1947-07-09

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

Mr. WRIGHT:: *1. With what provinces have agreements been reached for the provincial department to handle family allowance investigation work?
2.	What are the financial arrangements with each province in the carrying out of this work?


Mr. MARTIN:: Stand.


Percy Ellis Wright: May I ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? When can I expect an answer to part 1 of this question-before the conclusion of the session?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot add anything to what I have already said. I hope to be in a position later to deal with the matter more definitely. I cannot say when.


CANADIAN ARMY-CAPT. H. E. GILBERT
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	At what date was Captain Harry Edward Gilbert discharged from the Canadian army?
2.	What was the reason for his discharge?
3.	What was his age?
4.	Did he make application to be retained in the Canadian forces?
5.	How many years of service did he have in the Canadian army?
6.	What is the rate of pension he is to be paid for his services?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	March 8, 1947.
2.	Ho was considered for service in the interim force and Canadian army (Active force) but the officers selection committee did not select him from among the large number of applicants and he was retired under the provisions of KR (Can) 267 (c).
3.	At date of retirement he was 33 years of age.
4.	Yes.
Questions

5.	Permanent force and Canadian army (active), 11 years 233 days; Non-permanent active militia, 4 years 194 days. Total service, 16 years 62 days.
6.	He will receive a retiring allowance under the provisions of the Militia Pension Act Part V as follows-
(a)	Until he is 65 years of age, $677.91 per annum.
(b)	After that age, SI ,016.86 per annum.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-SWIFT CURRENT AND MEDICINE HAT
Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	Have the cities of Swift Current and Medicine Hat been made stop-over points on one of the trans-continental main line flights of T.C.A.?
2.	Has it been decided- to make Moose Jaw a similar stop-over point?
3.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes, as of July 1, 1947.
2.	No.
3.	A regular stop is made on all T.C.A.'s transcontinental flights at the city of Regina, which is approximately 40 miles from the City of Moose Jaw. Frequent stops on a transcontinental mainline flight and considerably to the scheduled time of the through service. Local service is provided to the City of Moose Jaw by Canadian Pacific Air Lines with connections to T.C.A.'s through transcontinental service at Regina and Saskatoon.


MATADOR RANCH
Mr. MENARY:: 1.	Has the government purchased the Matador ranch, situated in Alberta and Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, how many acres did it contain and how much per acre was paid therefor?
3.	What was the total purchase price?
4.	For what purpose was the ranch purchased?
5.	Who is now the owner?
6.	Has the area thereof been subdivided by the government? If so, how and why?
7.	For what purposes has the area been used since acquired by the government?
8.	Has any part of it been leased? If so, to vhom and on what terms?
9.	Have any buildings been built thereon by the government? If so, how many and what is the outlay for each?
10.	Has the government employed any person to manage directly or work on the ranch? If so, what is his name and at what salary or wage is he paid?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	No.
2 to 10. See answer No. 1.


DESIGN FOR CANADIAN FARM HOUSE
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Has the national research council or any other department of government done any research toward plans for the construction of a suitable and distinctive Canadian farm house?
2.	If so, when and by whom?
3.	Have any provincial governments offered to cooperate in the production of plans for a farm house? If so, which?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes, Central Mortage and Housing Corporation.
2.	Since February last, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been actively promoting the organization of an extensive research programme, having as its object the development of a number of house plans and designs particularly suited to the needs of farm families, and improved modern equipment for farm homes.
3.	As a result of discussions which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has held during the last few months with the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, a prairie rural housing committee has been established representing the three prairie governments, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Dominion Department of Agriculture, to plan a programme of rural housing research. This committee held a special meeting in Saskatoon on May 20, 1947 and as a result, seven specific rural housing research projects were recommended. The recommendation in respect of each project also suggested at what prairie research institution the particular project should be conducted.
The research projects to be investigated are improved farm house plans, more economical methods of ivall construction using materials available locally, the development of improved running water and sewage disposal systems for farm homes, farm house electric lighting and electrical appliances, better methods of heating farm houses, a special study of farm kitchen planning and equipment, and the development of a few suitable designs for the construction of rural community centres. The individual projects are now being considered by the governments concerned, and it is expected ah early start will be made on most of the projects, particularly the study of farm house plans. The research programme will be financed jointly by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the three prairie governments.
There has also been established in British Columbia a rural housing committee through which the British Columbia government and

Inquiries of the Ministry
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will carry on research and promotional activities in an effort to improve the standard of rural housing in that province.


ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMPS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many of the Alexander Graham Bell commemorative postage stamps were (a) issued; (b) distributed?
2.	Are the plates destroyed?
3.	Is it intended to issue any more?
4.	How many sheets were unperforated and retained by the Postmaster General or his department?
5.	Was this stamp issue made available to the postmasters in the smaller post offices?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: In answer to the first question, generally we do not give this information until six months after the stamp has been issued and distributed; but since the newspapers have already given the information today I have no objection to answering it. The answers are as follows:
1.	(a) 25,000,000 (b) 25,000,000.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	None.
5.	Yes.


EXTENDED SITTINGS-HOURS OF DUTY OF PAGE BOYS AND OTHERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: In view of the long hours that we are now making it necessary for the page boys and others to be on duty, may I ask the Prime Minister whether consideration might be given either to staggering their hours or providing overtime, or both?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I would say to my hon. friend that I am sure His Honour the Speaker will take all necessary care of the officials of the house.


Mr. REID:: What about the stenographers?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: May I ask the acting Minister of Mines and Resources if he can elucidate on the order published yesterday that displaced persons to the number of five thousand will be admitted to Canada? I want
to know whether this new extension of the immigration regulation covers people in Europe other than displaced persons.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources):: The order which was tabled in the house some days ago provides only for displaced persons. Immigration of other types of persons is moving to Canada steadily, and has no reference to this particular order.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It applies only to those in camps?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


TRADE AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: '
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? I am sorry that I did not give more notice than I have, but I did send him the newspaper clipping this morning as soon as I saw him. My question has to do with a statement made by Mr. Herbert Morrison in the British House of Commons yesterday as to the possibility very shortly of a twenty-five per cent cut in imports to the United Kingdom. I should like the minister to comment upon that statement and to indicate whether any consultation has taken place between this government and the United Kingdom government, and also how it may affect our economy.
Hon. J. A. MacIvINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce): The hon. member for Peel spoke to me as we were coming into the chamber. The matter to which he refers is receiving the earnest attention of the officials of Trade and Commerce, of myself and also of my colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It would appear that the United Kingdom government feels that it has to restrict imports, and this will affect Canada. Among other things, newsprint will likely be affected. It happens that newsprint is in scarce supply in parts of Canada, particularly in Alberta and British Columbia, as far as our own newspapers are concerned. On the other hand, there is of course a great market for Canadian newsprint for which we can get American dollars not only in the United States but in other countries in this hemisphere. However, the producers of Canada are very anxious about this matter, inasmuch as it may affect the traditional market we have enjoyed in the United Kingdom, and that is being watched very closely.

Senate and House oj Commons Act



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I wish to ask the Minister of Labour a question. I believe he tabled the unemployment insurance report for the year ended March 31, 1947. Has this report been printed, and will it be available when we deal with the estimates of his department?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I do not think so but I will inquire. As soon as it is printed I will see that a copy is forwarded, in English and French, to every member of the house.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act to provide an additional annual allowance to the member of the senate occupying the recognized position of leader of the government in the senate and the member occupying the recognized position of leader of the opposition in the senate.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Stanley Howard Knowles: We are definitely opposed to this resolution and to the bill which it is proposed to base upon it. As a matter of fact, had I realized that it was this item that was being called a moment ago when the Speaker was in the chair we would have opposed the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair. It so happens that last night the Minister of Veterans Affairs told us that this morning there would be nothing but third readings and supply. We did not expect this until this afternoon.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: My hon. friend will find that I envisioned the possibility of this bill being called any time today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister envisioned the possibility of its being called this afternoon, but that is neither here nor there, though it is the reason I did not realize that this was the item that was being called. However, now that we are in committee I want to state our definite opposition to this measure and to indicate

to the Prime Minister that if it is the intention of the government to proceed with it and to bring in a bill based upon it, we shall oppose it at all succeeding stages.
To us this seems a strange expression of the promise of the Liberal party down through the years to reform the senate. To us the function played by the senate in our Canadian life is a useless one, and to be strengthening its position in this way just does not come very well from a Liberal government.
I want to make this one point very clear, Mr. Chairman, that in our opposition to this measure we are not expressing any criticism of the two hon. senators immediately affected by the proposal. I personally have a great deal of regard for both these hon. gentlemen. Though I do not know personally the government leader in the other place, I have had occasion a number of times to read speeches he has made and I have been impressed with his attitude towards both domestic and international affairs. I recognize him as a distinguished public servant. I may say also, as regards the opposition leader in the senate, that I have known him personally a good many years and in the province from which we both come, despite any differences of ideas or political opinions that may be held, he is held in high regard in every quarter. I say that in the hope that in this discussion no one will introduce any personalities at all.
To us, however, the principle of strengthening and rendering still more vested the interest in the other place is contrary to the whole principle of representative democracy. It is contrary to the promises of the Liberal party down through the years to reform the senate, and we believe it is contrary to the wishes of the Canadian people.
Further, I might point out that there is a definite incongruity in this session between the kind of measures we seem to find time to pass, such as this one, and the fact that we have not time to pass or to deal with an important measure such as the labour code. Therefore I wish to make it known that we in this group are definitely opposed to this measure.
Resolution reported and read the first time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the resolution be read a second time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.

Supply-National Defence
Resolution read the second time on division and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King, thereupon, moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 443, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Speak louder.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


James Horace King: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Next sitting.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask hon. members to moderate their voices. It is impossible to proceed with the business of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I realize that it would require the unanimous consent of the house to proceed with the second reading at this moment, but seeing that there is only one clause in the measure and that it is so readily understood, I thought that at this stage of the session the house would permit the second reading this morning. However, if hon. gentlemen of the C.C.F. group are opposed to the second reading taking place this morning, perhaps they would permit it to take place later on today. I ask that simply because I am anxious to expedite the business of the session and there are some other matters to which I have to give a great deal of attention in these closing days.


Angus MacInnis: It seems to be the practice of the government to hold contentious measures back until the end of the session and then try to force them through because of lack of time. We are not opposed to the. sections of this bill; we are opposed to the principle of it and do not intend to facilitate its passage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand it, the C.C.F. do not give their consent to proceeding with second reading today?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then, we shall proceed with second reading tomorrow.


An hon. MEMBER:: The house in committee of supply, Mr.. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Demobilization and reconversion-
551. To provide-for the orderly establishment and organization of the defence forces of the army, navy and air services on a peacetime basis and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $29,833,648- $226,709,331.
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Chairman, the practice has been for ministers of the defence departments in introducing their estimates to make a general statement covering the work done in the previous year as well as plans for the future.
On June 17, 1947, P.C. 2372 was adopted providing that the members of the armed forces shall cease to be on active service as at September 30, 1947. At that time the formal change from a war to a peace footing for the armed services will be related to the inauguration of a campaign to obtain recruits for the active and reserve forces. In the meantime, however, now that our wartime forces have in fact ended the work to which they had set their hands, it will, I believe, be the wish of hon. members that a brief summary of the facts and figures of their accomplishments should be set down in Hansard as a permanent record of a magnificent achievement.
Canada's war record in reminding us of the nature of modern war will inspire and strengthen us to work with other nations to create the conditions for enduring peace. Canada's part in two wars will lead us, until progress is made in ensuring peace through collective action, to establish our own forces on a post-war basis which will be related to the defence needs of the country as these may change from time to time. Our policy must be informed by war time experience just as it is inspired by war time achievements.
In the statement which follows, after reviewing the achievements in war I propose to set out what I take to be the defence needs of Canada, to indicate some of the matters which must receive the most immediate attention and to describe long-term objectives with regard to the department and the armed forces.
The war of liberation started on September 1, 1939. Germany's brutal attack on Poland was followed by the so-called "phony war", when Germany was growing in strength to
Supply-National Defence

make the sweep through Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands. Belgium and France. From the fall of France in June, 1940, until Russia was brought into the war a year later, Britain and the countries of the commonwealth stood almost alone. The will to be free was for a time the main armour that stood against the evil thrust to make Germany supreme and everyone else slaves.
Canadian territory was not attacked but from the outset we recognized that this was a fight in which our vital interests were involved, and, by act of our own government on the all but unanimous support of our own parliament, we entered the war on September 10, 1939. Our contribution mounted steadily.
At sea, our main job was to keep the bridge of ships open to Britain. The submarine menace was a major threat. Our young navy carried out a major part of the work of escort across the Atlantic. At the start of the war our navy had 1,769 full-time officers and men. Before its end, 100,000 men had passed through its ranks and we had a total of 780 ships.	'
The first division left Canada in December, 1939, and was joined by the second division early in 1940. These tw.o divisions were among the few bodies of trained troops ready to withstand a German assault on Britain and some of them ait Dieppe paved the way for future landings. The first Canadian infantry division landed at Sicily in July, 1943 and was followed soon by the fifth Canadian armoured division and other units. These comprised the first Canadian corps and fought up the whole long length of Italy to the finishing battles on the river Po.
The third Canadian infantry division landed on D-Day, June 6, 1944 followed by the second Canadian infantry division and the fourth Canadian armoured division. The Canadian Army was formed in July, 1944, comprising the second Canadian corps and the first British corps. The Canadian Army took a foremost part in the fighting in Normandy and up the channel ports through Holland, and Germany beyond the Rhine. Forming fpart of the Canadian army at one time or another were all but two of the British divisions, as well as a number of American divisions, a Polish armoured division, a Belgian brigade and a Czech brigade. The Canadian army was an effective international force and its components got on well together under Canadian leadership, of our own General H. D. G. Crerar, Companion of Honour. Early in 1945 more than half a million men of half a dozen countries formed the Canadian army which stretched over 250 miles of front and being at this time probably

the largest single army formation on the western front. From the beaches through Caen, Falaise, by the channel ports, over the Scheldt and Rhine, the Canadians lived up to the reputation they had made in world war I.
Our peacetime permanent force of 4,492 officers and men was multiplied more than a hundred and sixty times. Before the war was over 709,007 men had served in the Canadian army, in addition to 21,618 members of the Canadian Women's Army Corps.
The British commonwealth air training plan from its start in December, 1939, was a spectacular undertaking. Soon we had nearly 200 training schools across Canada. By the time the plan was finished it had trained 42,110 young flyers from the United Kingdom (including 5,293 Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm pilots trained in Canada at R.A.F. schools prior to July, 1942 when these schools became part of B.C.A.T.P.) 9,606 from Australia, and 7,002 from New Zealand. In addition we trained 72,835 Canadian air crew, and altogether a total of 131,553 air crew. It is believed that Canada had the highest per capita number of air crew of any nation fighting in the war.
The first Canadian flyers to reach the other side were members of auxiliary squadrons. These were soon followed by a steady flow of pilots, navigators, air gunners, radar operators and the all-important ground crew. At the outbreak of war there were 2,948 officers and men in the R.C.A.F. During the war a total of 249,624 Canadians served in the Royal Canadian Air Force in addition to another 4,000 serving with the Royal Air Force.
Canadians came to play their part, to offer their lives, from the farms, the woods, the mines, the city streets, the workshops and the schools. Here is a summary of their numbers and of the losses suffered.
Served During the War
Men Women Total
Navy	
99,479	7,043	106,522Army	
709,007*	21,618	730.625Air Force	232,594	17,030	249,624Totals	
1,041,080	45,691	1,086,771
Casualties
Killed Wounded Total
Navy	
1,981	319	2,300Army	
22,964	51,410	74,374Air Force	17,047	1,416	18,463Totals	
41,992	53,145	95,137
*This includes 3,633 women members of the R.C.A.M.C.
Twelve lists of the Canadians who were awarded operational or foreign decorations

Supply-National Defence
were placed on Hansard by my predecessors taking the fine record up to October, 1945. I believe it would be the wish of the house that the gallant story of those who were decorated should be completed by placing on Hansard those names which have not previously been recorded here. The list is long and, with the consent of the committee, I suggest that it be printed as an appendix to Hansard when the sessional flood of printing has somewhat abated.
A summary of all awards from the commencement of the War in September, 1939 to March 31, 1947 follows:-
Navy Army Air Force Total British Awards.	1,677	11,932	8,735	22,344Foreign Awards.	54	1,475	213	1,742Totals	
1,731	13,407	8,948	24,086
Included in this final list are four more Canadians who were awarded the Victoria Cross. The citations for these awards have always previously been placed on Hansard, and with the consent of the committee I will have these citations printed in the appendix to which I have referred. The additional Canadians to whom the Victoria Cross was awarded are: Lieutenant Robert Hampton Gray, RCNVR, (deceased); Honorary Captain John Weir Foote, Canadian chaplain services; Company Sergeant Major John Robert Osborn, Winnipeg Grenadiers, (deceased); Pilot Officer Andrew Charles Mynarski, RCAF, (deceased).
Canada made notable contributions to the war in the supply of munitions, food and financial assistance to the allied cause. Canada produced finished munitions of war to a total of about $10 billion. Despite the fact that 25 per cent of our younger farmers joined the armed forces or worked in munitions, the farmers of Canada produced more than 40 per cent more food than in 1939 and by making our surpluses available to Britain and other countries prevented starvation succeeding where the enemy had failed.
The total cost of the war to Canada and its immediate aftermath to March 31, 1947 is estimated at $20-25 billions. Of this $6-43 billions was spent in mutual aid or other financial assistance to our allies.
At the peak of war production 1,166,000 men and women worked directly in the production of munitions and, with the 1.086,771 in the armed forces, made a total of more than two and a quarter million Canadians who served either in the fighting forces or in the direct production of munitions.
These figures give the measure of the problem of demobilization, rehabilitation, and reconversion. At the peak, which may be taken to be V-E day, May 8, 1945, there were 349,159
Canadians in England ahd Europe, including R.C.N. who moved under their own steam. Before they had all been brought home, there were 37,016 wives and 14,630 children, making a total repatriation job for about 400,000 persons. In addition to this total some 10,000 dependents, wives and children had been brought to Canada prior to V-E day. This was proceeded with more expeditiously, more smoothly and with less discomfort than anyone could have hoped for. There are 127 members of the armed forces still in the United Kingdom and Europe, doing work in connection with graves and records, including our military mission to Berlin and liaison staff in the United Kingdom. That work will have to continue for some time. There are some 1,000 dependents who have long ago been offered transportation which for one reason or another they have so far been unable to take advantage of but who still -want to come to Canada.
The repatriation and demobilization of the armed forces ranked first in priority and the way this was organized and pressed through to completion by both my immediate predecessors earned the gratitude of the hundreds of thousands concerned and of their families, indeed of all Canadians.
From time to time suitable tributes have been paid to the ministers and deputies, to the generals and privates, to the workers and the farmers who did their utmost. Canada's national effort in the war was a great national partnership.
We have tried to ensure for our sailors, soldiers, and airmen that they should not be any worse off because they had served. Consequently parliament authorized the introduction of what is regarded everywhere as the most comprehensive and generous plan of rehabilitation in effect in any country. That work and the work of hospitalization and treatment will go bn.
The liquidation of surplus war stores proceeded alongside the demobilization of men. At the close of the war in September, 1945 in Canada we had more than a billion and a half dollars worth of military equipment and munitions. At one time or another in Canada there were some 6,000 different military establishments, all of which have had to be examined to decide which should be kept and which should be disposed of.
We have kept the munitions necessary to equip the Canadian active and reserve forces on a scale never before known. We have also quantities of stores for replacement and a large quantity of stores for mobilization reserves. But more than a billion dollars worth was declared surplus, and the operation of putting all this material in condition for dis-
Supply-National Defence

tribution, storage or disposal made the Canadian armed forces and War Assets Corporation the greatest warehousing and merchandising concerns in the history of the country.
As men were demobilized from the armed forces, civilians were taken on to replace them in the work of demobilization and liquidation, with the result that the civilian personnel reached almost to its wartime peak in December, 1946 with a total of 33,000. As the work of warehousing and disposal was being pressed forward with all possible speed, we were able to reduce the numbers of civilian personnel and at 31st March, 1947 the figure was 20,131 or a reduction of 13,131 representing 37 per cent in four months.


Mr. STIRLING:: That is for the three services?


