate the specialized job of handling the land lines between the aerodromes.
As to the inspection board, I do not know whether my hon. friend was in his seat when my parliamentary assistant gave some information about the work the board is now carrying on. May I add to what he said the general statement that the staff is being reduced and will continue to be reduced just as quickly as possible. But, as the committee will appreciate, we still have some 45,000 to 50,000 men in the services and they require considerable quantities of material. There are also a considerable number of contracts outstanding on which inspection work has to be done. But I am satisfied the staff will decrease pretty rapidly.


John George Diefenbaker: I feel that this
would be an opportunity under this general item to secure some information that I found some difficulty in the last few days in being able to secure. The matter has become almost an impenetrable wall of m3rstery. I am sure that the Minister of National Defence will be able to furnish at least a portion of the information that I have been trying to secure. It has to do with a matter that I have been asking questions about, connected with certain army rejections or medical discharges which allegedly were signed in blank by Major J. A. Elliott, A19, R.C.A.S.C., at Camp Borden. In the return that was brought down, the answer given by the Department of National Defence was that this matter would be fully covered by the correspondence which would be brought down by the Department of Justice, and the Department of Labour furnished the same answer.
To begin at the beginning, possibly I can secure from the minister a report on any investigation that took place in the army in connection with these army rejections or
medical discharges and also what disposition, if any, was made of Major Elliott as a result of the investigation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to ask my hon. friend to allow that question to stand for a few minutes because I have not the information here at the moment. I am advised that all the correspondence in the Department of National Defence was produced. I have no, report here as to what happened to Major Elliott. I can probably give my hon. friend an answer a little later this evening.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I want to say one thing to the minister with regard to the reserve army, or militia, or whatever name it is to go by in the future. I ask him not only to give the civilian soldiers an opportunity to have, to handle and to use the weapons which are considered modern at the present time, but, as new weapons are invented and manufactured, to allow the reserve army to have those new weapons. I say this with a particular experience in mind. A week after the fall of Dunkirk, and later, I was training with an N.P.A.M. and at Niagara camp, and we did not have any rifles which would fire. By a stroke of good fortune, the D.O.C., M.D. 2, at that time was able to get some new rifles, or at least he thought they were new; they were in their original cases; and the morale and enthusiasm of the entire battalion grew at a tremendous pace, until we opened the boxes containing those rifles and found that they were Ross rifles Mark II, or perhaps Mark III; anyway they had been declared obsolete and useless in 1917. But all the same they were "new" rifles. I have never seen anything which destroyed the morale of a unit so much. Admittedly they were new rifles, but we expected something quite different; what we got were Ross rifles made as far back as 1915, or perhaps 1914. At that time, after the fall of Dunkirk, the entire camp expected an invasion of the United Kingdom; and nothing could have damaged the morale of the troops more than the kind of weapons which we had in the year 1940.
So I say to the minister, no matter what new weapons are invented, let your civilian soldiers see them and use them. If there is another war it will be your civilian soldiers who will fight it. That has always been so in our history. We are not a country of great standing armies; we never can be; we are a country of civilian soldiers. So through you, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister, on behalf of these civilian soldiers who train one day a week, please give them an opportunity to use the new weapons. If there is a war, they will have to fight it. Do not supply them with old Ross rifles or the weapons of the
Supply-National Defence

Crimean war; give them an opportunity to use jet weapons, and, as the new science of atomics expands, let them, if possible, see the weapons it produces and use them. Do not condition your thinking as of the year 1945, when the last war ended. New weapons are being constantly invented, and it is a peculiarity of the human race that they will continue to be invented and will become more deadly and devastating as time goes on. Let your civilian army see these weapons and train with them.
Do not treat your reserve army as something that goes to camp for a holiday for two weeks in every year. Do not treat the camp as a social attribute or a social function. Your reserve army in the next war will require to be far more efficient than it has ever been before, and the men of the reserve army must have a degree of knowledge of modern weapons, the weapons which may be produced in 1948, 1949, 1950. You cannot all of a sudden start to teach them the use of jet weapons if they have had nothing but impulse weapons to train with. I suggest through you, Mr. Chairman, that unless that is done the training of the reserve army will be largely wasted.
The science of warfare is moving at a constantly accelerated pace. We cannot afford to take another chance. If there should be a third world war we shall not have months, perhaps not even weeks, to prepare. Your civilian army must be trained; it must be keen; it must know the weapons or the prototypes of the weapons with which they will have to do the fighting. I ask the Minister of National Defence not to allow the reserve army of the next few years to degenerate,-I will not say "degenerate", but "deteriorate"-because	there was nothing
degenerate in the old N.P.A.M.; it was a fine force, but it did not have weapons. Nor did it have boots; at least my battalion did not have boots. We helped to provide them with boots, and for years the officers paid money to take them to camp. Do not ever let us get into that state again. Let us never again lower the guard of this country, for the enemy will be more vicious than man; the weapons will be more terrible than any we have yet seen. I say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister and to his staff, particularly the director of military training, keep up your training of the reserve army; give them modern weapons; see to it that they are kept keen, and also see to it that being a member of the reserve army is not a social function but a patriotic job, a job as indis-