Brooke Claxton: That is right, and the three departments until their unification. As the work of consolidation and disposal is proceeded with, there will be further reductions from time to time. Every possible care will be taken to see that these reductions are effected with the least possible hardship to Individuals. The small amount of disturbance or complaint in consequence of reductions already made reflects on the capacity of our national economy to absorb these people and also on the good sense of the Canadian people to recognize that there is no justification for keeping them on any longer than they are needed.
The civilians now on strength of the department total 19,7S3. Of these 9,249 are civil servants, or do work similar to that done by civil servants, the remainder are prevailing rate employees engaged in the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt, in the construction or conversion of married quarters, in the handling of stores, in various duties, like watchmen, caretakers, firefighters and so on. Our plan is to have as much of this type of work done by civilians as possible, so as to have as many as we can of our armed forces engaged on planning, training and operations.
This brings me to a consideration of the defence needs of Canada, the organization of our defence forces and the progress made to date.
Taking up first the question of the defence needs of Canada, Canada's defence forces may be required,-
1.	to defend Canada against aggression;
2.	to assist the civil power in maintaining law and order within the country;
3.	to carry out any undertakings which by our own voluntary act we may assume in co-
| Mr. Claxton.]
operation with friendly nations or under any effective plan of collective action under the united nations.
Obviously our needs must be considered in the light of circumstances as they change from time to time. The factors bearing on this are numerous. Among them, the following are particularly important:
(a)	the geographical position of Canada;
(b)	the capacity of any possible aggressor to make an attack;
(c)	the disposition of friendly nations;
(d)	what may be called "the international climate."
Developments in warlike materials, particularly new weapons, have an important bearing on the whole position. As the war neared its end, four new weapons had been introduced and were in process of development. These were the atomic bomb, jet-propelled planes, rockets and higher speed submarines.
Sufficient quantities of any one of these four new weapons probably would have been sufficient to win the war for the side which had them first. These new weapons and the chemical and bacteriological agents now known are so much more devastating than anything previously used that of themselves they may make major changes in the nature of war, should war come again to scourge the earth.
These new powerful weapons reinforce the powerful appeal of those who work to make war impossible. What we have seen of destruction and devastation in world wars I and II would be small in character or extent when compared with the appalling destructiveness of any further large-scale war. For this reason our first line of defence and the object of all our policy must be to work with other nations to prevent war.
This is just as true today in Canada as it is in every other country. Distance and space still combine to give us great natural advantages for which we cannot be too grateful, but distance and space have been drastically reduced and are still shrinking; and the shaping of world events and the changing centres of power have put Canada in a more important strategical position than she has ever been before.
Let us set down here that we believe that it is possible for nations to live in peace- perhaps the fate of humanity depends on this belief becoming an eternal fact. We also believe that in the united nations there is the beginning of an organization which may be developed progressively into a great instrument for peaceful cooperation. But that progress depends on the way in which powers, and particularly the great powers, work with each other. While the proceedings of the assembly

Supply-National Defence
last December gave some ground for encouragement, it is still too early for this or any nation to rest on its arms with the assurance that there will be no aggression.
As the first aim of our foreign policy is peace, so the first aim of our defence policy is defence against aggression.
Having set out what I take to be the defence needs of Canada, it is quite evident that the need for defence forces at any given time must be considered with regard to the proportion of the national budget which we are prepared to spend for that purpose. The business of government involves the balancing of means and ends. No government department would be worth its salt if it was ever satisfied with the functions it was exercising. No defence force will ever be satisfied.
But quite apart from budgetary considerations, I doubt if more than the sum sought of $240,000,000 could be wisely spent in Canada on defence during the current fiscal year. While much progress has been made no one appreciates more than myself that there is still a lot of work to be done in reorganization before we can provide a proper organizational and administrative basis for any defence forces that we may have in the future.
The sum of $240,000,000 will represent about 12 per cent of our national budget. It compares with $35 millions spent in 1938-39 or the low figure of $13 millions for 1932-33. Last year the appropriations voted for the three departments totalled $486,849,141 millions and the expenditures for the year totalled $383,325,686. The amount underspent is partly accounted for by the very much more rapid rate at which our forces were repatriated and demobilized than anticipated. The estimates for 1946-47 were prepared on the assumption that the strength of the three services would total throughout the year 98,360 whereas halfway through the year by October 1, the actual strength had been reduced by demobilization to 55,132. Another reason contributing to the difference between appropriations and expenditures was the postponement of defence purchasing and construction in favour of civilian purchasing and construction.
The work of repatriation and demobilization is to all intents and purposes complete. The work of overhauling and liquidating stores is rather more than 75 per cent complete. We still have, however, large numbers of civilian and service personnel engaged in this work and some of them will be engaged on this for a year or more longer.
In addition, we have a very large number of civilian and service personnel engaged in making necessary conversions in camps and air
stations so as to fit in with the post-war plan. The biggest job being undertaken is to provide married quarters for married personnel. This is the most urgent single need in all three services. We have personnel at work endeavouring to convert into married quarters every available convertible hutment. Our target is to create more than a thousand new dwelling units in Canada this year, but whether or not we can do it depends on the availability of materials and labour. We have largely removed the limitations on what used to be called the married establishments so that anyone in one of the three services who saw active service, andi officers over 25 years, and soldiers over 23, who hrve completed initial training, who are married are entitled to the relevant marriage allowances. Because a large proportion of the officers and men in the armed forces saw service overseas, many of them from the start of the War to the close, a very much larger percentage, probably 65 per cent are married.
At Shilo Camp in Manitoba which I visited during the Easter recess, the military hospital provided assistance at the birth of eleven children in June. Under the regimental institute committees of officers and men and their wives run on a cooperative basis, modern well-equipped butcher and grocery shops, a hairdresser's, a shoemaker's, wet and dry canteens, a moving picture theatre, all kinds of recreations, concerts and dances, as well as a nursery school. In addition to the usual facilities, the army provides a library and a two-room elementary school where sixty children are taught by army-hired instructors and this and similar arrangements elsewhere for the education of the children of our men in the armed forces who are in isolated communities are being geared into the provincial school system.
Despite all our efforts, we are still short of married quarters in almost every establishment. but efforts are being made to remedy this just as soon as possible. I mention this because it shows the changed nature of Canada's post-war armed forces. We aim to create conditions which will attract the best of our young men and enable them to live useful lives as respected citizens of the community.
As in other countries, this is still a year of reorganization. Without excluding other objects of activity, I might mention particularly five matters which have a very high priority in all our activities today
1.	Organization.
2.	Training of officers.
Supply-National Defence

3.	Reserve training.
4.	Research.
5.	Industrial organization.
As all these matters have been touched upon in speeches before this house and elsewhere, it will shorten the proceedings if I do not develop them here, but I will, of course, be only too glad to answer questions on these or any other matters arising in connection with the department.
Since my appointment in December I have taken advantage of every possible opportunity to visit units of the navy, army and air force in many parts of Canada. The total strength of the active forces today is 32,610. They represent a fine body of fit and highly qualified Canadians, well worthy of taking up the record made for them in world war I and which so many of them helped to make in world war II.
_ Mr. IRVINE: Is that the total active force in the three services?


Brooke Claxton: That is right, active
only. I have taken advantage of every possible opportunity to meet representatives of reserve associations, cooperating organizations like the Navy League of Canada and the Air Cadet League, as well as representatives of industry and experts from other countries. All these have extended the most helpful cooperation. In this new world of supersonic talk and saucers flying in formation, it is important that there should be a wide measure of informed and interested support of adequate defence measures by people who have a sense of responsibility and who are willing to accept the responsibility. We can never express too warmly the appreciation this country owes to the officers, N.C.O.'s and men and their civilian friends who, by their voluntary support, maintained our reserve forces through the difficult period of the years between the wars. I must say I am most grateful to them and to their successors who are carrying on now and to all those who have been of such great assistance in this work of national importance.
In closing, I enumerate the long-term objects of the department and services:
1.	Progressively closer coordination of armed services and unification of the department so as to form a single defence force, with the three armed services working together as a team.
2.	Joint intelligence and planning groups to review defence appreciations and plans.
3.	Clothing, food, quarters, pay, pensions and working conditions suitable for young Canadians of high physical and educational standards.
4.	Means to provide the active and reserve forces of the three services with adequate numbers of highly qualified officers.
5.	Development of reserve forces of an age and with educational and physical standards and training approximating those of the active forces competent to go to sea, take the field or fly in action.
6.	Provision for reserve forces of training syllabuses, administration and training officers, and equipment on a larger scale than before the war.
7.	Maintaining adequate reserves of equipment and weapons.
8.	Close integration of the armed forces, the defence purchasing agency, government arsenals and civilian industry, looking towards standardization and industrial organization to permit of the speedy and complete utilization of our industrial resources.
9.	Cooperation between the armed forces the defence research board and private industry regarding defence research so that we keep up to date with regard to the design and planning of weapons.
10.	Support for Canadian Arsenals Limited and a limited number of Canadian industries to maintain and increase skills in the design and manufacture of munitions and aircraft.
11.	Organization of government departments and civilian agencies capable of putting into immediate effect a plan for civil defence.
12.	Government leadership to obtain civilian support of the armed forces.
13.	Armed forces to form an integral part of the life of the community.
14.	Cooperation with the countries of the commonwealth, the United States and other like-minded countries in working out common standards, planning and training.
These objectives will not be achieved at once but we are working towards them. I hope we shall have the support of all parties and members of this house, of members of the active and reserve armed forces, of industry, indeed of the whole community of Canada. The measures to be taken for the defence of our country are matters of individual interest as well as national responsibility.


Grote Stirling: The statement to which we have just listened from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was in the nature of a rapid synopsis of past, present and the future. I want to add a few words with regard to one portion of this matter, namely, the Royal Canadian Navy. Before I do so I should like to ascertain from the minister what his ideas are with regard to the discussion which should

Supply-National Defence
take place. The trend of his remarks this year all led one to suppose that he desires to look upon the defence forces as one service.


Brooke Claxton: No.


Grote Stirling: That was the idea I got from the minister's remarks.


Brooke Claxton: One team' of service forming one armed force.


Grote Stirling: The figures which he gave on various occasions in his statement were of the three services combined, and I am glad if, as the minister says, he is ready to receive discussion of the three services separately; for in the past, both before the war and during the war, that was the custom of this committee and I think that it tended to better discussion than if it browsed around amongst the three services.
His remarks, of course, of necessity were brief. In consequence he could not deal as fully as I am sure he would have wished with the services rendered to this country and to the allied cause by the Royal Canadian Navy. He referred to a good part of its duties having been the retention of the bridge between Canada and Europe, but he did not refer to any of the fighting services which they rendered in the far north, in the channel, and in the Mediterranean. One of the things which I should like the minister to deal with later on is the extent to which our ships have been winterized. It is only after hearing accounts of those who served, either in convoy work or in actual fighting in the far north, that we realize the hardships which the sailor has to put up with in that climate. Now that more consideration than ever is given to defence problems in the far north it is necessary, if we expect our ships to serve within the Arctic circle, that we do everything we possibly can to render the ships adequate living quarters.
The minister did not, I think, go into details with regard to the present strength of the navy. I want to draw his attention to the figures of a year ago and to the figures which he gave in answer to certain questions which I put on the order paper in June. It is the duty of the government to devise the strength of the three fighting services. I am not disposed to criticize the government in this regard, for they are in possession of information which is not available to us. They have had the benefit of the discussions of the permanent joint board of defence. Canada and the United States sit together to discuss the problems. I do not know at what levels discussions take place between Canada 83166-337
and the United Kingdom. Perhaps the minister will give us a little information with regard to that; but a year ago the minister's predecessor gave the actual strength of the navy on July 31 as 8,216. He said the permanent force was then 6,005, and he tacked on to that the interim force of 1,137; and hostilities only, approximately 1,000. We have to endeavour to compare with that the figures given in June in reply to my questions. He gave the figure 7,386-I do not know whether to relate that to the 8,216 actual strength last year or to the 6,005 given as the permanent force. I do not know whether the interim force is still a considered unit which was supposed to carry until September 30 of this year. The minister made no reference to that portion of the Canadian navy figures in June; consequently I want some explanation of that.
Of the 7,386 which the minister gave, 3,590 served afloat, which leaves 3,796 on shore establishments. This more than bears out my contention last year that for every seaman afloat there was necessarily a seaman ashore, and it enters into the consideration of the strength in ships. Last year the minister's predecessor gave these figures as two fleet aircraft, two cruisers, twelve destroyers, eighteen frigates and twelve escort mine sweepers, referring to the fact that only certain of these were in commission; and he finished that statement with the following: "there would be a certain proportion of the fleet always in reserve". I presume that that covers the ships which we now own but which are tied up. The minister explained that we have one aircraft carrier which Canada does not own but whose services we benefit from; one cruiser, five destroyers, one frigate, and four minesweepers. But that does not quite tally with the statement attributed to the minister when he met the press on board H.M.C.S. Nootka, in which he said he hoped very shortly that there would be an air fleet carrier and four destroyers on one coast and a cruiser and three destroyers on the other. Perhaps the minister would enlarge on that matter of strength. Then he dealt at short length with the civilians now in the employe of the three services, but he did not separate those into their various establishments. I wonder whether he would be good enough to give us the total of the civilians employed for naval purposes, and if possible divide them up into their locations and the work which they are carrying out in the various parts of Canada.
He indicated that up until, I believe, March 31 the numbers were drooping, but I should like to know, whether, in view of the

Supply

National Defence

enormous amount of work he described as being still necessary outside of the fighting people, that figure has risen again or has continued to droop.
Then with regard to the reserve, Canada's plan for her navy has for many years been the retention of a highly trained, efficient, small force which could be readily expanded when the need arose, and the success of that plan was undoubtedly proved during this recent war as it was in the previous one. Now we are sliding back again into the condition of a highly trained but small navy which can again be expanded if unfortunately it should need expansion, and supporting that highly trained force there would be a reserve. The last information I have seen from the minister with regard to that reserve force is that there would be eighteen, possibly twenty divisions, across Canada, and the figures which I have for June 9, 1947, spoke of a force of 2,693, which is a notable increase from a year ago. But it does not come very close to the figure which I think the minister gave as the number which he expected to be able to raise.	*
That leads me to the point of recruiting. Recruiting in that term is not used with regard to the reserve. What efforts is the minister making to induce the gradual expansion of that reserve in the various divisions across Canada, and where do we stand today with regard to actual recruiting for the navy? A little while ago in the press I read that certain classes of trained personnel were required, but there was no reference at that time to anything in the nature of general recruiting, and I should like the minister to ?ive us an explanation in that regard.
There are two other matters I want to touch on shortly One is that which the minister, both today and two or three weeks ago, referred to,-the question of housing for personnel. It is my information, whether it be correct or not, that the navy has not come off as well as the other two services in the question of providing roofs for married personnel. I do not need to emphasize to the minister the fact that you cannot have a happy service if you are not able to provide reasonably adequate quarters for that portion of the personnel who are married.
The other point that I want to take up is the question whether it would not be possible to give recognition in the way of assistance in transportation at time of leave. I did take ' this matter up with the minister some weeks ago and he told me that a great deal of consideration had been given to that point when the new rates of pay and allowances were arrived at. He pointed out that it was the

opinion of the department that further assistance for transportation on leave for the permanent service was scarcely advisable because the new rates of pay had taken care of it.
The illustration which he gave did not impress me very strongly. He said that the new rates of pay and allowances were such that they brought the men into fair relationship with their 'brothers in industry. I do not follow that illustration, for this reason. When a man goes into industry he picks and chooses where he will go and decides whether it would be desirable for him to stay there or to move on somewhere else. That is not the case of a man in the service. He is directed to go to a certain place. He is directed to remain there until he is directed to go somewhere else. It would be but reasonable, in a country of the extent of Canada, that our sailors, drawn from every province, and a great many of them from the central provinces, should have some assistance that they may travel to their homes at the times of their leave-assistance in the payment of a certain portion of the cost of that transportation. In many cases when the distance is great they could not afford to do it out of their pay.
We have had a not very good advertisement in the form of "H.M.C.S. Poverty", where eighteen naval ratings purchased a truck because they could not afford to travel otherwise from coast to coast. They pooled their initiative and energy in what the public called "H.M.C.S. Poverty" and drove to the Pacific coast, dropping off en route their members who belonged to other places, and very ably arranging the return journey so that they could pick them up. It does not seem to me that is a very good advertisement of the way we are treating our permanent force employees, and I should like the minister to give further consideration to something in the nature of what, in my railway days in the old country, used to be called privilege tickets.
I understand that the United Kingdom does give assistance to its personnel at the time of their leave. Because they do it is no warrant in itself that we should do it, but when one remembers that the United Kingdom is a tiny country, involving journeys of a few miles comparatively, it makes one recognize the necessity of assisting service people in this country where journeys run into thousands of miles. Surely there is necessity for helping them here.
I should like to understand from the minister before I sit down how he proposes to proceed with this discussion. Item 551 has been called, which covers all three services. I do not know whether he will consider it wise to let the

Supply-National Defence
discussion range over the three services at this time or whether we can discuss naval matters first and then proceed to the other services.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member has raised a question which I must say gives me some difficulty, but perhaps during the adjournment which is about to take place I may have a word with him and the chairman of the committee and representatives of other parties to see what would be the best order. We can proceed to have a general discussion on all the services and. the department together, following this with consideration of the details which appear on page 275 under eight items; or we could as the bon. member has just suggested, deal first with general discussion service by service. It is quite immaterial to me and I am completely in the hands of the committee as to which method we should adopt. I certainly feel, with the hon. member for Yale, that we should adopt one course or the other so that we shall know what we are doing.


Grote Stirling: May I point out that the details on page 275 do not help us in this regard-


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Grote Stirling: -because they are common to all three services.


Brooke Claxton: On that account I think it might be better to do it subject by subject after the general discussion. But if there is any disposition or feeling that it is preferable to treat it service by service, I would be quite prepared to meet the wishes of hon. members with regard to that. If the course is acceptable to my hon. friend, during the adjournment I can meet with him and representatives of the other parties and the chairman of the committee, to decide on a course of action. I might now take up some of the other points he raised.
I want to make it quite clear that when I referred to one set of armed forces, I had in mind the continuation of the three services. In our plans for consolidation and cooperation we want to ensure that they work together as a team in one department and under one national defence headquarters, so that they carry into peace time the reality of combined operations which was an essential ingredient of victory in time of war. As has already been pointed out in this house, the reason why one minister of defence was appointed instead of three, was to bring about that result. But it would be quite wrong to suggest that we have in mind anything in the nature of a complete wiping-out of the differences which result from 83166-337$
the different functions and are useful in maintaining the traditions of the armed forces.
The hon. member has had an interest in the Royal Canadian Navy which we all know and appreciate. No doubt it began because his father had a distinguished career in the Royal Navy. That interest grew because he himself was once minister of national defence, and now it has flowered because as hon members know, he has a son who is serving in the Royal Canadian Navy. It was my great pleasure and privilege to take the first trip I had on a Canadian naval vessel in H.M.C.S. Nootka, which was under the command of Lieut.-Commander Michael Stirling, who was captain of that fine and happy Canadian ship. As to the adequacy of the living quarters, all I can say is that the captain was good enough, while he was occupying his deck cabin, to give up to me his day cabin, and those quarters were adequate indeed.
The plan is to have all Canadian vessels equipped so that they can operate in our northern waters. That is one of the main reasons why the Warrior is being exchanged for the Magnificent. The Magnificent will be winterized. The Warrior was not. All the Canadiian-built tribal destroyers are winterized; and the Ontario, when it puts to sea, will also be winterized. The hope is that our ships will all be winterized and made as comfortable as possible for the fine young officers and men in our Canadian navy, of whom we are exceedingly proud. Conditions will be found to be very different from those at the time when the father of the hon. member for Yale served in the Royal Navy-served I believe as a captain in that splendid service.
With regard to the part played by the navy during the war, its major part of course was in the work of escort. As hon. members will recall, that was referred to in an editorial in the Saturday Evening Post as a miracle of the war. But reference could be made to the fact that ships and crew of the Royal Canadian Navy were in every one of the seven seas, and :hat no less than 10,000 took part in the land-ngs in Normandy, when they supplied over 100 ships.
As the time for the recess has come, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.


Mr. BRACKEN:: May I ask if we shall continue with this business when we come back at two o'clock?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Supply-National Defence


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As you will perhaps notice, Mr. Speaker, it is now 11.30, but the motion, as it is worded in the Votes and Proceedings, refers to 11.45. However, I moved that 11.30 would be the time for adjournment and that motion was carried; so perhaps you could see that it is now 11.45 by the clock.
At 11.45 a.m. the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at two o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Demobilization and reconversion-[DOT]
551. To provide for the orderly establishment and organization of the defence forces of the army, navy and air services on a peace-time basis and to authorize commitments against future years in the .amount of $29,833,648, $226,709,381.


Brooke Claxton: When the committee
adjourned I was endeavouring to answer some of the questions asked by the hon. member for Yale, and particularly to deal with his inquiry as to the order that should be followed in this discussion. I have not had an opportunity of discussing the matter with other hon. members but I think it would meet the convenience of the committee if on the general discussion of these estimates we followed as well as we could the order of navy, army and air force; then later, when we come to details, we might follow the order of those details on page 275 of the estimates. It is recognized, however, that some hon. members may wish to speak on more than one aspect of these matters and of course they should have full opportunity to do so as well as to deal with the work of the department in general. I would suggest that probably the work of the committee would be expedited and the discussion more orderly if as far as possible we followed the order I have indicated in the general discussion, and took up the details under the eight heads listed on page 275. If that is agreeable I shall proceed now to deal with the rest of the questions raised by the hon. member for Yale.


Mr. LBNNARD:: If one wished to discuss the matter of the cadet corps, would he have to deal with naval cadets under the navy, with army cadets under the army and air force cadets under the air force, or where should one discuss the cadet questions?
[Mr. Mackenzie.!


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. member
chooses to discuss navy cadets exclusively then I should think it might be convenient to do so in the early part of the discussion. However, I am sure the committee will accommodate itself to the discussion as we go along. If that is the general understanding I shall proceed to answer the rest of the questions put by the hon. member for Yale.


The CHAIRMAN:: Then do I understand it is agreeable to the committee to proceed in accordance with the suggestion of the minister?


Mr. GREEN:: I do not think we should be bound. If the minister goes ahead with his discussion we will see how it works out.


Brooke Claxton: The next question put
by the hon. member for Yale was with regard to the strength of the navy. As at June 15 the strength of the active navy was 6,621 officers and men, which figure is included in the total of 32,610 for the three active forces which I mentioned this morning. In addition there is on the strength of the navy at the present time, until September 30, in interim and "hostilities only" personnel some 820, making a total strength of 7,441 for the naval forces of Canada, active, interim and "hostilities only".
The hon. member asked about recruiting, and what measures were being taken to obtain recruits. I should say the recruits have been coming in at a satisfactory rate. In toto the navy is nearly up to the ceiling of 75 per cent of the ceiling as announced last year. As has been announced from time to time in the press, there have been vacancies for various trades and ratings, and men have been responding to those announcements. We would like to see more men coming in as tradesmen. We would like to see a steady flow to replace the men who are going out of the navy as ratings in practically all groups; and it is proposed that at the end of the summer, possibly in the months of August and September, a campaign will be conducted to enlist recruits for the active and reserve forces of all three services. Our belief is that when the advantages and opportunities are presented to the young men of Canada we should be able to secure through the instrumentality of a campaign, not on a very large scale, sufficient recruits not only to fill up the vacancies but to provide a fairly steady flow to offset the wastage which always occurs.
Then the hon. member referred to his own remarks last year in regard to the proportions of men at sea and od land. I think it is still

Supply-National Dejence
too early in the organization of our post-war forces to say exactly what that proportion is likely to settle down at, because it depends to a large extent upon what proportion of the armed forces is fully trained. If there is a rapid flow of men in and out of the armed forces then the number undergoing training at the outset of their service career will be high, and that will reduce the number at sea. However, I would not be surprised if the proportion stated by the hon. member is not far off the mark, and it may settle down to something like that figure.
He also asked about ships in the navy at the present time. I do not think hon. members would wish us on all occasions and in every year to give the strength in ships commissioned and in reserve, but at the present time I certainly have no objection to doing that. Based on the east coast there will be the Warrior, and when she is replaced by the Magnificent, the Magnificent, an aircraft carrier. There will also be the destroyers: the Nootka, the Micmac, the Haida, plus two destroyers in reserve; the algerine, the New Liskeard; three frigates and four algerines in reserve. On the west coast in addition to the Ontario there would be the other cruiser, the Uganda, in reserve when she is decommissioned this month; also three destroyers, the Crescent, the Cayuga and the Athabaskan in commission, as well as three destroyers, two frigates and four algerines in reserve.
He asked next with respect to the distribution of civilians in the navy. The present distribution is as follows: On the east coast at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax and Dartmouth, 1,718; at the armament depot at Renous, 192, and at Sydney 143. On the west coast at H.M.C. Dockyard, Esquimalt, 1,285; armament depot, Kamloops, 143; Vancouver, 110. At headquarters, including the joint liaison officers at London and the joint staff at Washington, 776; armament depot, St. Hubert, 61; Montreal, 83; attached to the sea cadets, 4; attached to the royal naval military college at Royal Roads, 84; or a total of 4,602.
The next question was with regard to the reserve force. That is organized in twenty divisions. At the time of the last return that was made in the house it had a strength of 2,693. It is expected that there will be no great difficulty in bringing that number up to the present ceiling of 4,300 by the beginning of the autumn and winter training period.
I have had the opportunity of visiting eleven out of the twenty naval reserve divisions and I must say that with very few exceptions they are in an advanced state of organization, with
their establishments of officers and petty officers well up to what one would expect at a period like this, and with a nucleus of some very good men as ratings. All the divisions are being equipped with the most modern equipment, and with the exception of two or three they have admirable buildings well suited for the purpose, located in twenty of the principal cities of Canada. At this time after the first great war the number of officers and men in the royal Canadian volunteer reserve was about 500.
With regard to housing the hon. member said that he had heard that the navy was not doing as well relatively as the other armed services. I think the only principal places where the navy requires married quarters are at Halifax and Esquimalt.
At Esquimalt the situation is generally speaking better than it is in comparison with the army and air force at most establishments, and even at Halifax it compares favourably with the other two services. There is I think a very acute need for additional married quarters, particularly for the members of the naval air arm centred at Dartmouth. Steps are being taken to convert all possible houses there so as to meet this need as well as we can as soon as possible.
The final suggestion made by the hon. member was with regard to some allowance for transportation on leave. As he said, when the rates of pay were established in 1946 at the new scale it was the feeling of the interdepartmental and inter-service committee that dealt with them, as well as of the departments and the government, that the rates of pay had been fixed sufficiently high to put the officers and men of the armed forces on an equivalent basis with that of civilians. Since then, however, there have been a considerable number of movements of officers and men between the two coasts, which I think put a considerable amount of hardship on them, and the question of its being possible to arrive at some allowance for transportation, at least for this interim period of organization, is being very carefully examined. My information is that neither in the United States nor now in the United Kingdom is any allowance made for transportation on leave. That is my information and I am verifying that. However in view of the very special circumstances in connection with this period of organization the matter is being very carefully considered.