pensatole to the safeguarding and security of this country as the highest of our democractic processes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is a matter in connection with the selection of officers for the permanent army on which I should like to ask the minister a few questions. My information, as well as my experience, is that a certain amount of dissatisfaction exists among men who served overseas as officers, and there is a widespread feeling among them that there have been appointed as officers in the permanent army a considerable number of men who had no service except in Canada or in England; in other words, that quite a number of officers of the permanent army are men who had no actual battle experience and did no fighting. They have been appointed to the detriment of men who actually did fight overseas. I took up with the minister two cases which he will remember. Both of these men had special qualifications; both had applied for the permanent force, and both had been turned down on the question of age. One man was about a year over age and the other, nearly two years. I understand that a considerable number of officers who rose from the ranks and who did extremely well in the army overseas have been turned down for admittance to the permanent force as officers.
In this connection, I should like to point out thht some of these men, while they may be a little over age, while in some cases their educational requirements may not be up to the standards now demanded, have a large degree of technical knowledge which I know personally it would be absolutely impossible for any man to obtain under peacetime conditions. One of these men to whom I refer served as technical adjutant of S.P., an artillery regiment, which is essentially an armoured regiment equipped with tanks. He was one of five or six such men in the army, and in virtue of his job he acquired a vast amount of technical knowledge which it is extremely difficult for any man to get, and more or less impossible unless he gets it under active service conditions. One of the men turned down for a commission was this very man I have in mind.
I do not care whether the national defence headquarters gets a man who passed with honours in mathematics or in any subject in a university and then trains him for four years afterwards, he will not be as good a man on that particular job as the type of technical man about whom I have spoken. It is a great pity, therefore, that this policy is being pursued. In connection with it I would ask a few questions. I thiDk the minister has

Supply-National Defence
this case in mind, because I wrote to him with reference to it and intimated that I would ask some questions regarding it under the estimates. First, how many officers have been accepted for the permanent army?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The number was 2,027 as at August 8.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Second, how many of these have had service in Canada only?


Mr ABBOTT:: Perhaps I can break that down. The number who servedi in theatres of operations was 1,140; the number who served in England for a year or more, 259; the number who served in England for less than a year but over sixty days, 295; and the number who served in Canada only, 333.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I take it that out of the 2,027, 1,140 had actual fighting experience; in other words, about half. How many of these officers have had merely what we call a Cook's tour in the actual fighting area?


Douglas Charles Abbott: None of these.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And how many in actual fighting formations? Does the minister say none had merely the so-called Cook's tour?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My information is that a little more than half of the officers so far accepted have had actual fighting experience, and 240-is that the number?