Mr. KIDD:: I listened attentively to the remarks of the minister but I heard him make no mention whatsoever of the Royal Military College at Kingston. Can he inform the
Supply-National Defence

committee of the disposition of the department at this time as to the Royal Military College, why it was closed, when it is to be opened, and the type of personnel that will be permitted to enter the college? I would like the last question answered first.


Brooke Claxton: The Royal Military
College was closed as a cadet college in 1940, long before I had anything to do with this department. I think the answer to the hon. member's question was given in the discussion on the estimates in 1945-46, if I recall correctly. At that time the need was for very iarge numbers of officers who would not be trained on the same basis as officer candidates were being trained at the Royal Military College before the war but who would be trained to meet particularly the urgent demands of war, and for that purpose a school was established at Brockville. I think the graduates of Royal Military College would have been the first to object had the college being used in the same way as before the war, as exclusively a college for training officer candidates. It was not possible to devote three years to that process, and totally different methods and a totally different curriculum were applied. Consequently special cadet colleges were established at Brockville, on the west coast and at St. Jerome. That was the reason why it was not continued as a cadet college. As hon. members know, it was continued to give company officers' courses, senior and junior staff courses and courses in allied military government.
Since the end of the war we have been looking into the question whether Royal Military College should be reopened and, if so, upon what basis. Hon. members know that a committee was set up under the able chairmanship of Brigadier Lett and a report was made. Since that time we have been looking into ways and means whereby the college might be reopened. I have announced on more than one occasion that the present proposal is to have Royal Roads operate as a joint Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force college, beginning in September, 1947. In September, 1948, Royal Roads may be extended to include army cadets as well. R.M.C. would be reopened in September, 1948, as a cadet college on a triservice basis. The curriculum, entrance requirements, conditions of service, pay, clothing and so on have not yet been worked out. It is not an easy programme, as I think hon. members will appreciate when they examine developments in other countries.
Our aim is to do everything possible to see that as far as it can be managed officer cadets of the three services are subject to the same

training and environment and achieve much the same educational standards during their formative years. Our belief is that we must have the highest standards possible. Senior matriculation or the equivalent will be required for entrance, and the curriculum will be such that as far as possible year by year the course will be equivalent to that of the Canadian universities. I have been in close communication of the R.M.C. clubs of Canada who have been most constructive and cooperative. They also have been regarding this problem from the standpoint of the development in Canada of the best possible type of officer. We put that almost first in the priorities for our three services.
I should not close without mentioning the other two plans, namely, the university officers' training corps and the university naval training division, and the university flying cadet arrangements under which undergraduates of the 22 universities of Canada, with all of which we have made satisfactory arrangements, will during their four year courses at the universities take work in addition to the regular academic work and probably sixteen weeks during each of three summer vacations at practical work with pay. Our belief is that in this way we will develop a large group of highly qualified, well educated officers who will have had at the end of. their university courses additional military and practical work. We have some 2,700 officer candidates at the universities under this plan.
Finally, there is the third means of becoming an officer, through the lower decks or from the ranks. We are working on a plan whereby other ranks showing the required educational qualifications, promise and capacity for leadership will be fitted into one of these three plans. In that way we believe that we will have a group of officers second to none.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I should like to thank the minister for the information he has given with regard to the Royal Military College at Kingston. I am not placing any onus on him, but I do place it on his predecessor. I think I am speaking the mind of a great many people across Canada, ex-cadets and others, when I say that the Royal Military College should never have been closed. West Point was not closed, nor were the schools in the old country. Royal Roads was kept open, and at that time there was nothing in Canada for the training of R.C.A.F. officers. I hope nothing will be left undone to see the Royal Military College is opened in 1948. It should have been opened in 1947. The minister has not told the house the number of cadets who enter the college, whether it will

Supply-National Defence
be 50 or 250. I say that advisedly because usually about 50 or 60 enter each year. It is only my judgment, but I say that if you let 1946 and 1947 go by you are losing the opportunity of getting many young men into the service at the ages of seventeen, eighteen and nineteen years. If you wait until 1948 you will have lost this opportunity. There are many young boys who would like to enter the service and who have just received their senior matriculation. You cannot have young men of nineteen, twenty or twenty-one years enter the Royal Military College.
I want to say as forcefully as I can that the department made a mistake and it is making a mistake today. I thank the minister for the information he has given the committee. This is the first time we have been able to get information of this kind. I tried to get it last year from the Minister of National Defence but I could not accomplish anything. I think I am justified in offering a little constructive criticism. I tried last year and also in 1945, but what did the minister's predecessor do? He journeyed off to Cornwall and addressed a service club there and made more or less a public statement in order to get the reaction of the press across Canada. He got it. I asked him to make the same speech the following afternoon at three o'clock but he said jokingly that members of the house would not want to hear a political speech.
I want to thank the minister and I hope that nothing will be left undone to see that the college is opened in 1948. Since 1916 and world war I, I have seen many cadets graduate from the college. Whoever advised the minister's predecessor erred in his judgment in having the Royal Military College closed. It is part of the life of Canada and we cannot get along without it. The sooner it is opened, the better.
The minister has placed on Hansard a carefully prepared brief on what Canada has done as far as 'the war is concerned, but I think that statement is two years late. Last year we tried to get the Minister of National Defence to make a similar statement when his estimates were brought down, but he said, "There are the estimates; shoot your questions at me and I will do my best when the questions come along." As compliments are in order, I must compliment the minister upon his statement. He paid a compliment to nearly every branch of the service, but there is one branch to which he did not refer. He did not refer to the boys who went overseas and joined the R.A.F. before war was declared in 1939. He paid a compliment to nearly everyone else. There is
hardly a constituency represented in the house that did not have in it some boys who went over at that time. Everyone knew in 1939 that war was coming. Some of them went over in 1938. These boys offered their services to various branches of the Department of National Defence, and what happened? They did not want them; they had no place for them. Establishments were made up to a certain size. What did these men do? They were the best flyers in Canada. They were mixed up with the civilian airfields. They went over in cattle boats to the old country. They paid their own transportation and joined the R.A.F. I wish to pay a compliment to them. They fought for Canada andi made a name for Canada. Most of them joined the R.A.F. before Canada was organized for war. Many of them paid the supreme sacrifice. They should not be forgotten.
There is one further comment I should like to make. The minister referred to the permanent force quarters. I brought it to the attention of the minister last year, and what did I get from him? He said:	We are paying them well; they can find their own quarters. I appeal to the minister, who is the employer of the permanent force. I should like to see him throw back his shoulders so far as the permanent force is concerned, whether it is army, navy or air, and to say that everything will be done as far as possible for these men. I appealed' to the minister last year to find married quarters for these men. He did not do it. He said that we were paying these men and that they were getting separation allowance. I know that at Barriefield and in every district across Canada there were huts which these men could use for married quarters.
I wish to refer to one other thing. A man may be in the army one day and out the next. I notice that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is just leaving the chamber. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply was here some time ago. There are men in Canada who are discharged soldiers and who bought homes for themselves but cannot get possession of them. I shall give an instance. I know of a young man who was a junior civil servant.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: Just a minute.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: All right.


William Ross Macdonald: I must remind the hon. member that we are discussing the estimates
Supply-National Defence

of the Department of National Defence. A discussion of veterans affairs or of men who have been discharged from either of the three branches of the service is not permitted at this time.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I quite agree with your ruling, sir. I will put it this way. I am going to appeal to you and to the minister because I think it is the minister's job to fight for the man who has been employed by him. Here is the case of a young man who in 1939 enlisted and served overseas for five years. He came hack after five years' service. Do not forget that there was an election in 1940 and another one in 1945.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We won them both.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: Yes. Election promises were made which are not being lived up to.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I am sure it is the desire of the committee that we should discuss only the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I agree with that. I want to appeal to the minister to fighit for the men who served under him and who are still serving. This young man served overseas for five years. He saved up and came home, and like every other man he wanted to buy a home. The Minister of National Defence is his former employer. This young man came back and what happened? He bought a house-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. If the hon. member is discussing a former member of the armed forces he is out of order. I would ask him to discuss the estimates before the committee.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: All right.


Mr. FRASER:: He is out of order and the man is out of a home.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I may be out of order, but the man is out of his home; he cannot occupy his house. I am appealing to you, sir, to use your influence on the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to see that a man who served under you gets a fair deal, which he is not getting at the present time. I have a concrete case.
I will bow to the ruling of the chair, but I still think that I am in order. I want to appeal to the former employer of this young man-


William Ross Macdonald: When the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs are before the committee the hon. member will be in order to discuss this subject.
[The Chairman.]


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I quite agree with your ruling, sir, but at the same time this young veteran is receiving nothing. I do not like to say this, but the Minister of National Defence is falling down on the job. This young man served under the Minister of National Defence and went overseas.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon.. member said that he agreed with my ruling. I would ask him to abide by it.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I quite agree with your ruling. I know I shall have ample opportunity to bring this matter up again. I want to thank the minister for his reference to the Royal Military College at Kingston.


Mr. PROBE:: I wish to make a few general remarks at this stage before we get into the details of the particular items in the estimates of the Department of National Defence. This morning the minister reminded the committee that last year there was a vote of $486 million for the department which he now heads, of which some $383 million was spent. Last year that estimate represented approximately one-quarter of the Canadian budget for all purposes. The amount spent was some $100 million less than the estimate, due to a speeded-up demobilization, for which some credit is due to the government with all the difficulties they had in that connection. This year I notice that about one-eighth of the entire budget is devoted to this department, roughly $240 million. As near as I can gather that is to be spent almost entirely on Canadian peace-time military expenses.
In his opening remarks the minister referred to certain general considerations of the organization of the peace-time forces. At the moment I am not concerned with the details. They can well be left to the staffs concerned, with whatever criticisms we may have here and there. I just wish to refer to the remarks of the minister in connection with the organization policy which he said it was the intention of the government to establish. He said the primary purpose was to defend Canada; the second purpose was to maintain law and order in Canada, and the third-and I am not too sure that I got him correctly in this, because I am a little concerned about it in part-was cooperation with friendly nations or to meet the demand of the united nations.
In . my view and in that of the party to which I belong, the C.C.F., the armed forces of Canada are not needed to maintain law and order in this country. As a matter of fact if hon. members go over the estimates of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the past number of years they will see that there has been an enormous expansion in that field.

Supply-National Defence
There are other civilian police groups which have to attend to the enforcement of the laws of this country and of the provinces and of the municipalities. It seems to me that law enforcement in Canada should not be the primary role of the Canadian army. We are not a lawless nation. To put ahead of the objective, as I see it, of the Canadian armed forces-that of playing its part in the peace of the world in cooperation with the united nations organization-the maintenance of law and order among our civilians at home as an ideal for the organization, seems to me to indicate improper emphasis.
To refer to the first point that the minister raised in this connection, that the chief consideration of this large expenditure was the defence of Canada, I would point out that if the implementation of the present policy in the defence of Canada is, as it is now, in this interim force, using procedures which to me look very much like those of the old professional service days, then there are some terrific gaps still left to be taken care of. If we take the minister at his word and consider only the defence of Canada, the defence of the shores of this country, the methods he has outlined today are utterly inadequate.
If the minister thinks his department is laying the groundwork for the defence of Canada against attack by an outside aggressor, and that it is doing so by means of what he outlined this morning, I would ask him this question. Does he not believe that if this country is diue for an attack at any time we would have a general civilian participation in its defence? And that includes men, women and children. If that is so, has the minister indicated to the house, anywhere in his statement this morning, to what extent he is preparing the civilian population of the country for the defence of our home land?
Anyone who has the most elementary knowledge of military attack and defence knows that the brunt of defence is nowadays borne by civilians and not by trained troops, that is, by uniformed troops. If we are thinking in terms of air attack we must have our firefighting defences and our first aid equipment. We are undoubtedly going to have antiaircraft gunners and they will be drawn largely from the civilian ranks. The minister has made no reference at all to that form of training, and there is no evidence in his statement that he is making a realistic approach to defence against invasion from any source.
We have our troops employed after a fashion. W'e again have the procedure we had during the war, mentioned by the minister a few moments ago in answer to a question
by the hon. member for Yale, in which we are moving troops back and forth from one end of the country to the other over the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. To give added travel revenues to the railway companies because of a change in the decision of some officer on the national defence staff is not my idea of training troops for the defence of this country. What other means have we in this country, or has the minister indicated he intends to use in this country, for the rapid deployment of the forces that are being trained or that are about to be trained?
If the minister is really sincere in talking defence, he should tell us about some auxiliary transportation facilities other than the railways of the country. Not one word is mentioned in his report about highways, for example. I take that back in part, because I believe there is an item of some 810 million for the northwest staging route. We cannot possibly defend Canada by maintaining no other than that highway built during the last war by the United States. The government of this country, if it is going to follow realistically the policy which it has itself expressed!, must envisage a highway system in Canada such as we are not likely to see for many decades if the government of the day does not do any more about highways than it has done in the past.
We cannot move troops and equipment by these two ribbons that run across this country, the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian National railway. Where are our highways? Where are our feeder highways? If we are going to move troops and move them rapidly, if we are going to move ordnance supplies and other equipment, we cannot rely on railways or airborne transportation. The minister might have mentioned the Hudson Bay route. We have troops training in the north, but there is no indication that the military staff is realistic in its professed intention to defend Canada by using some of the avenues that nature has provided.
I maintain that the minister's department is still making an easy living for a military caste in so far as present defence plans in Canada are concerned, and, further than that, that it is going back to the old laissez-faire ideal which I had hoped was outmoded for war purposes, in which monopoly munitions makers or equipment purveyors are being cut in on the melon if and when a war should take place.
It seems to me that the minister is trying to build up a modern fighting machine. I will give him credit for good intentions, but he is using horse and buggy tactics that are
Supply-National Defence

definitely in disrepute. It seems to me that if we are sincere in defence procedure in this country there is a major field for the Department of National Defence, and that is in the utmost utilization of the research facilities of this country and the extension of these research facilities far beyond what is envisaged in the amount of money authorized for military research purposes.
I want for a moment to refer to what I think are still a number of hangovers from the demobilization period. The minister referred to the fact that some three-quarters of the military stocks, buildings and so on, had been disposed of. Surplus stores and establishments, to the extent of some two-thirds or three-quarters, had been disposed of through War Assets Corporation. Have we not a ridiculous picture here again? On the one hand the minister and his department are declaring stores and equipment surplus to War Assets Corporation, which will be sold or given away to the trade, and we immediately ask for some $200 million odd. Of course, I realize that some of this is for salaries, but there are large commitments again for additional equipment and I would like the minister to assure the committee that the stores that have been disposed of and the establishments that the Department of National Defence has declared surplus, particularly buildings, are such that in no sense are they duplicated by new contracts or new purchases by his department. We certainly do not want that continuous building and handing over and building that seems to go on so planlessly for the defence needs of the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is well planned.


John Oliver Probe: It is well planned, but for whom? Not for the Canadian people but for a few individuals who will make easy money out of the suckers, the Canadian government and the Canadian people. This group, the C.C.F., emphasizes the fact that interested groups can again hang like leeches to the governmen'ts skirts, and can again make a profit from the weapons of destruction in whatever form they may be, and that this policy is one of the contributing factors to war fever.	.
I was pleased that the minister this morning made a rather laughing reference to the so-called flying discs which for some days now have disturbed many of the good citizens of this country, because the hysteria as a result of which we can get into a war panic is so easily aroused. We must prevent such rumour spreading; we must make it unprofitable for anyone, whether it be the military caste in the seats of the Department of National

Defence or whether it be in the commercial organizations which profit when there is a war on. We want to still their voices, their gossip and their propaganda so that we can have a chance for this world to establish the peace in which every hon. member in this house is sincerely interested.
I was pleased to hear the minister state that his department is now willing to assume responsibility for living quarters for the married members of the interim and permanent force. After all, with our housing situation in this country as acute as it is, the department is best fitted to make accommodation available for those whom it employs in the forces of the country. I think that is a matter with regard to which either the minister's department owes this committee an explanation, or perhaps he can tell us that he has made the utmost use of the buildings which were in possession of the Department of National Defence for conversion into suites and quarters for the members of the forces. I want to compliment the minister for his humanity in taking the role of a benevolent employer and assuming the responsibility for providing the quarters in which the married members of the armed farces live.
Before the dependents' allowance board is closed off with respect to the last war, there are still quite a number of cases which the minister should investigate with respect to improper cutting off of the dependents' allowance paid. As hon. members will note from the wording of the regulations of the dependents' allowances board, it is not the-right of a dependent of a soldier, airman or naval rating to receive the allowance permitted by the regulations. That is, it depends on the whim, if you like, or the good wishes of the dependents' allowance board. To my mind that is a vicious principle. If in the future allowances are to be paid to members of families of serving personnel, those allowances should be theirs as of right once they are established as members of such families.
The minister referred to the fact that going wages were being paid to civilian employees of his department. To my knowledge, and by admission of the minister's own department, employees of the Department of National Defence in the city of Regina-at the Regina ordnance depot, to be specific-have not only not been receiving the going wage but in some cases have been receiving less than the minimum wage of $18.50 a week provided by the laws of Saskatchewan. I know the government of Canada is not bound by the labour law's of any of the provinces; that is, it is sovereign in that respect. But if we can

Supply-National Defence
throw away thousands and millions of dollars on pensions for the brass hats of the service- and I do not say that in the sense in which the hon. member for Temiscouata sometimes uses the term-and the higher officials of the professional services can receive pensions as high as $8,900 a year, surely the man whose sole income is the wages he earns, working for the Department of National Defence, is worth more than $18.50 a week.
In closing I would once more remind the minister that, if he is sincere in his suggestion that his department is intent on the defence of Canada, he should organize Canada so that it is a defensive unit. But, above all, while he is doing that-(because we have not yet made the united nations function as those of us who are its well-wishers hope it will function-I hope he will exert every effort of the Canadian government and the Canadian people to the end that the military set-up of the united nations be implemented at the earliest opportunity. Once again I should like to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the excellent contribution he made last winter when, on behalf of Canada, he spoke first before the united nations asking that the enforcement of the peace of the world be assured by a rapid and early setting up of defensive forces on a global basis, not on a bloc basis.


Mr. HANSELL:: I rise at this time not to discuss defence in general but to get down to a little matter of detail, one which concerns part of our national defence which my small community might have to do with. The minister will know what I am talking about the very moment I mention that the community of Vulcan, Alberta, requires a drill hall.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Ernest George Hansell: We have been working
on this matter for at least a couple of years. I have had several interviews with officials respecting the matter, and some with a previous minister of national defence. As I understood the situation we thought a drill hall was already in sight. Then about a month ago I was informed that perhaps a change would have to be made because there was no appropriation for that small project in this year's estimates. I interviewed the Minister of National Defence, who was very kind and courteous, and promised to look into the matter. I do not know whether he has a report as yet, but by this time perhaps he has and will be able to say something about it.
The amount included in last year's estimates for this undertaking was approximately $32,000. It was my understanding that a drill hall had been secured somewhere in the northern section of the province and that tenders were being called for its removal to Vulcan. Following that I understood something went awry but that a suitable building had been secured in the southern part of Alberta, which would have to be moved only about sixty miles. The people felt quite happy about that; then, much to our disappointment, this further information came to us. I do not quite understand why that item is left out of this year's estimates. Indeed, I do not know whether it is left out. As a matter of fact I doubt whether it would be technically correct to say it is left out of these estimates, because I expect that quite apart from parliament voting this sum, if this project has been left out at all the department has left it out of its own particular administrative orbit, in that it has not included the project as one of those to be undertaken.
As far as this parliament is concerned I do not know that we are particularly informed as to every project that might be involved in an expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. This appropriation amounts to $226,709,331 or nearly $227,000,000. The details appear o:i page 275, where I see an item of $14,348,558 or nearly $14,500,000 for the acquisition, construction, purchase, maintenance, repairs, rentals and operating expenses of properties. That is a considerable sum of money. I am not objecting to it at all, but I would point out that it is for new equipment and repairs, which means it is at least in addition to what the defence department already have by way of buildings as a result of the recent war. I believe this amount of over $14,000,000 is sufficiently elastic for the minister to include the Vulcan drill hall in the list of projects for this year.
Now may I say that my small community of Vulcan feels quite justified in asking for a drill hall for the reserve forces that train periodically in that district. They feel justified for more reasons than one. The community has a very proud war record. I know that is the case with all communities, but we feel that we can put the record of our community up against that of almost any other in Canada. It is only a small community. In the purchase of war bonds I believe we rank among the highest in Canada on a per capita basis; and the same applies even to such small matters as salvage campaigns. My own children came home wearing upon their arms stripes they had earned in a campaign to collect
Supply-National Defence

salvage. That is a small thing, of course. The Red Cross in our community has a wonderful record. Perhaps the thing of which we are prouder than anything else is that our war memorial, in the form of a cenotaph, has inscribed upon it the names of thirty-three young men, the very cream of the community, who gave their lives somewhere in the world during the last war. When I say this I am not boasting in any way, I say it in all humility. I know other communities have similar records, but I am stating these facts because to some extent we are dealing with public feeling. In spite of this record, to my knowledge the community of Vulcan has never asked the federal government for one nickel. That community has been on the contributing end of the nation's business. They are not sounding a grievance at all; they are proud of their efforts. Anything the town has it has obtained through its own efforts. We do not even have a publicly-owned post office, though very many communities of that size have such a building.
I say these things because I know if this town does not get this drill hall this year the people will feel extremely disappointed, and as far as I am concerned personally I will feel that the community has been slighted. I do not want to leave the impression that we are coming along asking for a favour. We are not. The community is asking that it might assist in our national defence programme, and that it be permitted to give that assistance under the most adequate conditions. That request, I think, is only reasonable. Furthermore I might say it is recognized by the departmental officials that such a project is needed. I wish to read a paragraph from a letter written by Colonel Snow, the officer in command of the western command. It is a letter that was recently received by a service club explaining why the $32,000 was not included in this year's estimates. In concluding his letter Colonel Snow says:
I am very sorry indeed that this matter has taken the course it has and I agree with you that Vulcan must have military accommodation very soon if our reserve force in that area is to continue to function.
If the lack of a drill hall means that the reserve force in Vulcan is not going to function, surely that is a serious matter. Colonel Snow is a highly respected official of the department and I think what he says should be enough for the minister now to say:	We
will do all we can for you.
I understand that the policy of the government in respect to these drill halls is to expect that they might be used for community recreational purposes as well, and I

agree with that policy, I think it is an admirable one, and since it is the policy of the government I suggest that our community has many small organizations without a place to carry on their activities. We have the boy scouts, the girl guides; we have cadets in that community; we have physical training classes and quite a few other movements of the kind. If it should rain, and I am sorry to say that we do not get much rain in that part of the country, but if it rains on the night on which one of these organizations is to meet, they have to postpone their meeting and stay home; nothing can be done. In the winter time their activities are almost non-existent. If a drill hall were constructed at Vulcan, the defence department would be doing a great deal for the community as well as in promotion of their own defence programme.
I have two suggestions to make. I suggest and urge as strongly as I can that if the minister cannot adjust his programme to include this project in this vote, he bring down a supplementary estimate to cover it. I do not want the minister to take advantage of my next suggestion, which is one that has been made by one or two of the organizations in that community; but if it is impossible for him to bring down an estimate for the construction of this drill hall, there is a recreation 'hall in the Vulcan air training school, which is situated about six miles out of the town. It would not be as satisfactory as a new drill hall, but perhaps it would be the next best thing; it would serve temporarily at least. It would have to be moved a distance of six miles, and I am suggesting that if it is impossible to go ahead with the plan for a drill hall as originally proposed, this recreation hall be moved and used for the purposes I have mentioned. I suggest that as the next best step. I understand that the building I have in mind has already been declared surplus. I must qualify that statement by saying that I did not. get the information from official sources, but I understand that is correct, and if it is, the building belongs to the national defence department.
In conclusion, I know that the minister has called for a report on this matter and perhaps there has not been time enough yet to get the report from the western command at Edmonton or Calgary, whichever it is. If the minister has not yet received that report,
I feel I know what his answer is going to be, that he will do his best to carry out my suggestion. I wonder if he can say to me now that something will be done about this matter this year. I want to thank the minister's parliamentary assistant for the time

Supply-National Defence
he is spending on what might appear to be a very small thing when we are talking in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars. But it is not a small thing so far as that community is concerned. For them it is a big thing indeed, and the department needs a drill hall too. Will the minister now promise me that he will do something about it this year?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I think I should reply to the hon. member for Macleod at once, because some other hon. members may have drill hall problems on their doorsteps and perhaps a brief statement as to the position might be useful.
I think nobody appreciates more than the department and the officers of the services the very strong desire which has been repeatedly expressed by reserve units and members of parliament and other community leaders for the provision of suitable armoury accommodation where that is not now available. I can assure all concerned that plans are being prepared to enable the department to proceed with a construction programme just as soon as the government feels that the time is ripe. My predecessor had hoped to begin last year with the construction of four or five different types of armouries in different localities so that we oould get on with the job and show our serious intent and also gain some experience. However, the shortage of housing accommodation was so great throughout the country that the feeling was expressed by the government, and I am sure was shared by members of parliament as well as by the people generally, that during these immediate post-war years we should deal with houses first. That is the policy of the government and of the department. As I have already pointed out, our target this year is to try to convert or construct over 1,000 new dwelling units for married personnel, thereby relieving the general pressure on housing accommodation throughout the country. On that account it has not been possible to calculate on making any new construction of armouries this year. I am sure that the hon. member for Macleod realizes that though his need is great and that of the reserve unit at Vulcan is great, there are units and places in Canada where the need is even greater. I know in the case of my old drill hall on Craig street, where they had only two major units before the war they now have four regiments of artillery and the Regiment de Maisonneuve. I can think of the drill hall at Quebec where instead of having two major units they now have four.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Can the minister think of the drill hall at Swift Current?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, and1 also at
Edmundston, Saskatoon, and a few other places where the need is great. What we are doing is to try to convert existing buildings which were built by one or other of the armed forces during the war to be used on a temporary basis. This has been done successfully at Winnipeg and other localities.


Ernest George Hansell: That is the very thing I am asking for.
Mr. CLAXTO'N: I can assure the hon. member for Macleod that the matter he raised is receiving the most active consideration. We have not yet reached the point where we can carry out the alternative he mentioned. Wherever it is possible we will do that, and when later on circumstances permit I hope we shall be able to proceed with a long term programme of construction.


Mr. MERRITT:: Mr. Chairman, I was glad to hear the minister say what he had to say to the hon. member for Macleod. The question of training quarters for our reserve units is one of great importance, and it should be receiving close attention even though there is a housing shortage in Canada. I hope the hon. member will get a drill hall, either on a temporary or permanent basis, as soon as possible.
I should like to try to wrench the hon. ministers mind away from the consideration of a drill hall at Vulcan to the statement he made this morning. I was glad to hear him make that statement, and I was pleased with most of what he said. It represents quite a change from what I can only describe as the sorry attitude of the government during the past two years toward matters of defence. I use those words advisedly, because the policy was apparently dictated by the idea that all people interested in the defence of the country must remain in complete uncertainty as to what they were supposed to do until the united nations had laid down some task for us to follow. In saying what he did the minister was adopting what we in this party have been advocating in every session since this parliament began. He said that the first job of the armed forces of Canada is to defend Canada. By saying that, the minister has put certainty into the purpose for which our armed forces exist, and I commend him for that statement. From now on we will have a chance to create an adequate defence force in this country and to keep it up through the years. It seems to me that at last the government is really coming to grips with defence problems and is getting its feet on the ground. I was so delighted with most of what the minister said that I can only
52S6
Supply-National Dejence

express the wish again that he or his predecessor had said it two years ago, because it was as obvious then as it is now, and it was as necessary then as it is now.
I want to refer in particular to only two of the minister's statements, although I think all fourteen of the points he brought out were good. First, he said that the purpose of the armed forces was to defend Canada, and, second, one of his fourteen long-term points was that there must be government leadership to get the Canadian people behind the armed forces of Canada. By making those statements he is hitting the nail squarely on the head, and I am heartened by their having been made.
I should like to say one word about what was said by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe) who expressed the views of the C.C.F. party on defence matters. The statement he made was most interesting, because to me it showed that the socialists have not changed.


John Oliver Probe: They have not.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The policy enunciated this afternoon by the hon. member, that we have no need of armed forces for internal security, that the first need of armed forces is to carry out some obligation imposed on us by a global organization, is just the disarmament talk of 1920 to 1940 dressed up in 1947 clothes. I warn the minister not to pay any attention to this disarmament policy. It was blown up before or by the last war. If he sticks to the policy which he has announced, which we in the Conservative party have urged on him, he will not go very far wrong.
I want to refer to one of the fourteen points announced by the minister, thait there is need for government leadership to get the support of the Canadian people and of all Canadian organizations behind the armed forces. I mention that point to underline its importance and I ask the minister to underline its importance throughout the country. He should lose no opportunity of enlisting the support of various civil organizations and individuals making up our national life. We are not a warlike people; we are inclined to wait until we get into trouble before we make these preparations. In the past the armed forces have been handicapped by a lack of public realization of their value. I do not think that attitude has changed much. The Minister of National Defence should always keep that idea in his mind and should prevent us from sinking back into the attitude we had between the wars.
The new certainty which he has given by his statement was badly needed by both the

active and the reserve forces. You cannot, as the minister has done, suddenly cut Canada's armed forces twenty-five per cent below what was stated to be the irreducible minimum without making people in the forces start to wonder whether the career they have chosen is worth while, and -whether the opportunities they thought were ahead of them before that change still remains. Today 'they will feel reassured that their future is a safe one. The minister's statement that provision is to. be made for permanent quarters for people in the active forces will do much to make these forces contented and of good morale. But when I turn to the reserve army-and I am dealing with the reserve army in particular, although I think it will apply to the reserve air force and to the reserve navy as well

I am not sure that the minister's statement today has really met their problem at all, at least not as far as it should.
The reserve army ought to have an honoured place in Canadian life. It should not be, as it is now and as it always has been, a poor relation of all other public functions. When the minister stated that the whole purpose of our force was to defend Canada, he might also have said.-and I think he will agree with me-that the reserve navy, army and air force are the first line of defence of Canada's shores and of the Canadian people. It is the reserve forces upon which we must rely in case we ever need to defend this country. The active force cannot possibly hope to provide more than an infinitesimal number of the force necessary. The minister should keep pounding on that idea when he goes around the country, and perhaps state the purpose of the Canadian forces, and particularly the reserve forces, more specifically even than he did today when he said that they were to. defend Canada. He should emphasize that the reserve forces are our first line of defence and are vitally necessary to us in these unfortunate and uncertain years. I do not think it can be said today that either the people of Canada or the reserve army itself feels that their purpose is so important in the mind of the government.
I took the trouble to find out from various parts of Canada how some chaps in whom I had considerable confidence were feeling about the reserve army of post-war days, and I was amazed at the uniform nature of the answers I received when I asked them how they were getting on. In every case it was said that the government had no certain policy. In other cases it was said that nobody had ever told them what their purpose was. In still other cases it was said that as a result of a failure to state the purpose and the policy behind the

Supply-National Defence
reserve forces recruits were not coming in, and the high morale with which a large number of excellent officers and N.C.O.'s entered the reserve army at the end of the war was not being maintained as well as they would have liked to see it. It is true that they had other complaints which are perhaps more difficult of solution, such as adequate training quarters. But the complete agreement of all these people right across Canada, from one end to the other, people who did not know each other, people who served in different parts of the country in different units and under completely different circumstances, is something which I do not think can be ignored.
While I commend, as I have said already, the minister on his statement today, I am bringing this point to his attention now because I say to him that we have had fine words but we have had no performance as yet. We are delighted to accept his words but we require a considerably higher measure of performance than has been provided by the department up until this year. I want to say to him. too, that there is a great deal of ground to be made up; that, as I understand the case, it is not as though he can now catch easily the spirit which existed in 1945. He has to go and dig for people, and give not only the units themselves and the officers and N.C.O.'s, but also the general public, the idea that he is behind his reserve army and that he proposes to make it good and popular and to bring it up to adequate strength; that he is going to provide both moral and material backing; and the most important of these is the moral backing which he alone in his capacity as Minister of National Defence can give. I told his predecessor last year that he could be the least expensive and the most effectual recruiting agency this country could possibly have.
I want to ask the minister to give us now, having stated his principles so excellently, a statement of the practical steps that he is proposing to take to stimulate interest in our reserve army. I want him to tell us its strength, to give us an idea of the average number of men on the strength in some typical units, to let us know how recruits are coming in, what the wastage is in the discharge of people who have joined and are now going out, and to give us some further information on this recruiting programme that he plans in September.
I also wish to say to him that for the reserve forces at least, a September recruiting programme will not do; that it has to be a continuous recruiting programme going on all the time, and recruits being provided not by a
campaign but by a continuous knowledge on the part of young people in each centre that in their armoury they can find interesting work, health-giving recreation, and above all that they have a useful part to play in Canada's service. I hope the minister will make a statement on the specific steps he proposes to take with respect to the reserve forces in carrying out these good principles that he has laid down.


John Oliver Probe: Before the gallant member for Vancouver-Burrard concludes I should like to direct one remark to him with your permission, Mr. Chairman. He made reference to the necessity of propagandizing this country as to the needls of defence. His statement, which I presume represents the policy of his party, is to my mind somewhat reminiscent of the conditions that prevailed in nazi Germany prior to 1939.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Sit down.


John Oliver Probe: Let me finish. You do not have to agree with me at all.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: We do not.


John Oliver Probe: All right. Let me say-


Lawrence Wilton Skey: You had your say before.


John Oliver Probe: I will say it again. As I say, the German nation was prepared to the hilt for war by every possible manner of means before 1939. The Canadian nation, to quote the hon. member who has just sat down, and whose military opinion I value very highly, was totally unprepared in the sense that he wants us to be prepared now for war. I wonder, then, how he would account for the fact that the unpreparedness of the citizen army of Canada was equal on all occasions to the arms of Germany.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Two years of training after war broke out.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the British navy?


Mr. ADAMSON:: And we so nearly lost the war that we don't want to be in that position again.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many C.C.F. went to the war?


John Oliver Probe: May I say that if the statistics were recorded there were more members of the
C.C.F. in the overseas armed forces than from any other single political party.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Where do you find those figures?
Supply-National Defence


Lawrence Wilton Skey: What did your leader say? Cash on the barrel and not a man overseas.


John Oliver Probe: Not an industrialist would work for the minister of munitions and supply until the five per cent lid was taken off.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order.


John Oliver Probe: I asked a question in all sincerity, and I do not have to take dirty slurs from these warmongers to my right.


James Arthur Ross: Not a man overseas.


John Oliver Probe: Don't worry. A lot of our men went overseas. Don't you kid yourself. You know better than that.


Mr. TIMMINS:: What fighting outfit was the last speaker in?


William Henry Golding: Order.


Mr. HARKNESS:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the hon. member withdraw the remark he made in which he called us in this particular party warmongers. He has no basis in fact or anything else for making that assertion, and I think he should withdraw it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


William Henry Golding: I did not hear the statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe) finished his outburst a moment ago by accusing the members of this party of being warmongers. We are not warmongers, and I do not think any instances could be cited to show that that is the case. I would therefore ask that the hon. member be required to withdraw that remark.


Ernest Bertrand: We are losing time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can we have a ruling, Mr. Chairman?


William Henry Golding: I did not hear the remark myself, but if-


Grote Stirling: He shouted it.


William Henry Golding: I am quite sure that if the hon. member saidi anything offensive he will be willing to withdraw it.


John Oliver Probe: If I injured the pride or the feelings of any of the members to my right I am exceedingly sorry I wounded their susceptibilities.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On the question of privilege, the hon. member made an absolutely false statement-


John Oliver Probe: Now you take that back.
Mr. HARKNESS-and I ask that he be requested to withdraw it.


Brooke Claxton: I am glad to feel that I did not contribute anything to the heat of this afternoon. I shall try now to contribute something in the way of light upon the situation with regard to the reserve forces. I appreciate the kindly spirit of the remarks of previous speakers and t'heir very cooperative attitude, and1 I would like to deal with the question of reserves, because, as I have said on numerous occasions in this house and outsidie, they do form the foundation, the nucleus of any forces that might be needed to defend Canada in the event of an emergency.
I may tell the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who took his seat a few minutes ago, that I have some first-hand experience of the work of the reserves because before going overseas in world war I, I was in a reserve infantry unit and upon returning I was in a a reserve artillery unit, and since then I have kept up the connection with that unit in Montreal. I can tell hon. members, as I believe many know, that immediately after the last war the reserves were in a very low condition indeed. For the year ended March 31, 1920-21, the sum of $1,160,000 was all that was provided for reserve training. In the unit in which I was, there was no equipment, there was very little training, there were a few officers and a few non-commissioned officers, there were very few men, and very soon interest diminished and it took years before the reserve was put on a proper footing. I believe that following this war we have taken steps to avoid that happening with regard to the reserve navy, the reserve army and the auxiliaries of the air force. First of all we have tried to create a new approach to the whole subject of reserves. Previously they were regarded as a rather special and frequently a social group who spent one or two days a week and sometimes some of their summer holidays in drill and1 some exercises. That was quite an improper attitude, but it was the attitude that was taken. Our view is that, the importance of the reserves having been shown in two wars, we should now take them for what they are, namely, an essential part of the armed forces of Canada, and that all differentiations between the active and the reserve should be wiped out. We have done it with regard to the navy by abolishing the wavy stripe. As far as possible it is done with regard to the army. Further, as far as possible officers, non-commissioned officers

Supply-National Defence
and men of the active and reserve forces mix together, wearing the same uniforms, undergoing the same training and using the same weapons. The psychological approach is therefore quite different.
With regard to the supply of training, there again we are on a different footing. New syllabuses, new methods of training developed during the war, are available, and every unit has full-time administrative and training personnel. This is an experiment that is being worked out in close cooperation with the reserve units themselves.
In addition, we aim to have in the reserve forces men who are physically fit and qualified from the military point of view to take their place in the field of action, should it become necessary, with a minimum of additional training. We believe that in many fields of activity it is possible over a longer period of time to bring the reserves up to the same efficiency as the active forces, and this year it seemed to us that the right place to start was first of all in getting these administrative and training officers attached to the various units and fitted into them; second, to have the units established through a cadre of officers and senior non-commissioned officers; and third, having them set up working conditions and administrative establishments that can really do the job when they get the men.
It would have been wrong for us to get large numbers of men without having officers, non-commissioned officers, training personnel and equipment to make really effective use of them so that they, in turn, would feel that they were making good use of their time. I believe from what I have seen, that in most units that have been activated across Canada, great progress has been made in these preliminary steps of organization. To indicate something of the magnitude of the difference between the reserve army now and what is was before the war, or still more at the end of the last war, I might mention that the amount provided in the army estimates alone for the reserve forces is of the order of $13 million. That is a sum equivalent to the total provided in the year 193233 for all the armed forces of Canada put together. But that is only part of the picture, because a major part of the work of the active forces is the training of the reserve and the supplying of stores, equipment and motor vehicles for them. This is now being done on a scale quite different from anything which has been done in the past.
With regard to numbers, the total number in the reserve army at June 15 was 33,704 men, to which should be added, I think, 1.418 in the Canadian officers training corps, although they
do not form part of the reserve properly so-called. That makes a total of 35,122 men. For those on the establishment, training is provided this year for thirty days; and in addition, 10,000 are to receive fourteen days' training at summer camps. Provision is made to give 15,000 tradesmen and specialists, if they are available, fifteen days' additional training at local headquarters.


Howard Charles Green: How many of those are officers and non-commissioned officers?


Brooke Claxton: Of the 33,704, there are 4,716 officers.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Can the minister say among how many units that total is divided?
Mr. CLAXTQN; I have not the figures.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Has the minister a rough idea?


Brooke Claxton: I will see if I can give it. It would be misleading to give any total number of units, because they vary from units which exist only as names on paper in the total establishment provided for, to units which are over their established strength; hence any notion of the number of units would be quite misleading. But there are approximately 650 units active in the reserve army in Canada.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Could the minister give a rough average of the number who would be on the strength of an infantry battalion, an artillery regiment, and field company engineers, so that we would have some idea of whether a unit existed on paper only or was one sufficient to train.


Brooke Claxton: The fact that there are 35,122 officers and men on the strength indicates that there is a substantial group of officers and men on the strength. However, I will try to get for my hon. friend some indication of the kind he has requested.


Howard Charles Green: That is not as many as there were before the war, is it?


Brooke Claxton: Oh, no. Before the war there were about 45,000, according to my recollection.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is correct.


Brooke Claxton: Then, before the war I think the largest number to receive annual training at camp was about 14,000.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Seventeen thousand in 1938.


Brooke Claxton: This year we hope that an equal number will receive a superior type of training at camp.
Supply-National Defence

Now with regard to recruits: there are exceptions, but in the great number of units that I have seen it would not have been a good thing for those units to have more recruits than they have at the present time. Their state of organization, the state of the equipment and training must be put into good order before they are ready to handle recruits properly. In some units that is not so. I have no doubt that with a campaign such as we envisage taking place towards the end of the summer, we can obtain for the reserve army the recruits that are needed to fill up whatever is fixed for their establishment for the next training year. I think that result will follow very easily for the great majority of units.
The hon. member has rather flatteringly urged that more attention be paid by myself, in my speeches, to the reserves. I have done what I could, I must say, on four occasions in the house so far, and I think in speeches in every province in Canada, including the four western provinces; certainly in a large number of speeches. I have not only endeavoured to draw the attention of the communities to the importance of the reserve, but also I have met reserve officers and men of the navy, army and air force at meetings specially arranged, and have discussed frankly with them the plans we have for them. Also I should say that I have met representatives of the council of defence of the reserve associations of the army-there are some eleven of them-representatives of the associations of the naval and air force officers in various parts of the country, and discussed frankly with them arrangements for reserve training and ways and means whereby we can work together in order to do this important job. I must say that the response has been good, and I believe that with the support of hon. members and other leaders in the community we can really make progress in this field.
I wish to say one word in conclusion on that subject, and it is this. In t'he western command there has been established a practice which has been found most useful. Under Major General Worthington there has been set up in each reserve unit in the western command a civilian committee charged with the function of supporting that unit in every way possible. In the great majority of cases these civilian committees are doing useful work in support of the reserve units. We hope that- the same procedure will be applied in other commands across Canada. I may tell hon. members that as part of the changed organization of the armed forces, general officers commanding commands, and there are IMr. Claxton.]
five of them across Canada, are given very much greater authority than ever before on a decentralized basis, and for the first time they can say what units are ready to take what classes of training. If a unit is ready to take training to a greater extent than is provided in the quota, he has power to make the necessary adjustments. Also the per capita grant made to the officers commanding units is to be on a flexible basis for the first time, so it can be adjusted by the general officer commanding. These arrangements have been made pursuant to suggestions by the reserve associations, and they have met with very general support. I would say our expectation is that the reserve units will be established on a very sound basis by the time they begin their autumn training this year.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If I may follow up what the minister has just said, I simply want to repeat that according to my information the men are not coming into the reserve army. I ask the minister to take that as an honest statement of opinion after investigation and look into this question again. Then I want to ask him this question. When the reserve army was first formed mj'- understanding is that its total strength was to be 180,000, and that it was on a six-divisional basis. Since that time it has been cut, along with the regular forces, by two-thirds, according to a press report I have here. This would mean it was cut to about 50,000 men. Were the units in the reserve army, that is the divisions and the individual units, cut at the same time, or did that cut of two-thirds mean that an infantry battalion, for instance, would be authorized to train only one-third its proper strength, and so on with other units? From my own experience in the non-permanent militia before the war I feel quite certain that if you authorize the training by a unit of only one-third its strength, or perhaps even less, and only pay it for that number of men on strength, you will do quite a lot of damage to the reserve army, even without intending to do so. If the minister is going to cut the total force envisaged I think it very important that he cut the number of units instead of cutting the number of men who can be trained in a unit.