Douglas Charles Abbott: 333 served in Canada only.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There were 333 who served in Canada only. I submit that when we finished the war we had the finest young men in Canada in our fighting forces, the majority of them at any rate having served overseas, and it is a serious lapse on the part of the Department of National Defence army that only half the officers had fighting experience, or little more than half, while 333 never left the shores of Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A good many of those are specialists, R.C.E.M.E. staff and that sort of thing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have already mentioned, however, that quite a number of highly trained specialists, men who gained knowledge by virtue of battle experience which cannot be obtained otherwise, are the very men who are being turned down. This afternoon the hon. member for Kingston City spoke of certain officers, and I have no brief as far as that particular matter is concerned, but the minister at that time made an interjection and said, "We are trying to build an efficient army". I was glad to hear that, but when I learned that upwards of half of the officers 63260-319
accepted in the permanent force had no fighting experience, while a considerable number never went outside Canada, whereas on the other hand men with a wealth of fighting experience, men who demonstrated their work, are being refused, then I say that the minister is not giving any evidence that the department is trying to build an efficient army in regard to the reserve.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will reply to my hon.
friend briefly. As I said this afternoon, I do not personally select the officers in the army and it would be improper besides being impassible for me to do so. There is a selection committee in which I have confidence, who carefully review all applications for commissioned ranks in the post-war permanent force. I may say we have a great many applications, something over 6,000 already, and up to August 8 there have been 2,395 accepted. These have to cover all categories, all age groups, all types of service. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the selection committee is doing a careful, conscientious job in endeavouring to select the most competent officers for the post-war permanent force. That is all I can say. Lines of policy are laid down. Overseas service and operational experience are very much in a man's favour;, nevertheless those are not the only qualifications, and I hope and believe that we shall have a competent, highly skilled officer corps in the post-war army.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: How many are graduates from the military college, and how many have risen from the ranks?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that information but I could get it. A very small .proportion would be graduates of the military college because it has been closed since 1940 or 1941, and out of the total of 2,395, I would think a comparatively small number were graduates of the military college. If I may hazard a guess, I believe a substantial number would be men who had started in the ranks. As I say, however, I am only offering a guess because I have not the figure.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: May I interrupt to say that even those who were in the military college rose from the ranks, and they were fairly severe ranks too.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am aware of that.


Mr. FRASER:: What are the regulations in regard to the use of army vehicles by personnel and those workers employed by the army? What I am getting at is this. In Ottawa as well as in other parts of the country

Supply-National Defence

army vehicles have been used for personal purposes. Here in Ottawa, I know of a couple of cases where army trucks were used to take furniture from a home in this city out to a summer cottage, and they have been used to cart stuff from one place to another, even beer to a man's home.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to have a case of that kind brought to my attention, because it is strictly contrary to the regulations. Every time we find out about it we take appropriate action.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have cases here that I shall let the minister have.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad if my hon. friend will let me know about them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I had correspondence with the minister in regard to an army vehicle smashing into a civilian car. If these cars or trucks are being used for civilian purposes, or not authorized to be used, the minister's department can say: "The use of this truck or vehicle was not authorized by the department and therefore the department is not liable for any damage." The minister said in a letter to me, dated July 5, regarding an accident:
A very thorough review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident involving the accident to Mr. Long has now been made. It appears that the action of Private ... in taking the departmental vehicle was entirely unauthorized.
Therefore they did not do anything at all about the matter and no redress is given to the person whose car was damaged. I do not think that is right. The army, the navy or the air force should be responsible if it is their vehicle which was responsible for the accident.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend will appreciate that the army is in the same position as any other employer. If an employee of a civilian firm takes his employer's automobile and goes out on a joy ride, and it is not for the purpose of the work for which he is employed, the employer is not responsible. Vicarious responsibility extends only if the employee is in the performance of the work for which he is employed. There is no difference there between the army or any other employer.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: These accidents have happened in working hours, because these people have taken their vehicles out when they are supposed to be on duty.


Frank Exton Lennard: With regard to the matter of the signal corps in the northwest territories, which was mentioned a few moments ago, I wish to refer particularly to some lads

who are stationed at Yellowknife. I understand that they have been there for over a year. I would urge the minister to draw that fact to the attention of the proper authorities and that these boys should have some leave. Some of them are married men and have not seen their wives for over a year. We are not now in a war period and these men should get some leave. How many men of the signal corps are in Whitehorse, Dawson City and Yellowknife?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to get that information and give it to my honourable friend a little later. With regard to the other point he mentioned, I shall take note of his remarks. We have had two or three cases of compassionate releases of personnel of the army stationed at Yellowknife.


Frank Exton Lennard: I am not asking for release.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Leave. I shall look into the question. I imagine that some of them are highly skilled men and difficult to release.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to refer to the matter of selection officers. The minister said selection was made by a personnel selection board.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is called a committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister give the names of the officers who are on that board? I should be interested in knowing who they are.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can give the names, but it will take a minute or two to get them.