Brooke Claxton: The newspaper report to which the hon. gentleman has referred of course is quite wrong. There is nothing whatever in it. There was no justification and no basis for it. The establishment of the reserve forces of Canada remains exactly as it was, and no change has been announced in that.


Howard Charles Green: It remains at 150,000?

Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: It stands at 180,000 plus, and that is about what it was before the war. There have been adjustments to bring the figure into line with changes in the types of arms, and changes in the population of Canada, but there has been no great change in the figure of 180,000 as compared with what it was before the war. That is the establishment which has been set down on paper for six divisions, should it ever be decided to raise six divisions in the event of a war. However, it was never planned by anyone that there should be 180,000 officers and men in the reserve army of Canada in peace time, or if that was planned I never heard of it. The figure generally set has been of the magnitude of 50,000, or something of that kind; and for this year the ceiling was set at
30,000.	We have exceeded that, as I have indicated, by some three or four thousand; and the figure for training will be set early next year so the officers commanding units may know what the programme is. We are combining that with what my hon. friend suggested; that is, leaving units dormant, on paper, rather than activating them when there seems very little chance of getting them up to strength and efficiency. The greatest possible attention is being paid to units in centres having quarters, equipment and traditions which indicate the strong probability of their being successfully brought to a state of efficiency at an early date.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I listened with great interest this morning to the comprehensive review of his department given by the minister. While it took some time to present that statement I think it was well worth while. I believe it was one of the most informative statements we have had from a minister of national defence in recent years.
I rise at this time to obtain some information from the minister. Recently in this city we had the opportunity to witness a parade of uniformed corps, under the discipline of officers and non-commissioned' officers, bearing arms. Some of us judge there were between 2,500 and 3,000 men in these units. Large numbers of them carried, rifles which were issued to the French army in the war of 1914-18. A smaller number carried Lee Enfield service rifles of the most recent issue, and some carried swords of a cavalry type. While I and others associated' with me were enjoying the martial music and the rather gorgeous and unusual uniforms and admiring the military appearance of these corps, we were wondering what section of the Canadian armed forces w'e were seeing march by, because most of us had not been in eastern Canada for very long. Therefore I would like to ask the
minister this question. Are these corps, which were under the discipline of officers and noncommissioned officers and bearing arms, under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence? If they are not, is it safe for us then to assume that there is nothing in the Militia Act or the law of this country or any regulation that prevents any organization from training uniformed men in corps under the discipline of officers and non-commissioned officers, and bearing arms?


Brooke Claxton: I must say I did not see the officers and men to whom the hon. gentleman has referred, so I am not in a position to speak about them at first hand. I recognize that he has had a very gallant war record and a great deal of experience and that he is in a position to speak at first hand, so I take it that what he says is correct. I must say it surprises me very much to hear that these forces, which I should think were quite outside the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence, had anything in the nature of Lee Enfield service rifles. We have not disposed of any rifles in Canada except to some of the Pacific Coast Rangers, and they received American sporting rifles, not the service Lee Enfields. I do not know of any other rifles that have been disposed of to civilian corps or organizations in Canada. I shall be very glad to look into the question and also to look into the question of law to which the hon. gentleman has referred.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: We have had some discussion of the navy estimates, and also some discussion of the army and the reserve army. I should like now to draw the attention of the minister and the committee to the air force. But before doing so may I answer an observation by the hon. member for Regina City, who asked how it was that our citizen army did not lose the last war and how it had time to mobilize. May I tell him that it was the air force that gave the army time to mobilize, and that is why I wish to speak on the air force today. If the hon. member thinks that anyone in any government in Canada has any idea of aggressive warfare his thought is complete proof of his absolute military ignorance, and all that he has said on defence should therefore be treated with the contempt it deserves.


John Oliver Probe: I hope the hon. gentleman will not attempt to put words into my mouth. I can express myself volubly and adequately without any assistance from my excellent friend.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: You asked how a citizen army won the last war, and I am telling you.
Supply-National Defence

Turning to the minister's statement of this morning, I was delighted to hear him place on the record of this house the war records of all the Canadian services. I am sure that we were delighted to see that the government have at last an appreciation of what the aims of the defence forces should be and that they have also a plan of action, which I should like brieffy to discuss.	[DOT]
This fourteen point plan has already been referred to. In my opinion it is very domestic in nature. First the minister speaks of the unification of the departments, then of joint intelligence and planning. I feel that the intelligence side of it is important. The planning should be well on its way now; the department has had two years at least in which to consider its plans. Then the minister spoke of an appreciation of the factors in the last war. I happen to know a little bit about this subject, and whether Canada has an appreciation of it or not I would like to inform the minister that the military appreciations of most other fighting nations on the democratic side were arrived at before this war was over.
The fourth point speaks of active and reserve qualified officers-again domestic in its'nature. When we get to the seventh point we begin to get something which seems to me important; it has to do with adequate reserves of equipment and weapons. It was amply proved in the last war that the degree of technology required to equip adequately any fighting service was of growing and tremendous importance. This seventh point seems to me to be the only really important one up to this stage. The eighth point deals with the integration of the armed forces, the ninth with cooperation with industry, and the tenth with Canadian Arsenals Limited, and with the design and manufacture of munitions, etc. If we intend to design and manufacture munitions in Canada it will be necessary for the government to give certain contracts both to our industrial organization and to Canadian Arsenals Limited. It will be necessary in those contracts to lay down sendee specifications which will keep our arms up to date, instead of letting them get out of date as we have done in many cases heretofore.
Then there is civilian defence and government leadership. The same government leadership that we asked for two or three years ago is now on the fourteen point programme. It is heartening to see it there and I must congratulate the new minister on his recognition of this necessity. It is indeed a step foiward, though it comes at a rather late date.

Point thirteen deals with commercial cooperation and point fourteen with cooperation with the commonwealth and other friendly democratic nations not inclined towards aggression but inclined to stand and fight for their country.
I said at the outset that I wished to refer particularly to the air force. It seemed to me at the end of the war that the job which the air forces of all the nations did actually spoke for itself, and I thought it would not be necessary to speak on behalf of the air force in this house at least, because it was so evident in every action that we fought successfully in the last war that the air was the dominant factor. However, the rats have been gnawing at the policies of the government since the war, and I feel that it is necessary for me here today to remind the Minister of National Defence and the government that they are behind the times with regard to Canada's air defence, so deplorably behind the times that I am actually shocked when I read the answers that were brought down for me on the fifty-eighth day of this session in reply to seven questions that I had asked. I call attention particularly to one thing. We find that the strength of headquarters establishment is over double the actual number of men who should be there. In other words in non-effective jobs, in non-operational functions, there are over double the number of men who should be used on this particular type of work.
We have heard earlier of the auxiliary and reserve forces being the backbone of our defence system. The government authorized fifteen auxiliary squadrons to be established and equipped across Canada. I understand that six of these squadrons have actually been established, that four are in process of establishment, and that five have been deferred indefinitely. I shall not discuss their equipment.	The minister knows what kind of
equipment they have and what sort of shape it is in, and I am sure he is not awfully proud of it.
Just why the government has failed to establish auxiliary squadrons at Halifax and Victoria is very difficult to understand. Halifax, as the minister well knows, was one of our key defensive sites in this war, with a fine harbour, aerial headquarters for the north Atlantic convoy patrol, and equipped also with excellent fighter defence. Why we should not have had an auxiliary squadron established at Halifax, which is our key winter port, is difficult to understand. It is equally difficult to understand why an auxiliary squadron should not have been established at Victoria. Ottawa

Supply-National Defence
could have been left out for a while, because after all there are so many airmen here at headquarters that perhaps they could defend us without an auxiliary squadron. We find also that no auxiliary squadron is established at Calgary and Quebec. In my opinion the fight for recognition of the auxiliary air force must begin all over again. It seems to me that here in Canada our air force has been pushed into the background until today it is actually but a shadow of its former self.
I would not take up this fight today if I were not sure that the defence of Canada is tied completely to our air strength. I speak only of defence; I speak only of the repelling of an aggressor. It was that same air strength that gave Britain her time in 1940, and it is that same air strength which can stop any aggressor flying over our country and rendering us helpless in something like sixty days, which people now predict is all that would be required to knock out a modern industrial power. If we take those sixty days into consideration we realize that we would not have time to prepare our air defences after there has been a declaration or indication of war. Those air defences must be prepared now. So that the minister may not think I am extreme in asking him to prepare the air defences now, I should like to quote an article from the Letter Review of June 30, 1947, with reference to statements made by Colonel Goforth:
We have perhaps ten years of comparative safety from attack, perhaps followed by another five or ten years of rather acute danger, after which, if war has not occurred, the odds against it will become definitely better.
Colonel Goforth says that we have perhaps ten years of comparative safety. His opinion is not altogether agreed with by a presidential commission in the United States, which is referred to in a report in the Globe and Mail of June 2, 1947. The question was asked:	When should such an attack be
expected? This is the reply of the commission :
For a period estimated by responsible scientists at not less than four years and not more than ten years, we can expect immunity from such an attack because we alone possess the atomic bomb.
That commission in Washington gives the United States four years of immunity. They said earlier in their report that the possibilities of an atomic age war are so great and the destruction would be so ferocious that it would require sixty days or less to determine whether the United States would win or lose. We have a Canadian authority saying we have ten years of immunity and a United States authority saying we have only four
years of immunity. They are referring to a war fought with the same weapons we used in the last war; but a lot of people are concerned with a push button war. A report in the Globe and Mail of April 10 quoting a dispatch from Washington states that it will be at least twenty-five years before an atomic rocket war is possible.
I am laying the position before the government that there is an immunity of from four to ten years, with the possibility that a rocket war is twenty-five years away. The government have the defence of Canada in their hands. What are they going to do about it? Are they going to build drill halls and dig a few trenches here and there, or are they going to be realistic? Are they going to face the problem and say, "How can we defend Canada; how can we repel an aggressor?" I think the only answer that can be given is that an interceptor air force must be built up.
Lest the minister should think that I am merely expressing my own opinion with regard to the functions of the air force I would refer him to Sir Arthur Harris, who is reported in the Globe and Mail of April 26, 1947, as follows:
He said he "supposed" the invasion of Germany was carried out because "we had the troops to invade with," but insisted air power could have done the job alone.
I emphasize that word "alone". There is also a report made in October, 1945, by the D'Olier civilian commission, and in this connection I quote from the New York Times of October 31, 1945, as follows:
A civilian committee, after an exhaustive survey of the air war in Europe, declared today that, while allied air power was "decisive" in forcing Germany's defeat, a number of phases of the strategic bombing campaign were ineffective in their long range results.
I just call the minister's attention to the fact that that is the report of a civilian commission. They declared that the allied air power was decisive. I want also to refer to German military experts. This is the opinion of one of the enemy who felt the weight of our air force in the war. He said:
Your bombing of our communications prevented our troops from ever coming into effective tactical employment against your forces. Without this strategic bombing the invasion would have been a dismal failure.
I regret that I cannot give the name of the German expert as that is taken from the speech delivered by Sir Arthur Harris in Montreal. He quoted another German expert as saying:
We had forty reserve divisions in readiness. Your bombing made it impossible to move our troops rapidly, if at all,
Supply-National Defence

In sending a message to the air forces General Montgomery said:
But we also know well that you are always ready to bring your mighty effort closer in when such action is really needed and to cooperate in our tactical battle. When you do this your action is always decisive.
Those are the words of General Montgomery who was so successful in the organization of our ground forces. He said that the air force was always decisive.
In the past in Great Britain and also in the United States there was a fight for recognition of the air force. In Great Britain Lord Trenchard fought for recognition and understanding of the air force. In the United States the great General Billy Mitchell's words and predictions were well borne out in this war. In Canada great men like Bishop, Barker and others carried on the same fight. We also had the premier of Ontario, Colonel George Drew, an artillery man who wrote that great volume "'Canada's Fighting Airmen". Somehow between the first and the second war the job that the airmen, did was forgotten or not properly appreciated. It is my desire today to bring these facts to the attention of the government to see whether they really intend to carry out the first aim that the minister expressed when he said the aim was to defend Canada, because if he wants to defend Canada he must make the same decision today that Great Britain made in 1936 when they started to build up their fighter forces. They Started to build up these fighter forces in preparation for what they knew would happen should a war develop. They chose to build their defensive forces. I speak .today not of anything in the way of aggression as far as the air force is concerned. I speak only of defence so that my socialist friends cannot misinterpret anything I say. All I want to do is to defend Canada. I do not want to strike anyone else, or do anything like that. I am merely pointing out. that the way to defend Canada is the same way that Britain defended the British isles in 1940. If the minister is sincere in his first aim, then he must get his air force on an effective operational basis and see that it is properly equipped and manned by sufficient people at least to repel the majority of any invading air force that may stand prepared to attack our country.


Brooke Claxton: May I first answer the hon. member for Trinity. He almost challenged me to find his statement extreme, and I must say that I do in some respects. His advocacy of the role of the air arm does great credit to one who has had a great record in
[Mr. Skey.l
the air force, but I think there are some hon. members in the committee who feel that in the end the infantry had something to do with it too. The way he has put it leads me to say at once that within recent weeks I have made a collection of a number of prophecies about the nature of the next war, from which it can be developed out of the mouth of somebody, not under the rank of lieutenant-general or its equivalent in the other services, that every single arm or weapon is obsolete today.
With regard to the air force, in testimony before the senate military affairs committee in the United States in 1945 Rear Admiral Forrest P. Sherman said as reported at page 505r "The carrier may prove to be less obsolescent than the strategic air force." And no les3 a proponent of air power, Lieutenant-General James H. Doolittle at page 296, said: "The weapons of the future may not be aeroplanes." I just mention these two to indicate that we are at a stage in development where armies and weapons are changing rapidly. In Canada we ended the war with a very large supply of planes such as Lancasters, of planes which had done such magnificent jobs as the Mosquitoes, as weld as training planes of various types. We believe that every single one of these planes with which we ended the war is now obsolete. We are waiting to receive some of t'he latest jet propelled planes which have been on order for a number of months, but which have been delayed in delivery.


Howard Charles Green: Where is the minister getting them?


Brooke Claxton: From the United Kingdom.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Is the minister making any effort to produce them here?


Brooke Claxton: We have experimental
work going on with both planes and jet engines. The situation is as I have described it. When my hon. friend speaks as if we should have a large, fully manned and equipped operating air force on a basis to take the air in defence of our country against attack tomorrow, it seems to me that he is failing to take account of the realities of the situation.
We have weapons that were used in the last war. We are going to get aeroplanes that may be useful in some future war, when we can get them, but we cannot get them unless they are being produced, and unfortunately the production does not lie within our own hands; it lies within the hands, of another country.
With regard to our ignoring the air force, as the hon. member seemed to indicate, I think

Sup-ply-National Dejence
I need mention only one figure to him to indicate that that is simply not so. Out of this total appropriation of $240 million for the armed forces not less than $73 million is the portion which is applicable to the air force; in other words more than twice as much as was applicable to all the armed forces of Canada in 1938-39. Further, the strength of the Royal Canadian Air Force at the present time in officers and men is 11,804, plus an interim force of 337, making a total of 12,141. The air force is being reorganized, as are the other armed forces, on a post-war basis, which we believe to be sound, with reference to the needs and the capacity of the country. In the first place they have been formed into two commands with a very high degree of decentralization. Air stations have been established or are being established to conduct every kind of training, and I can refer my hon. friend to a press release which has just been issued, indicating the places where that training is being carried on at this very moment.
This year we have the largest programme of aerial photography ever to be undertaken in this or I believe in any other country. We have a very considerable number of air crew, planes and ground crew engaged in photographing for mapping purposes no less than
700,000	square miles of Canada. The air force has also undertaken the responsibility for work in connection with the northwest staging route and various other outlying parts of Canada. It has been working closely with the naval air arm in this work at Dartmouth. It is responsible for search and rescue at sea under our arrangement with the international civil aviation organization. This is going on at the same time as tradesmen of all kinds are being trained. The joint services training which has been continued at Shilo is being moved to Rivers, which is now being activated. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that from his own knowledge of the men with whom he served in the Royal Canadian Air Force overseas, the officers and men in our air force at tire present time are among the pick of the Canadians who made the great record of which we are all so proud.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Yes, I should like to agree with that immediately.


Brooke Claxton: Men with remarkable flying and fighting records. I visited some of them at the air staff college. I remember saying to the commanding officer, Air Commodore Ross, G.C., as I left: "These are a magnificent group of men," and he said: "Yes, sir, I do
not think there is any group like it in the world." And that is my conviction from what I have seen of them.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I have advocated that we equip our air force with modern weapons for the npxt four to ten years. When General Doolittle and the others made their statement they were looking into the future.
Mr. CLAXTO'N: I do not necessarily agree with them. I quote them to show that there are two extreme points of view.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It seems that in Canada we are always waiting for something. We will not buy the 1947 model because the 1948 car will have an automatic refrigerator, or some other new gadget. We never get anything because we are waiting for something that is nebulous and in the future. The important point is that we must have an air force in being.


Mr. HLYNKA:: I am glad that the minister takes a realistic attitude on the problem of defence. Speaking in Halifax on June 24 he is reported to have said that Canada considers that peace must be based on understanding and knowledge, and meanwhile she, meaning Canada, meant to see there is nothing second-rate about her navy, her army or her air force. I agree whole-heartedly with that attitude, and the minister is to be congratulated on it.
I rose to say a word about another matter and that is the wearing of military dress in peace time by officers and men in Canada's permanent services. I was told by several officers that owing to the ridiculing references in this house and in one or two newspapers, officers have had to abandon wearing their uniforms when attending various social and other functions. If that is true, then it is a shocking state of affairs. What sort of defence shall we have when irresponsible attacks on officers force them to abandon the wearing of their uniforms for fear they may be called "brass hats" or something of the kind? What is the government's attitude on this matter, and does it intend to correct the situation?
I do not know whether the two gentlemen in front of the minister are military men, but if they are they should have had the privilege of wearing their uniforms here this afternoon unless they themselves chose otherwise. This matter is more important than it may appear on the surface. The situation reflects a retreat on the part of our national defence in the face of irresponsible utterings. I call this to the attention of the minister and ask him to take steps to correct the situation. Personally I am not at all disturbed when I see our own
Supply-National Defence

Canadian soldiers in uniform parading in Canada. We must make sure, however, that no foreign troops parade here.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Like many other members of the house, I was pleased to have the elucidation of the defence programme put in fourteen rather clear points this morning. However, before I go on to discuss one point in particular, I would ask the minister to comment on a question that has received a great deal of attention in the press. I refer to the statement made, or alleged to have been made, and reported in the Calgary Herald of July 3, by the chief of the general staff, Lieutenant-General Foulkes. The statement as it appeared in the press on that date is:
Asked about Alberta's probable role in the event of an enemy attack across the Arctic, the general decried all the poppycock that has been given out regarding such a possibility. He went on to say, "Fifty-seven pounds of freight to maintain a single man."
This is a direct quotation.
"Can you imagine how many aircraft would be needed to keep an enemy force going in the Arctic? The Arctic wastes are our. strongest defence.
If that statement is correat, I am reminded of those wishful thinkers who before the last war said that the Atlantic was our first line of defence. I want to remind the house that an enemy operated in the gulf of St. Lawrence and operated there quite successfully. If the statement I have quoted is correct, I would suggest that the minister find out from the chief of the general staff what he meant by it.
There is one more thing about this that I think should receive attention, bt is an editorial in the Montreal Gazette the day before yesterday on the same subject:
Lieut.-General Foulkes, rejecting the professional opinion of every United States general officer who has expressed himself on the subject, maintains that talk of Canada as a victim of invasion in another world war "is all poppycock." The defence of his unique position rests on the question-begging statement that "a little simple arithmetic proves this;" together with a vague remark concerning supply problems in the northland.
Two other paragraphs which I think are very important I would quote.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, is there not a rule about reading editorials? I was called to order by the hon. gentleman himself on a previous occasion.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If there is a rule, then I will paraphrase.


Brooke Claxton: You can adopt it as your own.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I do not think I ever called the hon. gentleman to order.


Brooke Claxton: Then somebody sitting close to the hon. member did.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: We have plenty of them in Canada now.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is so, but according to the minister's statement this morning the training being done is very limited indeed. We are not carrying on training with these aircraft because to do so would be a waste of money.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry, but I did not say that. I said that to acquire new aircraft, unless they were the most modern types, would not be useful at the present time.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Then I misunderstood the minister.


Brooke Claxton: Perhaps I did not make myself clear.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I wrant to bring out clearly that to have an airman trained, even in an obsolete aircraft, is infinitely better than to have an untrained man.
I go on now to the important matter of training. The chief of the general staff, speaking of university cadets and junior officer training, according to a report in the Calgary Herald said that, after serving for three months a year for three years, such officers would1 be well trained in the most modem weapons. Well, in my opinion there months a year for three years will not adequately train an officer in the most modern weapons. I doubt whether three years of intensive training will bring an officer up to high efficiency in the most modern weapons. Every day, every month, every year we are getting more complicated weapons. More and more do we need engineering scientific and technical skill. To say you can train a man for three months, then send him back to his civilian occupation for nine months, then start training him again, and carry this on for three years, and that at the end of three years you will have an efficient officer capable of instructing others is in my opinion, not a correct statement of fact. I am not being critical of what has been said because, as I indicated, this is merely a newspaper report; but I want to show that with the present highly intricate, extremely technical and high speed methods of warfare it is infinitely more important now than ever before that those in our fighting forces should receive the highest and most intense type of training. We cannot allow ourselves to get into the position in which we found ourselves in 1939. We can never take that risk again. Whether it is a push-button war or a war on the surface of the tundras, no matter what it is we must have our intelligence giving us proper and complete information; and we must be prepared at least 
to repel the first attack before it reaches the centres of population. One thing is absolutely sure, the speed of warfare is constantly accelerating, and the range, accuracy and destructive power of all weapons are increasing tremendously.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member referred to an article in the Calgary Herald of July 3 which reports Lieutenant General Foulkes, chief of the general staff, as rejecting the possibility of a push-button war occurring in the immediate future and calling it poppycock. If that is what the chief of the general staff said I must say he made the statement on the best authority, because on July 2 Field-Marshal Viscount Montgomery said at a press conference there was no evidence yet of a future war of the push-button variety. It seems to me that the chief of the general staff was speaking with the best possible authority and also with good sense. There has been a great deal of talk about push-button wars as well as about saucers flying in formation and the like. That does not mean that we should not keep up to date and do the utmost in research and industrial organization and have as much as we can afford of the most modern weapons. But it does seem to me that we should keep our feet on the ground and look at the realities and consider what the probabilities are in the light of the best kind of intelligence we can get. I am sure that the chief of the general staff in speaking as he did was endeavouring to meet this extreme kind of excited and unrealistic statement which is doing a good deal at the present time to upset the world and effect the chances of our working out some foundation for living together.
I should also like to say this. The chief of the general staff and, I must say, all the other officers of the armed forces with hardly a single exception have, since I have been there, been scrupulously careful to speak only on matters that would properly come within their fields. Sometimes they are quoted when they do not expect to be, and sometimes they have been misquoted, but I want to say at once that there has been nothing but the most loyal cooperation in what I believe every hon. member would regard as the best kind of parliamentary as well as service practice.
I take the opportunity while on my feet of raising a matter as a kind of personal privilege. I find that when I said that eleven babies were delivered at the Shilo military hospital in June I was basing my statement on advance information. There must have been some miscalculation. In June there were only four babies delivered. I was also in error in under-

Supply-National Defence
stating the cooperative activities. The cooperative activities functioning or being formed include in addition a service station and garage, outdoor swimming and wading pools, seamstress, riding school, bus service, drug store, butcher shop, dry goods and hardware shops and milk delivery.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: The minister has, in my judgment, impressed the house with his sincerity and his realistic approach to the problems of his high office, and I wish to congratulate him on his approach and on the way in which he is attacking his problems. The social crediters he will find will endeavour to take a realistic attitude toward Canada's defence as they have done since first coming into public life. In 1936 I made a statement supporting the immediate preparation by Canada for effective participation in the war before ever I came into parliament. Social crediters have taken the attitude consistently, that we should be prepared. It will be altogether too late if we are caught unprepared. One of the speakers referred to the miraculous way in which we came out of the last war with everything against us, seeming, I thought, to imply that we need not now worry too much about being prepared, that we shall come out of the next war in a similar way. That reasoning is probably satisfactory if one does not carry it too far. But what came into my mind as he spoke was: How far and how often should we tempt Providence? Our coming out of the last war successfully was, I think, the result of a great many miraculous interventions by Providence by which we were enabled to save ourselves when our own management did not justify us in expecting to come out of that war successfully at all.
The minister's words have a pleasing and reassuring sound, as most hon. members have pointed out to the committee. All will depend upon the interpretation which he and his department place upon his words, and also upon the attitude which the people of Canada adopt towards defence matters. I thought the remark made by the hon. member for Vegre-ville concerning silly remarks made about brass hats and the effect that they had on certain gentlemen in the country were very appropriate. In any democracy such as Canada, comprising peoples of different racial origins and with four parties participating in Canadian political life, the greatest care must be exercised by everybody who expresses himself in public or in private, whether it be through the press or otherwise, because so frequently what is said has effects which were not intended.
83166-338J
In a general way I am somewhat concerned about the substantial cuts which have been made in these defence estimates. The minister has said nothing either privately or publicly to indicate that t3ie treasury board were hard on him. If they were, probably the first thing we shall have to do is to assure the treasury board that we do not want the defence needs of Canada to be controlled by the treasury board. We want the treasury board to be controlled by the defence needs of Canada. I think the minister should assert himself definitely in this respect. I gathered from his words that he had in mind the defence we could afford rather more than the defence we needed. I think he should determine the kind of defence we need in Canada and then, having determined that, tell this parliament how much money this is going to cost and require parliament to vote the money. That may sound a little extreme. But if we got into war we would not hesitate regarding money. We would give the minister a blank cheque just as we did in the last war. Why not give him a blank cheque while we are preparing for war? That seems the sensible thing, and that is the policy that, I with moderation, would advocate that parliament should adopt with respect to defence.
I believe the minister ought to inform parliament from time to time as to Canada's needs so that he can take us into his confidence. We shall trust that there will come into parliament no members who will be as irresponsible as a number of members were before the last war, and who will say things that never should be said to the minister. I trust we shall all be able to keep our feet on the ground, all political parties and all racial extractions' all over Canada, so that we shall have the best chance of coming through these perilous times we face with the best possible hope of coming out successfully, so that our children and our grandchildren and future generations may continue to enjoy the freedom which our race has struggled: for through the centuries.
Canada should, I believe, assume that her defence will depend, of course, upon her own efforts, but mainly upon the efforts of the British commonwealth and empire as a whole. Our friends in the commonwealth and empire have always been ready in the past, and there is no reason why they should not be ready in the times to come. Twice within the memory of all of us we have faced what seemed to be an impossible situation. The British commonwealth has proved to be the backbone, the stomach and the sinews which saved us, under God, in both those wars. I
Supply-National Defence

think we would be well advised to assume that similar conditions will obtain in the future.
Canada should look very carefully to the British commonwealth and empire. I suggest to the minister that we should endeavour to build up that commonwealth and empire, so that it will possess the industrial strength which is necessary to fight a major war. To defend ourselves in such terrible ' times, we must have industrial self-sufficiency.
I would direct the attention of the minister to what Canada has done in providing herself with rubber through the Polymer establishment. It would be well if Canada would see that every major necessity which it is possible to provide is provided, including large supplies of vital commodities. Every member of the commonwealth should follow the same policy, so that we shall not be in danger of being emasculated, by being cut in two or probably in four through the exigencies of a future [DOT]war. There should be the greatest cooperation among the members of the commonwealth and the empire in all matters pertaining to the economic and financial strength of the empire.
I think we should strive to build up morale in the commonwealth. We should bring about such conditions in our commonwealth that we shall have prosperity and a high standard of living, so much so that the people will know that the commonwealth is a good place in which to live. We have a good illustration of what might happen if such conditions do not obtain. I think it is well known that the main reason why Eire diid not fight in the last war was that conditions economically in Eire had been allowed to deteriorate below a reasonable standard. Eire made up her mind that she simply had to be independent in order to have a greater measure of prosperity. There is no reason why Eire should not be more prosperous as an integral part of the British commonwealth than she could possibly be alone. There have been faulty policies adopted throughout the empire which have resulted in Eire feeling that she had to go out of the empire. People are much inclined to look at the standards of living which they have when they are estimating the value of conditions under which they live. I say that we should raise commonwealth morale by bringing about high standards of prosperity in every part of the empire.
This may all seem a little off the subject of defence, but we must bear in mind that in times of war there is a good deal of truth in what was said regarding the contestants in world war I. It was said that that war would be won by the nation with the deepest stock-

ing; in other words, by the nation that had the strongest financial resources. We should keep in mind that we simply must keep ourselves economically strong all over the empire; otherwise we are not going to fight successfully. Let me mention to the minister, in passing that there has been a dietermined attempt on the part of a nation that should know better, to break down imperial preferences in the British commonwealth, thereby weakening the economic structure of all the members of the commonwealth. Such attempts as that should be resisted with every bit of strength that we can muster, both publicly and in private, until everybody comes to realize that we mus,t insist on safeguarding our economic and financial strength as a part of our preparations for defence. Imperial preference is one of the devices which we have found advantageous in the past in the development of our financial and economic strength, and obviously it will be a device of great value in that respect in the future.
There should be financial cooperation among the members of the commonwealth to obtain expansion of production and consumption. There should be adopted a scientific method of distribution, both domestically and throughout the commonwealth. I do not propose to enter into a discussion of what method should be used, but I do say that nothing has been found up to the present time that begins to compare in theory with the social credit proposals. If social credit were applied throughout the British commonwealth and empire the empire's fighting strength would be astoundingly increased. It would enable all parts of the empire to take advantage of the resources of all the empire, a thing which today is quite impossible. I point that out to the minister; I point that out to the members of the house and to the people of the country who will read my words.
Up to the present it has not been a question of the capacity of the various members of the empire to produce; it has not been a question of the resources they have; it has been a question of whether we can use those resources. In the past, except in times of war, we have not been able to use the valuable resources which Providence has put in our hands. Let any man who thinks he is able to devise a way of solving the problem proceed immediately to offer his suggestion. I suggest that the application of social credit is a means at our disposal which would make us strong for the terrible times which I think every member in this house feels are not very far ahead.

Supply-National Dejence
After the commonwealth, Canada should count upon the United States. I think the minister is doing that quite satisfactorily. There is no objection to close cooperation and collaboration with the United States, but in our dealings with the United States we should be sure that we are protecting our interests politically, economically, financially and strategically. This we should do before we enter the next war, during that war and after that war is over.
It may not be entirely in order for a member of the Canadian House of Commons to make observations concerning the transfer of so many of our commonwealth bases for forty or fifty outmoded ships during the last war, but I think every red-blooded Britisher from one end of the empire to the other resented deeply the fact that the United States took advantage of the difficulties we were in to get 99-year leases on certain vital bases in the British commonwealth. When we consider that her own safety was at stake just as much as ours, I think we must all agree that the correct words to use about that occurrence would not be suitable words to use in a parliament of the empire.
So I say we ought to take pains to see to it that we protect ourselves politically, economically, financially and strategically before the next war, during the next war and after the next war whenever we are dealing with the United States. I have no desire to be harsh about things which happened during the last six or seven years. We are grateful for the assistance that the United States gave us, but I hope she is equally grateful for the assistance we have given her.
Canada should not neglect the united nations organization, but we should be very careful with respect to that organization. Of course most hon. members are quite at variance with me in regard to that organization, but I think the day will come when they will see things very much as I see them in respect of the whole united nations organization and the charter. I would warn that we do not trust too far in our dealings with that organization. We should take every care to guard our sovereignty and freedom, politically, economically, financially and strategically, just as we should with respect to the United States before the coming war, during the war and after the war.
All we need to do is to remember the dismal record of the league of nations. There are those who will say, "Well, the united nations organization is quite different from the league of nations." I do not see that it is any more likely to succeed than the league of nations was. Hon. members know what happened to
us as the result of the league of nations. I was as ardent an advocate of the league of nations as anyone, but this is what actually occurred. The league of nations caused the British commonwealth to count upon it too much. It caused us to neglect our defences in every way. It even made it so that it was difficult to get an intelligent and realistic discussion in the matter of defence in the various houses of parliament of the empire. If anything like that occurs as a result of the united nations-and we see signs of that already- then the united nations organization can be something that we may regret very deeply. Therefore I say, let us just be careful in respect of that organization. I am afraid it will be found by the people of the future that the whole united nations organization and united nations covenant were devised as a LTnited States commercial contrivance, aimed at increasing the sales of United States goods all over the world. That was the primary object.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have allowed the hon. memher wide latitude, but I feel that he should direct his remarks to the department which is being considered, the Department of National Defence. I realize that there is some connection between economic theories and defence, but I do not think the estimates of the department should be used to illustrate economic theories. May I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks more directiy to national defence.


John Horne Blackmore: I have said all I want to say in that respect, Mr. Chairman, but I think it would be quite in order to point out to you and to hon. members that whenever we have endeavoured to bring these matters up before the House of Commons they have been always out of order on one ground or another. Yet it can be found that these matters are of the most vital concern to us. There is something radically wrong in the world today; otherwise we should not have a world divided into two great camps, led by two great nations, each of which prides itself upon being a peace-loving nation. There is something terribly wrong somewhere. We ought to find out what is the matter, but I will say no more on this now. I would simply say that the nations would be well advised to be wary how far they put their trust in the united nations organization for their defence.
In my judgment steps ought to be taken to have the people of Canada informed as fully as possible on all matters pertaining to Canadian defence. The value of the British commonwealth, the greatness, the strength, the
Supply-National Defence

potentialities of the British commonwealth should be brought before the people. In centres throughout the country, in the press and elsewhere, I find a tendency nowadays to disregard these matters. I was principal of schools for some twenty years before I entered parliament. I know what was on the curriculum of the schools in Alberta. I think Alberta was no different in this regard from the other provinces. The attention which has been given to these vital matters of our defence has been so slight that the boys and girls have had no chance at all to form a sound opinion as to how to plot their course for the greatest possible safety of their society. How you can possibly have a nation safe when it is so ill-informed on vital matters is something that I fail to be able to see. What I suggest to the minister is that a part of his work should be devising ways and means whereby we can get out to the youth of this country and the people generally the essential facts. The remarks of the hon. member for York West regarding intelligence were appropriate. I would take the matter of intelligence just a little bit further and advise that intelligence for the people all over the country concerning all matters pertaining to the national well-being and defence should be more carefully attended to. Every precaution should be taken to see that nothing but the absolute truth is given. That is a matter which would help us greatly in our defence in the future.
Much attention ought to be given to the causes of war and how to remove them. In his statement this morning, the minister said nothing as to the causes of wrar or whether or not we are doing anything to remove them. I would think that if we want to defend ourselves one of the very first things we ought to discover is whether or not we are contributing to the causes of the next world war by the policies which we are pursuing. I think there is hardly any doubt that we are contributing to the causes of the next war by the policies we are pursuing. In my opinion, much attention should be given to that by the minister. Let it be borne in mind that the cause of war is hot commercial rivalry, the struggle for markets and for raw material; also unemployment and poverty which brings about such extreme movements as the nazi movement and other movements which indirectly resulted in the last war. To what extent are we pursuing policies which are resulting in the accomplishment of the evils from which we suffered in the last war? In my judgment, much could be done to eliminate or at least to remove the intensity of the struggle for markets and raw 
materials. It seems to me that the minister is partly responsible for discovering what that may be and advocating that it ought to be done.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I do not think the Minister of National Defence, as Minister of National Defence, has any control over the discovery of markets. I do not think that discussion should be carried on under these estimates.


John Horne Blackmore: As a matter of fact, it is a matter of difference of opinion. The minister is meeting -with the other members of the cabinet and the cabinet is devising the policy for this country. However I am not going to pursue the matter. I submit to the minister that he seriously consider it just as other hon. members should.
The citizens of Canada ought to be trained in first aid of all kinds. In his statement, the minister hardly mentioned that. Possibly he has something of that sort in mind, but we Should not wait until the V-l and the V-2 bombs and the other horrible monstrosities come, to begin to teach our people first aid. The people should know all about these things. They should have first-aid shelters all over the country. I had the privilege of being in Britain in 1941 along with the Chairman. He will remember how difficult it had been for them to establish first-aid shelters and how important they were. I should think they ought to be established all over the country before the trouble comes along. Why should people not be trained? I should think it would be a part of our defence mechanism.
We should have people trained in firefighting, because certainly if any credence can be placed in the suggestions as to what terrible instruments of war are being developed, fire is going to play an important part in the suffering which people have to go through in the next war. Fire will be among the people just as it was in Britain.
There should be an organization for local defence. The minister has talked about reserves. I would commend him for all he said about keeping up the reserve force, but I have an idea that the people should be trained as citizens' armies. I remember the great anxiety which wras felt in certain parts of Canada when we were in the midst of danger from attack by the Japanese. I heard people in western areas say they would give almost anything if they had a few machine guns and knew how to use them, because the possession of the right kind of arms, and skill in using them, by the ordinary citizen, by farmers and others who might be in danger of being overrun, could easily have turned the

Supply-National Defence
tide in ease of a Japanese invasion. This matter should be given a great deal of thought while we are training reserve forces. I may have more to say regarding defence at a later time, but perhaps this is sufficient for the present.


Mr. WYLIE:: During this debate we have heard many speeches about the navy, the army and the air force, and I feel that I should say a few words at this time. I cannot be accused of taking up much of the time of the house. As a matter of fact, this is only the third time I have risen to speak. I hear certain murmurs on the other side of the house but I ignore them. I could discuss the army and perhaps do so sensibly since I was a member of the southern Alberta regiment for three years, but I will not go into that question at the present time. I intend to discuss it under another item, particularly with regard to the uniforms that men in the army have to wear. I have worn these uniforms, and when I put them on I certainly did not feel very well dressed in comparison with members of the air force and the navy.. I intend to go into that question under the appropriate item when we come to it.
The matter I now wish to discuss does not pertain to any of the three services. I am not sure where I am in order, thought I hope I am. If not, then I can discuss it under some other item. What I shall have to say now has reference to the area that is known as the British block adjoining Medicine Hat. It is an area that was taken over in 1941 by the Department of National Defence, and this meant the moving of 130 families from the area.
The area comprises 700,000 acres of land. Last January, at the convention of the united farmers of Alberta a resolution was passed unanimously endorsing steps taken by one of the men who were moved from that area. In the course of this session every hon. member must, I am sure, have received a copy of the resolution. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee _ in reading the resolution now, since, as I say, everyone has a copy of it. The minister, I believe, also received a copy. The resolution was passed, as I say, at a convention of the united farmers of Alberta, which is the largest organization of farmers in that province, and it was passed unanimously.
On March 15, 1947, there appeared in Maclean's magazine an article under the title "Cross Country", from which I will read
certain excerpts for the information of hon. members. This is what the writer of this article states:
In the dark wartime spring of 19411 a party representing the British government appeared in the "British block" of southern Alberta, a sparsely settled area of more than 700,000 acres between Suffield and the Saskatchewan boundary. They wanted the land, and they wanted it fast.
To each of the 130 families in the block this offer was made: trade acre for acre, for crown lands north of the Red Deer river, plus a cash settlement for buildings, or, instead, a straight $6.50 per acre. The farmers thought both offers unfair.
But the government-and the war-couldn't wait. R.C.M.P. officers summoned the farmers to court in Medicine Hat, where they were summarily ordered off their land in 15 days, and recompensed at $1 an acre for raw land, five cents per acre for each unexpired year on leased land, and $4 per acre for standing crops, $2 per head for moving livestock and no stated offer for buildings.
When the settlers had gone, the area around Suffield became the "New Mexico" of Canada. It was used by Canada, Britain and the United States as a supersecret testing ground, chiefly for poison gas, but also for explosives and other weapons. The area is now a permanent military experimental station, including three camps and an airfield, that cost more than $8 millions.
The 130 families scattered across Canada and the United States. Some of them refused to accept a cent of the award. All of them felt that they had been treated unfairly, that the people of the "British block" got less than British justice. Now they want the question reopened. The united farmers of Alberta support their appeal for arbitration.
After that article appeared in this magazine, one of the members of the board who had something to do with making settlement with these farmers put another article in Maclean's magazine. I read that article, as I have no doubt many other hon. members did, and after reading it I wrote to the Minister of National Defence suggesting that the case be reopened and further consideration be given the farmers. I thought that possibly that would be done, but this, in part, is the letter which I received from the minister dated April 30, 1947:
A short time ago Maclean's magazine published an article on this matter with the result that one of the men who acted for this department wrote a letter to Mr. Horace T. Hunter, president of the Maclean-Hunter publishing Company Limited, copy of which is enclosed, and which I think deals with the matter thoroughly.
That is the letter I got in reply to my letter to the minister. I will read the letter to Mr. Hunter. It is quite a long letter, but I will read it and another letter before I am through. It is dated March 14, 1947, and is addressed to Mr. Horace T. Hunter, president
Supply-National Defence

Maclean-Hunter Publishing Company Limited, 481 University avenue, Toronto 2, Ontario. It reads:
Dear Sir:	An item "Cross Country-The
Prairies," which appears on page 72 of the March 15, 1947, issue of Maclean's magazine, is the type of misleading malicious report which is fuel for communist propaganda.
May I digress for a moment. First of all, I want to say that the man who wrote this letter did not know the first thing of what he was talking about. If he had lived in that area, as many of the farmers, and as I myself have done, he certainly would not say that it was communist propaganda.


Brooke Claxton: But he did not say that in the letter. He said that the article was fuel for communist propaganda.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: That is exactly what he said, and he certainly did not know the facts or he would not have said that. I know every farmer who resided in that area and I am sure there was not a communist there.


Brooke Claxton: But he does not say that. He does not say there was a communist there. He says that that kind of attitude, that kind of misstatement, would be fuel for communist propaganda.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I will accept the statement of the minister, but I still contend that he should have kept that out of this letter. He goes on:
As a member of the real estate adviser's staff who proceeded to Medicine Hat in May, 1944, to acquire the "British block," comprising approximately 1,100 square miles, and which was so urgently needed at that time by the British government for experimental purposes, I am fully aware of all the facts, which are as follows:
I do not know the details of any offers which might have been made to the owners of the property prior to May, 1941, before the real estate adviser's branch was requested to take over, but I know no progress had been made in obtaining this land.
Lieut.-Col. Goodwin Gibson, O.B.E., at that time real estate adviser to the Department of National Defence, and presently president of Gibson Brothers, Toronto, assembled at Medicine Hat the following:
Mr. H. A. Dyde, O.B.E., lawyer, Department of National Defence, presently practising law in Edmonton; Mr. G. M. Bowes, O.B.E., of the real estate adviser's office, Department of National Defence, presently vice-president, Oldfield, Kirby and Gardner, Winnipeg; Mr. Frank W. Collins, industrial commissioner, Canadian Pacific Railway; Mr. G. H. S. Dinsmore, assistant to real estate adviser, Department of National Defence, presently director, lands and buildings, War _ Assets Corporation; Mr. J. Wurtele Rankin, O.B.E., assistant to real estate adviser, Department of National Defence, presently vicepresident, Westmount Realties Company, Montreal; Mr. Harry Allum, chief field representative, soldiers' settlement board for Western Canada, Edmonton, presently head of Depart-

ment of Veterans Affairs, Edmonton, Alta; fifteen field representatives of the soldiers' settlement board from all sections of Western Canada; Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel stenographers, et cetera.
Because of the urgency of possession, the property was expropriated, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were used to distribute the notices of expropriation over this huge area, and they had nothing whatever to do with issuing summonses to farmers to appear in court in Medicine Hat. The expropriation w'as dated June 4, 1941, and everyone had to be off the area by July 1.
The court house in Medicine Hat was loaned to the real estate adviser's department only because there was no other suitable vacant space available in Medicine Hat, and it was just coincidental that this location was obtained.
Digressing for a moment from the letter, may I say that according to the letter the court house was used entirely for this purpose. At that time my office was in the court house and they certainly did not use my office. It is quite true they used a small space in there, but once again this writer is wrong. I continue :
A complete inventory and valuation of each owner's property was made by field representatives of the soldiers' settlement .board, who are acknowledged as being well versed in prairie farm values, and who worked day and night to accomplish the task in short order.
The buildings were put in at full value to the farm, and not the depreciated value as they should have been. After paying the owners for the buildings, they (the owners) were given the right to remove any or all buildings, fences or equipment, and as a result many buildings were moved to Medicine Hat and elsewhere, and are in use today.
Among allowances given were $3 per head for driving off cattle, $4 for each horse, 50 cents for each sheep, being amounts determined by drovers and cattlemen as being fair and reasonable; $3 per ton in stacks for -what went as hay but -which would not be regarded in better areas as feed at all; from $50 to $250', depending on the size of the family and the distance from Medicine Hat, was allowed for moving expenses, 25 cents per foot for each dug well, 5 cents per acre per year, limited to ten years, for unexpired ranch leases, the rentals of which -were in many cases in default and yearly grazing leases had not been renewed but were recognized just the same.
In regard to the type of land, the biggest rancher in the area had about 40.000 acres under lease and, by drilling gas wells by the river, obtained power to pump water by which he irrigated some three thousand acres of land. In this way, he was able to grow alfalfa grass and thus obtain winter feed for his herds. In spite of this, however, his foreman claimed that the land could only support thirty head on each section of 640 acres. This should show that $4 per acre was a generous amount for raw land of this description, but it should be noted that as high as I think, $27 per acre was paid for some of the best land. Naturally, in such a large area, the type of land varied and was priced accordingly.
In spite, however, of all the allowances given to the various owners, it was found in many

Betrothal oj Princess. Elizabeth
cases that their accumulated debts were still greater than what could be allowed them. Colonel Gibson contacted Hon. Mr. W. A. Fallow, at that time Minister of Agriculture of the province of Alberta-
May I digress just here for a moment and say that Mr. Fallow was never minister of agriculture of Alberta. Mr. Fallow is minister of public works of Alberta. The minister of agriculture of Alberta at that time was Mr. D.	B. Mullen, if I am not mistaken. To continue:
-and appealed for help for these unfortunates. As a result, the province generously agreed to forgive all debts up to the point where $d>500 could be paid these settlers for their lands and buildings with the other allowances made added to that amount.
The owners of the cultivated land had the opportunity of either accepting $4 per acre for standing crops, or could harvest their crops, whichever they chose, blit could not live on the land after July 1, 194.1. Practically all decided to accept the $4 per acre for crops, and as for the very few who did not, I understand they did not net more than the amount offered for standing crops. This area is in a dry belt, occupation of the area should never have been permitted in the first place, and it was a godsend to get these settlers off this type of land.