George Hugh Castleden: We have heard of the splendid part played by the artillery services in the peacetime army, but I wish to draw attention to what is happening to men who in the past joined the army with the intention of making it their career. In one case I have in mind the man spent years in the service and was within sixty-nine days of receiving his pension when he made application to be retained in the services. He joined the nonpermanent forces back in 1926. Then he entered the permanent force in 1935 and joined up for the active service forces in 1939. He fought throughout. He rose from the ranks to the position of captain. Up to October 8, 1946, his pensionable service would be fifteen years and 296 days. He made application to join the army with the intention of making it his career. There has never been a black mark against his record. In fact all his service all the way through has been such that it has been recognized in the form of promotions from the lowest rank to the posi-

Supply-National Defence
tion which he now holds as commissioned officer. In spite of his efforts to remain in the army, he has been told he does not come up to the standard of some assessment officers or some group of officers who make the assessment. He is definitely out and he has no redress. He has been doing his best to find out what his crime is or what the difficulty is. All he is told is that he did not come up to the assessment, but he does not know the particulars. An example of this kind certainly works to the detriment of those who would like to make the army their career. He feels that he has been discriminated against, because he has examples of other men with less service and much lower qualifications, and certainly without the experience that he has had, who have been retained in the permanent force. It is utterly impossible for him to get any information. I suggest to the minister that, with that type of treatment, he is not going to get men to make the army their career, and this is Ac type of men who are needed.	"


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend will
give me the particulars of the case I shall look into it personally. We do not keep men in the service solely for the purpose of giving them a pension. At any rate we should not do so. There may be cases in which it is done. There may be some injustice in this case and I shall be glad to look into it.


George Hugh Castleden: I am not suggesting he is being cut off before his pension is due. I am sure the man does not want to remain in the army just to get his pension. I have already given the case to the minister, and his reply was that it has been handed over to a certain selection committee and that he has every confidence in it. And that is all there is to it. There is no redress for this man; he is just stuck. This is the kind of thing which does not reflect well on the officials of the army and which deters other good men from making the army a career, which it should be.


Alan Cockeram: There are two other matters which I should like to bring up. First, I should like to bring to the attention of the committee sessional paper 153-G, dated April 23, 1946. The question dealt with pensions paid to retired members of the permanent armed forces. I do not bring this matter up for the purpose of criticizing the pensions, but to show how actuarially unsound the whole scheme of army pensions is. These figures are only up to the early part of April. From September 1, 1939, to April 1 of this year a total of 235 officers who had been non-commissioned officers in the ranks in the early days 63260-319J
of the war received pensions totalling $701,524.96. I imagine the figures are possibly double to-day. The reason I bring this up is that a non-commissioned officer as such pays nothing into the pension fund. Until they become officers there is no contribution. It is interesting to look down the list. One finds one sergeant-major, W.O.l, who retired with the rank of captain with a pension of $2,798.35 a year. Of the people included in this list, 115 are men who were in the ranks either as non-commissioned officers, warrant officers or privates in the early -days of the war, and therefore paid nothing into the fund. I notice there is one man who is a private and who paid nothing into the fund. The pension he receives to-day is $2,273.25. I wonder just how long the pension fund of the dominion government can stay sound under those circumstances. When the minister brings in his new bill I think some study should be given the whole pension act for the permanent force. Where a man gives service, we believe in a pension.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We shall have first reading to-morrow morning of a bill in that regard.


Alan Cockeram: The second point is in connection with the educational qualifications required of men joining the armed services to-day. I believe the hon. member for Nanaimo also mentioned that point. It occurs to me that if the minister desires a permanent force of 25,000 men, together with the surplus officers he expects, something will have to be done with regard to educational requirements, because I cannot see young men who have their senior matriculation joining the armed forces to spend the rest of their lives there I believe the minister should take men withi less than the high degree of education he appears to require to-day, and have a corps of schoolmasters such as they have in the British army to give these men part of their training along educational lines. It would be good for the men, and I am certain it would be good for the services. I would ask the minister whether any consideration has been given to the creation of a corps of schoolmasters to teach these men, so that while in the service their education may be brought up to a certain level.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On the last question, we are continuing the educational service in the army to try to bring up the educational level of those who join the forces.


Alan Cockeram: Pardon me; in other words, you are reducing the requirements?
Supply-National Defence


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, not yet; but we are taking in a good many men, in several specialized corps, who perhaps do not have the minimum requirements we would like.
As to the question of pensioning non-commissioned officers, they had a statutory right to that pension, and we would be committing a breach of faith with them if, assuming they were no longer required in the army, we did not retire them on the pension to which they were entitled by law. In that respect we have paid the penalty, perhaps, for having such a small army before the war, because we were obliged to promote men to commissioned rank in order to use them as instructors and otherwise, who were not capable of holding those commissions in our post-war army. Briefly that is the explanation in that regard.
The hon. member for Calgary East asked the names of the members of the selection board. They are Brigadier Graham, deputy adjutant general of administration; Brigadier Gibson, Colonel Fleury, Lieutenant-Colonel Cherrier, and in each case a representative of the corps to which the officer applicant belongs. If he is a member of the infantry corps, there would be a representative of that corps, or the artillery corps, and so on.


Frank Exton Lennard: There is just one further question I should like to ask the minister. When the Canadian government started recruiting for the Pacific campaign they set out certain advanced rates of pay for those who volunteered for Pacific service. Later certain personnel of the air force and those of H.M.C.S. Uganda were granted Pacific rates of pay, though the personnel of the Uganda did not volunteer for Pacific service. I am referring particularly to some three hundred army personnel who served in Australia and certain actual theatres of war, of whom about eighty or a hundred were radar personnel, radar mechanics. Has the department definitely decided what it is going to do with these men? Are they to receive Pacific rates of pay? They did not on demobilization, but will they be granted those rates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think the answer is that they will not; they were not part of the Pacific force. That matter was considered over some period of time; I think it came up on my estimates last year, and the decision was that they would not receive Pacific rates of pay.


Frank Exton Lennard: Some are receiving those rights who did not volunteer for Pacific service, while on the other hand those who were expecting to fight in the Pacific war, just because they were a month or two ahead are being deprived of this special rate.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder if the minister is in a position now to answer my question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot answer that to-day. I have made inquiries, and the only information I have is that the officer referred to, Major Elliott, is no longer in the service. I shall give my hon. friend whatever information we have, either on my own estimates if they should not be concluded this evening, as I would hope they would be, or I am sure it would be in order for me to do so when the estimates of national defence for air are being considered. I shall have to get the information in the morning; we do not have it here.


John George Diefenbaker: There is another matter with which I should like to deal at this time; I do not think it has been dealt with as yet. It has to do with the men in the armed forces who committed military offences and were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment, ^brought this question up last fall. I am not now dealing with offences which would be offences under the civil law; I am referring particularly to offences under military law. Last fall I brought up the question of the setting up of a judicial or semi-judicial board, and the minister advised that a board had been set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Keiller Mackay, with two distinguished co-members. That committee sat for a period of time reviewing sentences, and then I understand their work was discontinued. My question is, what is being done in reference to these prisoners who to-day are in gaols and penitentiaries, in regard to a further review of their sentences?
At the moment I have in mind particularly a man from the province of Saskatchewan. I am not going to give his name, though I shall give it to the minister privately, but his number was L-36119. He is of German parentage. He served overseas for two years. In the district whence he came there were several who found their way into an internment camp following their disloyal conduct at the beginning of the war. This man served throughout the Italian campaign, and later throughout the campaign in France and Germany. He had a fine record; he became a sergeant and then went over to England en route to Canada. There he became involved in the riots at Aldershot and received a sentence of three years' imprisonment. The provincial command of the Canadian Legion in Saskatchewan interested itself in this man, because while at the end of the war those who had been disloyal returned home from the internment camps, these men who served and