Angus MacInnis: Six o'clock.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: May we call it six o'clock.


William Ross Macdonald: Does the hon. member desire to finish reading the letter?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I can finish after six o'clock.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at seven o'clock.



PRINCESS ELIZABETH


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the next item I should like to say a few words with respect to an important and historic announcement which has been made in the United Kingdom today. It will be with the greatest pleasure, I am sure, that the people of Canada will have learned of the announcement made in London today that Their Majesties the King and Queen have given their consent to the betrothal of their elder daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, to Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, Royal Navy, the only son of the late Prince Andrew of Greece and the Princess Alice of Battenberg. The Canadian government was informed earlier by His 83166-339
Majesty of the betrothal of the Princess Elizabeth, and was most pleased to give its concurrence.
I am sure that hon. members of both houses of parliament will wish to join in an expression of our warmest good wishes to the Princess Elizabeth, whose charm and sincerity have already endeared her to the Canadian people, and also in hearty congratulations to Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten. It will be the wish of all that health, happiness and Divine guidance may gladden the path through life of Her Royal Highness and Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten as .they face the future together.


John Bracken: I am sure it will be the wish of every hon. member of this house to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in extending to this young couple our congratulations and best wishes. As for myself, as they enter upon a new career in a new world I should like to express the hope that it may be given to Princess Elizabeth and her prince consort to do as much for the commonwealth and the world at large as it was given to Queen Victoria and her consort to do in an earlier period in our history.


Angus MacInnis: I am sure all hon. members on all sides of the house and of all parties will wish the young couple everything that is good in life.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Social Credit party join with the other hon. members who have spoken in extending the warmest good wishes to the princess and her prince consort; and we wish them a long life and great achievements in their reign.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Fifth and sixth reports of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Picard.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Abbott for the second reading of Bill No. 411, to authorize the government to enter into agreement with the governments of the provinces pursuant to which, in return for compensation, the provinces agree to refrain from levying certain taxes for a limited period.
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: The bill now before the house embodies the final outcome of negotiations that



Tax Agreements with Provinces
have extended over a period of almost two years. It authorizes the governor in council to enter into agreements with provincial governments embodying the terms and conditions so negotiated, it gives authority to carry out certain ancillary actions, ajid it provides the necessary appropriations.
As hon. members well know, the arrangements which have been agreed upon represent a compromise with our original objectives which we found it impossible to achieve, because of the failure to reach agreement with all of the nine provinces. I do not intend by that statement to cast blame in any direction. I am only stating a fact. I cannot let the occasion pass, however, without again affirming that the dominion government has made every effort to reach unanimous agreement, and far from being rigid and uncompromising in its attitude, as has been alleged on several occasions during the course of the negotiations, it has repeatedly made adjustments in its proposals, repeatedly accepted suggestions put forward by various provincial governments, repeatedly made concessions to secure unanimous agreement. In order, therefore, to place the present position in its proper perspective, I wish to say a word about its historical background and then to review briefly and simply the course of the protracted negotiations from 1945 to date.
The genesis of the current phase of dominion-provincial relations dates back to the financial difficulties faced by several provinces during the depression years of the thirties. In spite of large dominion grants in aid and heavy construction expenditure, the burden of unemployment relief had been such as to weaken the financial position of all provincial governments, but in the prairie west drought and depressed agricultural prices had created an additional, almost intolerable strain, leading to default on the part of Alberta and threatening the solvency of the other two provinces. Further financial assistance of an interim character was granted to Manitoba and Saskatchewan as a result of reports made by the Bank of Canada in the spring of 1937 but it had already become clear that no permanent or satisfactory solution could be developed without a fundamental inquiry into the financial powers and responsibilities of Canadian governing bodies at all levels. This led to the establishment in August 1937 of a royal commission, first under the chairmanship of the Honourable Justice N. W. Rowell of Toronto, later under that of Doctor Joseph Sirois of Quebec, to inquire into the constitutional allo-

cation of revenue sources and governmental burdens in Canada and-
. . . to express what in their opinion, subject to the retention of the distribution of legislative powers essential to the proper carrying out of the federal system in harmony with national needs and the promotion of national unity, will best effect a balanced relationship between the financial powers and the obligations and functions of each governing body and conduce to a more efficient, independent and economical discharge of governmental responsibilities in Canada.
If I may say so, that statement, extracted from order in council P.C. 1908 of August 14, 1937, of the high objective of a healthy and vigorous federal system of government, has remained throughout the long years and the changing circumstances since that time the fundamental objective of the government of Canada.
After the most thorough-going and comprehensive inquiry into the problems of federal government ever undertaken in the history of any state, the commission submitted its report on May 3, 1940, nearly three years later and after the outbreak of war. Stated very briefly, its chief recommendations were: (1) exclusive dominion jurisdiction in the fields of income and corporation taxes and succession duties;
(2)	acceptance by the dominion of responsibility for relief to the employable unemployed;
(3)	assumption by the dominion of net provincial debt charges; and (4) payment by the dominion of national adjustment grants designed to put each provincial government in a position to provide average standards of services without imposing higher than average rates of taxation.
A dominion-provincial conference was called in January 1941, to consider the royal commission's report but after sitting two or three days the conference broke down in the face of opposition from the premiers of three provinces.
It soon became apparent, however, that Canada's chaotic tax structure would not permit the financing on either an efficient or an equitable basis of a war effort of the magnitude which the necessities of the second world war were to make imperative. Consequently, in the budget of April 29, 1941, the then minister of finance made an offer to the effect that if the provincial governments (and their municipalities) were prepared to suspend imposition of income and corporation taxes until the end of the war and one year thereafter the dominion government would make annual payments to the provinces equal to either the 1940 revenues of the particular province from these sources or the amount of that province's net debt service less succession duty

Tax Agreements loith Provinces
collections in 1940. The offer also included some relatively small "fiscal need" subsidies proposed in those cases where budgets could not otherwise be balanced, and an offer to guarantee provincial gasoline tax revenues at the 1940 level. Agreements were negotiated with all the provincial governments in 1941 and the necessary legislation was passed in the spring of 1942. I think it not unfair to say that it is impossible to exaggerate the contribution which this co-operative arrangement made to the efficient and equitable financing of the war, to the maintenance of Canada's financial stability during the war, and consequently to Canada's ability to meet the financial and economic problems of postwar reconstruction.
It was our experience with these war-time tax agreements and the knowledge that after their termination a number of the pre-war financial and constitutional problems would probably arise in an exaggerated form that led the dominion government to take the initiative in preparing the way for postwar agreements with the provinces. After a great deal of consideration over a period of many months, there had been worked out a comprehensive set of proposals which were broader in scope than the Sirois report recommendations but were framed in an earnest effort to avoid, if at all possible, the major objections that had caused the rejection of those recommendations. The agreement was to be for a temporary period and therefore its terms would be subject to review prior to any renewal. In particular it would require no constitutional changes, although there was one recommendation for a constitutional amendment to provide for delegation of powers from the dominion government to a provincial government or vice versa, whenever desired by both governments. Other less important features were designed to avoid possible objections.
The purpose of the dominion in preparing these proposals was to endeavour to work out with the provinces a coordinated programme by which the dominion and provincial governments could most effectively work together to maintain high and expanding levels of employment and national income such as had been attained in war time, to provide a wide measure of economic and social security, and finally to give the Canadian people a less burdensome, more efficient tax system, which indeed was a prerequisite for attaining the other objectives. In the field of public welfare, the proposals included constructive measures for a programme of health insurance and health grants, a comprehensive scheme of pensions for the aged and the blind and the provision of unemployment assistance, with the whole or a substantial share of the cost 83166-339J
being borne by the dominion. In the field of public investment the dominion outlined a substantial expansion in its programme for natural resource development, conservation and public works, and also a large increase in dominion assistance to provincial services and construction projects either through joint participation oir by grants in aid. Particular emphasis was placed upon, and tangible encouragement offered to, the advance planning of public projects, and in so far as practicable, the timing of public investment expenditures with a view to helping stabilize employment and offset fluctuations in the business cycle.
To avoid duplication and conflict in the tax field and to enable ithe dominion to develop an equitable and efficient tax system, the proposals included a provision that the provincial governments should rent to the dominion for the term of the agreement their rights in the fields of income and corporation taxes and succession duties. As compensation or rental therefor, the dominion would make annual payments to the provinces on the basis of $12 per capita of provincial population, with an adjustment for increases in gross national product per capita over the base year 1941. These payments would include the ordinary statutory subsidies. This formula would guarantee the provinces a minimum annual payment of $138 million and for a year in which the national income had risen to $950 per capita, as is now roughly estimated for 1947, the formula would call for a total payment of about $195 million. The dominion felt at the time that payments of this magnitude, coupled with the various other proposals in the field of public investment and social security, would enable all provincial governments to carry out their constitutional responsibilities with assurance and adequacy; under prosperous conditions they would be expected to have surpluses, perhaps even substantial surpluses, but at the same time they would be projected against any major deterioration in revenues when business fell below normal. If I may quote from the so-called Green Book proposals (page 51):
To sum up, it is the belief of the dominion government that the proposed financial arrangements in conjunction with the other measures recommended would strengthen the federal system under which all ten governments here represented function. They would give to each government an assured basis of financial responsibility and freedom of decision in the matters entrusted to it by the constitution.
The proposals of the dominion were presented to the provinces in a dominion-provin-
Tax Agreements with Provinces

cial conference held in Ottawa during the week beginning August 6, 1945-incidentally, the week which saw the surrender of Japan and the end of world war II.
At this conference, the provincial governments accepted the dominion's proposals as a basis for discussion. It was suggested, however, that better progress could be made if an opportunity were given to all governments for studying the proposals and if the procedure was such as to avoid projecting controversial issues into public discussion. It was therefore decided to establish a coordinating committee, composed of the heads of the various governments, to consider further procedure and to examine in detail the proposals made by the dominion as well as those that might be made by any other government.
This coordinating committee met in November, 1945, in camera and there was a full and frank discussion of the important issues involved. At this meeting it was decided to establish an economic committee composed of technical representatives of the dominion and nine provincial governments to examine in detail all the dominion's proposals against the background of the economic prospects that might be expected during the period of the agreement. This committee carried on its work during the months of December, 1945, and January, 1946, giving detailed consideration not only to the dominion's financial, social security and public investment proposals but also to proposals made by certain of the provinces, particularly those of the province of Ontario.
In January, 1946, the coordinating committee was reconvened to discuss the dominion's proposals and any alternatives advanced by provincial governments in the light of the findings of the economic committee. This conference, which lasted for several days, was also held in camera but there was later public disclosure of the fact that the dominion had made substantial concessions to the provinces, in particular the proposal to increase the guaranteed minimum payment from 812 to S15 per capita with adjustments from the 1942 base for increases in provincial population and in gross national product per capita. Two additional options were provided. In the first place, no province was to receive less than 82 million, an option designed to fit the special case of Prince Edward Island, and in the second place, any province had the right to accept as its minimum 150 per cent of the amount which it had been receiving from the dominion under its war-time tax agreement, an option which had special appeal for British Columbia. The effect of these

proposals was to increase the total of the guaranteed minimum payments to the provinces from 8138 million to 8180-4 million, an increase of over thirty per cent. The dominion also gave an undertaking in this conference that it would not enter certain fields of taxation which the provinces were currently cultivating, would not increase certain of its own excise taxes, and would undertake to seek a new constitutional amendment that would allow the provinces to impose a limited retail sales tax. Certain modifications were also proposed in the public welfare measures, which entailed additional commitments by the dominion.
Like its two predecessors, the January conference adjourned without reaching a decision but it was decided to hold a further meeting at the end of April, 1946. During a two-day session in camera, the dominion answered certain questions that had been asked by provincial premiers, and made an important modification of its earlier proposals, the effect of which was to allow any province to remain in the succession duty field if it so wished, in which case an appropriate adjustment would be made in the annual payment due to it. It was then decided to move the conference into plenary session and public meetings were held daily from April 29 to May 3. In these open sessions the dominion proposals as revised from time to time in the preceding conferences were presented and discussed. An alternative proposal was presented by the premier of Ontario which was found unacceptable to this government because of the large additional cost which we estimated it would involve to the dominion treasury. In its revised proposals the dominion felt that it had made as comprehensive an offer and had undertaken to assume as great a financial burden as it then believed it possible to justify to the people of Canada. The negotiations had already extended over nine months and during that period of time the dominion had repeatedly revised its proposals in the endeavour to meet the several requests made by the provinces. The dominion was still willing to accept suggestions for modification of its proposals provided that they did not further increase the burden upon the taxpayers of Canada. In particular and because of the strongly expressed desire of several provinces to have fields of taxation solely for their own use, the then minister of finance expressed the dominion's willingness to rent for a temporary period our rights to use certain fields of excise tax (gasoline taxes, amusement taxes, taxes on pari-mutuel bets) in the same way as we were asking the provinces to rent to us temporarily their rights in certain fields of direct

Tax Agreements with Provinces
taxation. However, there was no agreement reached among the provinces with respect to an appropriate rental consideration. On May 3 the conference adjourned sine die without any agreement having been reached.
Failure of these protracted efforts to achieve general agreement on its comprehensive proposals posed a difficult problem for the dominion, as well of course as for at least several of the provincial governments. The dominion budget had to be brought down within a matter of weeks. The war-time tax agreements were to lapse in the case of three provinces in the late fall and in the case of all other provinces in the spring of 1947. Under these wartime agreements, the dominion was committed to making certain reductions, in its income and corporation taxes as from January 1, 1947, but it could not simply carry out its commitments and remain indifferent to the financial problems which at least the less favoured provinces were bound to face. For several of these provinces the pre-war situation had been intolerable but meanwhile provincial expenditures had expanded greatly and while revenues had also increased to some extent, it was obvious that without new agreements several provinces were going to be faced with a difficult budget problem. Financial pressure on these provinces, it was clear, would give rise to increasingly arbitrary and discriminatory taxation tending to hamper production, would lead to interference with interprovincial trade, and would tend to promote the extension of government operation of business merely in order to obtain additional provincial revenues, which of course would mean loss of revenues to the dominion. An inefficient and chaotic tax structure might seriously impair the capacity of private enterprise to provide high and expanding employment. Budget difficulties and financial pressures would tend to weaken the financial autonomy of the provinces and impair the strength of the federal system. Some provinces might indeed find it difficult to maintain their solvency.
After very careful consideration the government reached the conclusion that it would be shirking its responsibility to the people of Canada if it allowed such a situation to develop without a further attempt to prevent it. It sought therefore to devise some modified proposal which could be accepted by those provinces which wished to accept it and be left aside by those which did not desire it or felt they had no need for it. It was this type of proposal which the then minister of finance outlined in his budget speech of June 27, 1946. Without the prospect of unanimous agreement, it was necessary to limit
the proposal to the financial provisions relating to the rental of tax fields. No changes were suggested in the formula for calculating the annual payments to the provinces but the proposal as a whole was so designed that any province that did not accept its terms could impose its own taxes without placing its taxpayers in an unfair position relative to the taxpayers in other provinces. The agreeing provinces, for example, were to impose a 5 per cent tax on the income of their corporations, so that a corporation in a non-agreeing province which imposed a tax no higher than that rate would be in the same position as a corporation in an agreeing province. The dominion also offered to allow a taxpayer a credit against his personal income tax up to five per cent for personal income taxes paid to a province; this would allow a non-agreeing province to impose a tax of this weight *without subjecting its citizens to double taxation. Finally, the dominion proposed that its succession duty rates should be doubled and a credit given up to one-half thereof for duties paid to a provincial government, as a means of allowing any government, including that of an agreeing province, to continue to impose succession duties if it so wished.
As I have siacedl, the formula for calculating the annual payments to the provinces was the same as that outlined to the dominion-provincial conference by the Prime Minister on April 29, 1946. However, in the course of the negotiations with individual provinces during the months following the delivery of the budget, the government became convinced that these financial terms, standing alone and extracted from the broader context of the original proposals which provided assistance in other forms to the provincial governments, might prove inadequate in certain cases to protect a province against the rising costs of government that might be anticipated in the years ahead. This was particularly true of the special formulae, applicable to the provinces of Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, as the flat payment of $2 million in the one case, and the payment based on 150 per cent of the war-time tax agreement receipts in the other case, were not subject to adjustment for increases in population and gross national product. To correct this situation, the dominion first undertook that these minimum payments to Prince Edward Island and British Columbia would be subject to adjustment for increases in population and gross national product. Later, when it was urged by the other provinces that the basis of their compensation should also be reviewed, a modification of the original formula was worked out, and made applicable
Tax Agreements with Provinces

to all provinces, in January 1947, under which it is believed the maximum practicable degree of "equalization" of the terms of payment to the various provinces has been achieved.
Under the new formula every province will have a guaranteed minimum annual payment which will be subject to adjustment upward for increases in provincial population and in gross national product per capita, in just the same way as for all other provinces. For the province of Prince Edward Island, the guaranteed minimum will be the flat sum of $2,100,000. All other provinces will have the choice of either one of two formulae for determining their guaranteed minimum annual payment.
As the house will recall, the first option involves the addition of the three following elements:
1.	$12.75 per capita based on the 1942 population of the province;
2.	Fifty per cent of the revenue of the province from income and corporation taxes for the year ending nearest to December 31, 1940, as agreed for purposes of the wartime tax agreement; and
3.	the amount of the statutory subsidies payable to the province in 1947.
This option is the one which proves to be most favourable in the case of New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. It will be noted that it has the great merit of including in the guaranteed minimum payments the amounts of the statutory subsidies payable to the various provinces, which have been the product of eighty years of historical development and negotiation. For the rest this particular option is based on a reasonable compromise between the principle of basing the annual grants on equal per capita payments and the principle of adjusting the grants to the varying capacity of the provinces to raise revenues from the tax sources which they are renting to the dominion. The greatest weight is placed on the principle of equality but at the same time reasonable weight is given to the principle of tax ability or tax potential, which is of advantage to the more favoured provinces, and reasonable weight also to the principle of need, which is reflected in the statutory subsidies and which is of course of greatest advantage to the less favoured provinces.
The second option gives the province the right to receive a guaranteed minimum annual payment equal to the sum of its statutory subsidies payable in 1947 and an amount equal to $15 per capita based on the 1942 population of the province. This is the option which
rMr. Abbott.]
proves most favourable to the provinces of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. In the case of Nova Scotia the province had not been cultivating the fields of income and corporation taxes as intensively as other provinces in the base year of the war-time tax agreement and in the case of Saskatchewan prevailing economic conditions in that province had led to a relatively low yield from* these tax fields in 1940. It could have been contended, therefore, that the first option would not be fair to either of these two provinces, and consequently the second option was worked out to meet their special situations.
With the consent of the house I shall now place on Hansard a table showing the calculation of the guaranteed minimum annual payment for each province, as well as a table showing how the adjusted annual payments for 1947 are calculated and how they work out for each province on the basis of the latest data now available.
(Tables appear on following pages)


John Bracken: Has the minister extra copies of these tables?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not. They are long, complicated tables and that is why I am placing them on Hansard. They show in detail how the calculations were arrived at. I thought that was information which hon. members would like to have. I am afraid I have not additional copies with me at the moment.
The first of these tables shows that if all provinces should enter into agreements, the aggregate of the guaranteed minimum annual payments (including statutory subsidies) would be $206,463,248, made up as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 $ 2,400,000
Nova Scotia	 10,870,140
New Brunswick	 8,773,420
Quebec	 56,382,427
Ontario	 67,158,027
Manitoba	 13.540,038
Saskatchewan	 15,291,490
Alberta	 14,227,882
British Columbia	 18,120,124

As already indicated, the amounts payable to the various provinces will never fall below the amount of the above-mentioned minima. However, the actual payment to any province in any one year will be the higher of two amounts, that is to say, either the amount of its guaranteed minimum or alternatively the amount of that minimum adjusted upwards for changes in gross national product per capita and in provincial population. This adjustment is based on the average of the amounts for each of the three calendar years immediately . preceding the fiscal year in



CALCULATION OF GUARANTEED MINIMUM ANNUAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
-	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskat- chewan	Alberta	British Columbia	Total$	$	$	$	$	*	$	$	$	$First Option- (1) $12.75 per capita on 1942 population (a).	1,147,500	7,535,250	5,916,000	43,222,500	49,521,000	9,297,045	11,262,470	10,169,413	11,092,500	149,163,678(2) 50% of provincial income and corporation tax revenue for year ending nearest Dec. 31, 1940 (Wartime Tax	125,972 656,932	804,715 2,005,140	1,225,034 1,632,386	10,293,037 2,866,590	14,482,020 3,155,007	2,527,370 1,715,623	1,046,461 2,041,525	2,040,430	6,024,184	38,569,223(3) Statutory subsidies payable in 1947...	2,018,039	1,003,440	17,094,6821,930,404	10,345,105	8,773,420	56,382,127	67,158,027	13,540,038	14,350,456	14,227,882	18,120,124	204,827,583Second Option- (1) $15.00 per capita on 1942 population (a).	1,350,000	8,865,000	6,960,000	50,850,000	58,260,000	10,937,700	13,249,965	11,964,015	13,050,000	175,486,680(2) Statutory subsidies payable in 1947...	656,932	2,005,140	1,632,386	2,866,590	3,155,007	1,715,623	2,041,525	2,018,039	1,003,440	17,094,6822,006,932	10,870,140	8,592,386	53,716,590	61,415,007	12,653,323	15,291,490	13,982,054	14,053,440	192,581,362
Third Option-(Prince Edward Island	2,100,000									
										
	Third	Second	First	First	First	First	Second	First	First	
										
Amount under Most Favourable Option.	2,100,000	10,870,140	8,773,420	56,382,127	67,158,027	13,540,038	15,291,490	14,227,882	18,120,124	200,463,248
(a) For Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta 1942 population determined by straight line between 1941 and 1940 census figures; for all other provinces 1942 population as estimated by Dominion Statistician.
Tax Agreements with Provinces
fMr. Abbott.]