Supply-National Defence
who received very long sentences remained in prison. As a matter of fact I read over the evidence; and while in connection with military offences sentences are generally longer than they would be for civil offences of a like nature, I want to say that no counsel reading that evidence could but conclude that a maximum of three months would have been the normal sentence in a civil court. The provincial branch of the legion in Saskatchewan reviewed the matter and came to the same conclusion; and they came to the further conclusion that what he did at the time, impeding an officer, was the result of his nervous condition following service. It is the considered opinion of the provincial command that in his case the ends of justice would be met-and other cases are also mentioned- without any further imprisonment being exacted. I suggest this, that the time has now come for further review of those sentences imposed for purely military offences. I should like to ascertain from the minister how many soldiers who served overseas are to-day imprisoned, first in penitentiaries and, second, in the common gaols. In how many cases were sentences reviewed, and how many pardons granted, or reductions or diminutions in sentences passed by the court martial allowed? And a further question, in review, as to what further action will be taken in this connection.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not believe I can give the information exactly in the form requested. As at August 14 the total number of soldiers serving sentences and detention in Canada was 981. Of this total, about fifteen per cent, or 151, was for offences other than desertion or absenteeism, which would leave, roughly, 830 serving detentions for desertion or absenteeism.
The total number reviewed by the court martial board of review, which was presided over by Mr. Justice Mackay, was 1,895. Of those 1,895, those in which immediate release was recommended numbered 574; those where release was recommended at a future date, for remission of sentence, numbered 1,156, and those in which no recommendation for remission was made numbered 165. The cases of those still in detention are still under constant review by district officers commanding as well as by the adjutant general's department here in Ottawa.
Particularly in view of the announcement I made a day or so ago, it is my intention that a further complete review of all those ceases is to be made. I think the committee can be assured that clemency will be exercised in cases where it is considered appropriate. I
shall look into the particular case to which my hon. friend has .referred. He has given me the number, and I shall look into it personally.


Norman Jaques: I have a question to ask respecting pensions for the permanent force. When shall I have an opportunity to ask it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am bringing in a bill to-morrow to amend the Militia Pension Act. It will be given first reading, I would expect, and that would be an excellent opportunity for my hon. friend to raise the question.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I do not wish to delay the committee, but I have beep reading Hansard and I wish to make a correction. When the committee resumed its duties at eight o'clock I drew the attention of the minister to his policy respecting permanent force bands. I understood him to say that certain units would continue to have permanent force bands. Hansard so far-and I do not think the minister has had an opportunity to read it-does not reveal that. I thought the minister said that Canadian Ordnance Corps headquarters would continue to have a band.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say headquarters. I said there would be bands for such corps units as the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps and the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Having heard the names of the members of this selection board, I should like to say, first of all, that I could hardly disagree more strongly with them or with what they have done, than I do. I would strongly recommend to the minister that he call the members of this board together and have a talk with them over the matter of the selection of officers, to see if they cannot devise some type of selection system which will put into our army more officers who have had some experience and fewer who spent the war in passing red tape over desks-which is apparently what is happening.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Probably we should appoint the hon. member as sole member of the board.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You might do worse.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You are too modest.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will say that I was extremely glad to see Brigadier Graham's name on the list. I presume his presence there is what has caused as many as 1,140 men who did see fighting to be appointed. It is too bad that all the members of the board have not had the same experience as he had.
Supply-National Defence

I should like to learn from the minister how recruiting from the permanent force is coming along. He told us that we have 2,027 officers. How many O.R.'s are there?-


Douglas Charles Abbott: About 700 this last month.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the total?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The total to date, as of July 31, is 13,518 all ranks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In this 2,027 the total you will have, or are there still more to be appointed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I say, the total to date is 13,518 all ranks, of which officers are 2,613, and the total establishment of officers when we are up to strength will be something over
3,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the minister could be a little more- accurate. When we were talking about this matter before I asked the number of officers who had now been accepted for the permanent army, and he gave me the figure of 2,027. Now he says it is more than 2,600.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The figure is for the interim force as of July. 31. We have not taken anyone into the permanent force as yet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is this figure of 2,027 the right one, or is it 2,600?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I say that 2,027 is the number accepted for the permanent force. The figure of 2,613 is the number who are in the interim force. Probably the difference is accounted for by some of the remainder being still under consideration.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad to have that cleared up.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is eleven o'clock; eight hours is long enough.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Apparently there are something like 11,000 O.R.'s in the permanent army. I should like to know something about their distribution, because I have it on very good authority that, as short a time as two months ago, the only permanent force field regiment we have did not have enough O.R.'s to clean their guns. They had to hire civilian labour. Perhaps that is still the case. I do not know, but I should like to. I am wondering whether all these 11,000 men are distributed around the country in offices of one kind or another, and permanent force units have not enough men to do even the essential duties.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, with-3ut question put, pursuant to standing order.

Tuesday, August 20, 1946