[Stage Direction]
(Based on Latest Estimates of Population and Gboss National Product Available at July 2, 1947; subject to revision)
-		Prince Edward Island (a)	Nova Scotia (a)	New>
Brunswick (a)	Quebec (a)	Ontario (a)	Manitoba (b)	Saskat- chewan (b)	Alberta (b)	British Columbia (a)	Total
Basic Data-											
(1) Population of Provinces-											
1941	No.	95,047	577,962	457,401	3,331,882	3,787,655	729,744	895,992	796,169	817,861	1942	No.	90,000	591,000	464,000	3,390,000	3,884,000	729,180	883,331	797,601	870,000	1944	No.	91,000	612,000	462,000	3,500,000	3,965,000	728,052	858,009	800,465	932,000	1945	No.	92,000	621,000	468,000	3,561,000	4,004,000	727,488	845,349	801,897	949,000	1946	No.	94,000	612,000	480,000	3,630,000	4,107,000	726,923	832,688	803,330	1,003,000	(2) Population Ratios-	1942	%	100 00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	1944	%	101-11111	103-55330	99-56897	103-24484	102-08548	99-84531	97-13335	100-35908	107-12644	1945	%	102-22222	105-07614	100-86207	105-04425	103-08960	99-76796	95-70014	100-53862	109-08046	1946	%	104-44444	103-55330	103-44828	107-07965	105-74150	99-69047	94-26682	100-71828	115-28736	(3) Gross National Product per Capita	Ratios (c.)-	1942	%	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	1944	%	111-26135	111-26135	111-26135	111-26135	111-26135	111-26135	111-26135	111-26135	111-26135	1945	%	107-38954	107-38954	107-38954	107-38954	107-38954	107-38954	107-38954	107-38954	107-38954	1946	%	102-35532	102-35532	102-35532	102-35532	102-35532	102-35532	102-35532	102-35532	102-35532	(4) Composite Ratio-(2) above mul-	tiplied by (3) above-	1942	%	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	100-00000	1944	%	112-49759	115-21480	110-78178	114-87160	113-58168	111-08924	108-07188	111-66087	119-19032	1945	%	109-77597	112-84078	108-31531	112-80654	110-70745	107-14035	102-77194	107-96796	117-14100	1946	%	106-90444	105-99231	105-88482	109-60172	108-23205	102-03850	96-48711	103-09052	118-00275	Minimum Payment-	(Most favourable of Option 1,2 or 3)...	$	2,100,000	10,870,140	8,773,420	56,382,127	67,158,027	13,540,038	15,291,490	14,227,882	18,120,124	206,463,248Adjusted Payment in 1947-	1944-Minimum X 1944 composite ratio. $	2,362,449	12,524,010	9,719,351	64,767,051	76,279,215	15,041,525	16,525,801	15,886,977	21,597,434	1945-Minimum X 1945 composite ratio. $	2,305,295	12,265,951	9,502,957	63,602,727	74,348,939	14,506,844	15,715,361	15,361,554	21,226,094	1946-Minimum X 1946 composite ratio. $	2,244,993	11,521,512	9,289,720	61,795,781	72,686,509	13,816,052	W15,291,490	14,667,598	21,382,245	Total	.	. $	6,912,737	36,311,473	28,512,028	190,165,559	223,314,663	43,364,421	47,532,652	45,916,129	64,205,773	3 year average (1947 payment)....	. *	2,304,246	12,103,824	9,504,009	63,388,520	74,438,221	14,454,807	15,844,217	15,305,376	21,401,924	228,745,144
fa) Population for 1941 from census of same year; later years as estimated by D.B.S. and subject to revision in case of 1944, 1945 and 1946.
(b)	Population for years 1942, 1944 and 1945 determined on straight line between 1941 and 1946 census figures.
(c)	Calculated from following figures-
1942	
1944		
1945		
1946		
(d) The adjusted figure being less than the
Gross National Product Population
	 $10,296,000,000	11,654,000
	 11,771,000,000	11,975,000
	 11,498,000,000	12,119,000
	   11,129,000,000	12,307,000
guaranteed minimum, the guaranteed minimum is substituted.
G.N.P. per capita $883-47349 982-96451 948-75815 904-28212
o<
[Stage Direction]
to
o
[Stage Direction]
g
g
[Stage Direction]


w
Tax Agreements with Provinces

Tax Agreements with Provinces
respect of which payment is made. Calculation on the basis of this three-year average, it will be noted, will serve to reduce the fluctuations from year to year in the revenue receipts of the provinces.
The second table which I have placed on Hansard, showing the relevant factors in the calculation of the adjusted annual payments for each province and just how the calculations are made, indicates that on the basis of the data at present available and if all provinces should accept the agreement, the aggregate of the adjusted annual payments (including statutory subsidies) in respect of 1947 would be 8228,745,144 made up as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 $	2,304,246
Nova Scotia	 4:2,'103,824
New Brunswick	 9,504,009
Quebec	 63,388,520
Ontario	 74,438,224
Manitoba	 44,454,807
Saskatchewan	 45,844.247
Alberta	 15,305,376
British Columbia	 21,401,924
[Stage Direction]
The amount payable by Canada to any province in respect of any fiscal year is to be estimated forthwith after September 14 in the said year on the basis of certificates from the dominion statistician in regard to the gross national production ratios and the provincial ratios that are pertinent to the calculation. The excess of this amount over the ordinary statutory subsidies less certain deductions which I shall later describe, is to be paid to the province in four equal quarterly instalments on September 30, December 31, March 31 and June 30, respectively. Appropriate provision is made for adjustments in respect of recalculations made after September 15, in the following fiscal year on the basis of revised estimates of population and gross national product. A final adjustment is also to be made at the termination of the agreement in 1952. At that time the population figures obtained by the census for the year 1951 will be available and it will thus be possible to correct earlier estimates of population made by the dominion statistician on the basis of a straight line projection between the base year 1942, or, in the case of the prairie provinces, the census year 1946, on the one hand, and the census year 1951 on the other hand. If changes or improvements in the method of calculating the gross national product have been made by the dominion statistician during the course of the agreement which result in a series of amounts for the gross national product different from those produced by the method used at the beginning of the agreement, the province will be given the benefit
in the final calculation at the end of the agreement of whichever method results in the greater total of payments for the period of the agreement.
I referred a few minutes ago to certain deductions which are required to be made from the amounts otherwise payable to the provinces.
The first of these types of deduction arises from the rather complicated provisions which have had to be evolved in order to avoid substantial unfairness as between the corporate taxpayers of agreeing and non-agreeing provinces respectively. If a province chooses to remain out of the agreement, it will presumably have to levy taxes on its own corporations in order to secure adequate revenues, and there would therefore be unfairness if the government of an agreeing province were to receive full payment from the dominion for the rental of its corporate tax rights while at the same time its corporations were not subject to provincial tax. Consequently, even though an essential part of the new agreements involves the dominion renting full provincial rights in the corporate tax field, nevertheless the agreements contain clauses allowing adhering provinces to impose a standard of five per cent tax on corporate income earned within the province, to be collected by the dominion without cost to the province, and providing that the amounts otherwise payable to a province shall be reduced by either the amount of the provincial corporation tax actually collected or one-sixth of the dominion corporate tax relevant to corporate incomes earned within the particular province, whichever is the greater. It will be noted that no province is required to levy this tax but if a province chooses not to levy it, the payments it will receive from the dominion are correspondingly reduced. Incidentally, the agreement includes carefully worked out provisions for allocating as between the various provinces the income of a corporation which is operating in more than one province; it is believed that if these rules for allocating income were adopted by all provinces, there would be eliminated the tendency which prevailed at times in the past for various provincial governments to impose tax, in the aggregate, on more than the total income of a corporation carrying on business in several provinces. The agreements also contain a provision to the effect that if Canada so requests, all the agreeing provinces will take such steps as are necessary to repeal or suspend their legislation imposing the standard five per cent tax on corporate income.
Tax Agreements with Provinces
[Stage Direction]
The second type of deduction from the annual amounts otherwise payable to an agreeing province, relates to deductions which may be made if a province which has agreed to rent its corporation taxes to the dominion proceeds to take over the whole or any part of the business or undertaking or assets of a corporation and thus serves to reduce the tax revenues which the dominion would otherwise obtain. This section of the agreement has been worked out with great care but I need not go into all its complications.
I should at this point call special attention to a provision of the bill which is of an entirety different character. Stated briefly, this provision authorizes the dominion to pay to a provincial government one-half of its net collections of tax on the income of certain specified public utility corporations resulting from the distribution to the public or the generation for distribution to the public, of electricity, gas or steam in the province concerned. From these payments is to be deducted the amount of certain royalties or rentals and taxes and fees paid by the corporations concerned to the government of the said province or its municipalities. This refund of part of the dominion's collections of taxes from specified public utility corporations will apply not only to governments which have entered into agreements with the dominion but also to the governments of non-adhering provinces as well. The only difference between an adhering and a non-adhering province in this respect will be that in the former case the dominion will be bound to make these refunds for the five-year term of the agreement. In the other case, it will have the power to do so but will not be bound.
There is another provision of the bill to which I should call attention. In addition to making provision for the guaranteed minimum annual payments and the adjusted annual payments for all agreeing provinces for the five fiscal years beginning April 1, 1947, there is a provision in the bill which authorizes special payments to be made to the maritime provinces to fill in the so-called gap in their case between the beginning of the new agreements, April 1, 1947, and the end of the old wartime tax agreements-October 31, 1946, in the case of New Brunswick, November 30, 1946. in the case of Nova Scotia, and December 31, 1946, in the case of Prince Edward Island. These payments are the appropriate fraction in each case of the guaranteed minimum annual payments to each province less the proportionate amount of the statutory subsidies payable in respect of the periods in
[Mr. Abbott. 1
question and less deductions in respect of provincial succession duties collected by the province or allowed by the dominion as credits in respect of deaths during these periods. Before the deduction relating to succession duties, the amount is 82,975,430 for New Brunswick, $360,768 for Prince Edward Island and 82,955,000 for Nova Scotia. These payments are 'to be charged as an expenditure to the fiscal year 1946-47.
There is only one other provision of the bill or the agreement to which I feel I should call attention at this time and that is the option provided to adhering provinces in the ease of succession duties. Any province may come into the agreement and still retain its own succession duty levies if it wishes to do so. The dominion believes that there are important reasons to justify the elimination of double taxation in this field but at the same time it recognizes that certain provincial governments place special emphasis on the desirability of continuing to levy their own succession duties. In the desire to remove any obstacle that might otherwise prove an insuperable barrier to unanimous agreement, the dominion has made it possible for any province -which so desires to rent to the dominion only its rights in the field of income and corporation taxes and to retain its own succession duty levies. In such a case, taxpayers in the said province will receive a credit against the dominion succession duty of the amount of the duty paid to the province up to one-half of the dominion levy and the annual payments otherwise payable to the province by the dominion will be reduced by the aggregate of such tax credits.
Before I conclude, I wish to deal briefly with a few general aspects of these agreements.
My first point has to do with the basis of determining the amount of rental we are to pay for the tax fields in question. Our contention is that our formulae represent the most equitable and most realistic basis so far devised for determining the rentals to be paid to the various provinces. I have been asked why we have not based them solely on the principle of equal per capita grants. The simple answer to that question is that it would be inequitable. Equal per capita grants may sound like equality but, if so, the equality is of a very specious type. It is certainty not equity.
For one thing, you cannot consider separ-atety each type of assistance given by the dominion in the various provinces. If you put these on a per capita basis and look at each one alone, you get the most amazing results. Take the statutory subsidies, for

Tax Agreements with. Provinces
instance. Based on 1946 population estimates, they run all the way from about 80 cents per capita in the two central provinces to $1 in British Columbia, 82.36 in Manitoba, $2.45 in Saskatchewan, $2.51 in Alberta, $3.28 in Nova Scotia, $3.40 in New Brunswick, and $6.99 in Prince Edward Island. Yet in spite of these wide variations, no one would regard the subsidies as unfair-on the contrary, the variations represent the historical result of a series of attempts to achieve equitable treatment under very diverse conditions. Then, as another instance, take the family allowance payments. Here it is British Columbia which turns out to have the lowest per capita payment ($16.11 for the twelve months ended May 31, 1947), while Quebec has one of the highest per capita payments ($23.04), against an average of $20.26 for the country as a whole. No one could regard these variations as unfair, nor the similar variations in the dominion's per capita contributions to pensions for aged and blind persons. However, if we take all these payments by the dominion, including the animal rental payments to be made for the rented taxes under our latest offer, we will find that the aggregate per capita payments to the various provinces are very much closer to equality. On this basis the average for Canada as a whole is $42.54, with S41.29 for British Columbia, and S43.83 for Quebec.
But even this greater approach to equality on a per capita basis should not be overstressed because-and this is my second point -equality per unit or per head does not represent equity, if the units or the heads differ in character or importance. The fact is that the units do differ-and differ widely- because of the varying composition of the population in the various provinces. In other words, the percentage of children in the population, the size of families, the relative numbers of adult income earners and of taxpayers -all these factors and others vary from province to province. It should be obvious that this type of variation makes it quite impossible to satisfy the test of equity by making annual payments to the provinces on the basis of an equal amount per head of population.
There are some who realize that equal per capita payments would be unfair but ask why our annual payments should not be based on the principle of fiscal need. It should be clear from the figures I gave some time ago that our basis for determining the annual payments does recognize this principle of fiscal need to a very substantial extent. The reason that certain provinces may be in a
position of fiscal need (assuming that it has not been due to reckless spending in the past) is that the head offices of large corporations as well as the wealthy individuals and large estates are concentrated to a very substantial extent in two or three provinces, and consequently it is impossible for the other provinces to derive from income and corporation taxes and succession duties adequate revenues to meet their constitutional responsibilities. Now the proposals which we are making are designed to correct this difficulty. What they accomplish is to make sure that a maritime province or a prairie province is able, by renting its rights in the three great fields of direct progressive taxation to the dominion, to derive approximately as much revenue per capita from these major sources of revenue as any other province.
I contend therefore that the proposals meet substantially the test of fiscal need but they do it in a way which is not open to the objections to which ordinary fiscal need grants are subject. If we adopted in toto the principle of grants on the basis of fiscal need, I suggest to hon. members that we would be faced with this . dilemma:	Either the government of
Canada would be forced to raise money from the taxpayers of Canada as a whole and hand it over to provincial governments to meet their deficits, no matter how reckless their expenditure policy might be, or, conversely, the dominion would be forced to supervise the budgetary policies, including both the spending and the tax levying policies, of provincial governments. This government does not believe the first policy would commend itself to Canadian taxpayers and it will resist to the utmost any proposal which would require it to supervise the budgets of provincial governments.
We are forced to the conclusion, therefore, that there is no single principle which can be applied exclusively in determining the magnitude of these annual rental payments. Our formulae are based on the several principles which seem to be pertinent. They may seem complicated but, we believe, the complications are necessary if we are to meet fairly and equitably the varying needs and conditions of all the provinces.
My second point relates to a problem which led to a good deal of discussion during the negotiations, namely, the treatment of cert-tain minor fields of taxation. It was understandable that the provinces generally would desire to have, if possible, certain tax fields specifically reserved for their own use. The levies which they most frequently requested should be left to them exclusively were sue-
Tax Agreements with Provinces
[Stage Direction]
cession duties and taxes on gasoline, amusements, pari-mutuel bets and electricity.
In appraising this request, it is desirable to call attention to four or five relevant considerations.
First, to grant the request would not be in accord with the constitution, for the British North America Act quite clearly provides that the dominion government has full authority to impose taxation by any mode or method whatsoever, whereas the provincial governments are limited to direct taxation.
In the second place it is always desirable to remember that in the case of war or emergency it is the central government upon which responsibility must fall. It was probably for this reason that the fathers of confederation felt that the dominion's taxing powers should be unrestricted and their wise foresight has now been amply confirmed by Canada's experience in two world wars.
Thirdly, it had to be remembered that any sacrifice of these minor taxes by the dominion would almost certainly under prevailing conditions of revenue and expenditure and with the national debt at so high a figure have to be made up by increases in income tax, a tax already at such high rates and so steeply graduated, that in the minds of most people it constituted or was likely to constitute a serious impediment to increased employment, production and national income.
In the fourth place, some of the taxes over which the provinces sought exclusive jurisdiction would bring important advantages, if collected solely by the dominion. I refer particularly to succession duties. I shall not repeat here the various arguments advanced by the Sirois commission and others for transferring or renting this tax field to the dominion but I believe most people would agree that the pre-war system under which nine separate jurisdictions impose succession duties, resulting in double and sometimes triple taxation of the same estate, producing great variations in burden as between one province and another and tending to encourage transfer of estates from one province to another solely for tax reasons, was burdensome, inequitable and harmful to the free flow of capital and natural economic development. Perhaps an even more compelling reason from the dominion's point of view is the very important part which dominion succession duties play in contributing to an efficient enforcement of the income tax. The former deputy minister of national revenue (taxation) has stated that we get more revenue from them indirectly than we do directly. However, in spite of the powerful
(Mr. Abbott.]
arguments for unified collection by the dominion of succession duties we recognized, as I have already said the apparent strength of the desire of one or two provinces to remain in this field and we modified our offer in such a way that any province which wished to do so could continue levying its own succession duties. I am happy to be able to report that all of the seven provinces which have signified their intention of entering into agreements with us apparently expect to repeal their succession duties for the term of the agreement.
Finally, neither the government of Canada, nor anyone else, so far as I am aware has ever been able to discover any way in which the total tax field could be divided' between the dominion and provincial governments in such a way as to make it possible for the dominion government on the one hand and all provincial governments on the other hand to obtain from the sector of the field allotted to each the revenues required to carry out their constitutional responsibilities. It would of course be possible to assign such a portion . of the tax field exclusively to provincial governments as to enable some provincial governments to meet their requirements but most methods of allocation would leave other provinces in a weak or impossible position financially. This of course arises from the highly different potential yields of different taxes in various provinces, and is one of the major factors making it so difficult to get all provinces to agree on any single course of action in the fiscal field. To approach the objective of meeting the requirements of the less favoured provinces as well as of those most, favoured1 would mean assigning to provincial governments so large a portion of the total field as to make it completely impossible for the dominion to meet its responsibilities.
In spite of all these considerations, the dominion has gone very far in its endeavour to meet, the wishes of provincial governments in this connection. In the revised offer outlined by the right hon. the Prime Minister to the dominion-provincial conference in April-May, 1946, the dominion made several commitments in regard to its future tax policy, lit undertook for the duration of the agreement not to enter the fields of real estate tax and automobile licenses now exclusively occupied by the provinces. It agreed to allow the provinces to tax mining and logging operations either by royalties or by taxes on the net profit of these operations, and to recognize such levies as an expense for purposes of dominion tax. It undertook for the duration of the agreement not to increase its

Tax Agreements with Provinces
special excise taxes on gasoline, amusements or pari-mutuel betting, subject of course to the condition that in the event of a national emergency it would be free to take whatever steps might he necessary to meet the emergency. It undertook to pay to the provinces one half of its own net collections of tax on the income of certain specified public utility companies derived from the distribution to the public, or the generating for distribution to the public, of electrical energy, gas or steam. It undertook to seek a constitutional amendment permitting delegation of powers from the dominion parliament to provincial legislatures or vice versa, and it stated that once such an amendment was made the dominion government would request parliament to broaden considerably the field of provincial taxation by delegating to the provinces, for the duration of the agreement, the right to levy retail sales taxes within limits to be specifically defined. Finally, it stated that, while in view of the enormous financial burdens and responsibilities falling upon the central government, it could not in justice to the taxpayers of Canada increase the magnitude of the burdens which as a result of the new proposals it was undertaking to bear, nevertheless it would be willing to consider renting to the provinces for an appropriate financial equivalent agreed upon by the provinces the field) of gasoline tax and some of the other minor tax fields. This meant that the dominion was offering to rent to the provinces its own rights in certain specified fields of taxation for an agreed consideration, just as it was offering to rent from the provinces their rights in certain other fields of taxation for a consideration which all will agree is highly advantageous to the provinces.
Several of the provinces expressed themselves as willing to accept this offer but they were unable to agree on an appropriate rental for the reason mentioned above, what one province would accept as a fair rental was believed to be highly unfair or inappropriate by another province. Nevertheless the dominion continued to give careful study to this whole problem. Late last fall, the prospect of substantial improvement in dominion revenues made it possible to sacrifice $40,000,000 of expected revenue by dropping as from April 1 this year, its three cent a gallon tax on gasoline. Not only was this tax the most important of the minor taxes which had been the subject of controversy but in dropping it the dominion recognized the force of arguments made on several occasions that it was a particularly suitable source of provincial revenue and related closely to the maintenance of provincial highways.
This action by the dominion left only two disputed taxes of any significance, the tax on electricity and that on amusements, including pari-mutuel betting.
With regard to the former, hon. members are aware that there is no electricity tax as such and that what is referred to is merely our ordinary sales tax applied to electricity purchased for domestic use, the previous exemption of this item having been cancelled early in the war. The sales tax is a longstanding and important feature of the dominion's revenue system. Moreover the sales tax on electricity is an indirect tax which could not be levied in any case by provincial governments which are restricted by the constitution to direct taxation. On the other hand it is true to say that the dominion recognizes the importance which the provinces attach to the taxation of electricity because of their interest in rural electrification and their desire to supply electric light and energy to rural dwellers at the lowest possible cost and for this reason a tax on electricity sales is one which the dominion would prefer to avoid if it could afford to do so.
The tax on amusements and pari-mutuel betting is a high-yielding tax, accounting for about $17,000,000 of our revenue at the present time, and is also one which is generally regarded as a desirable tax under present circumstances. Certainly I think hon. members will agree that it would be impossible to raise a corresponding amount of revenue either from income tax or any other field of taxation without producing more harmful economic and social effects. It is also true that this is a tax, the yield of which varies greatly as between the different provinces. If the dominion were to step out of the field, some provinces would not increase their rates of amusement taxation at all, and some might raise their rates but receive very little additional revenue, whilst others might obtain fairly substantial benefits from an increase in rates. On the other hand, I am free to admit that some provinces feel that taxes on amusements and pari-mutuel betting go hand in hand with licensing and regulating functions which provincial governments necessarily perform.
From the correspondence with provincial premiers which has been tabled, the house will be aware that we had been giving the most careful consideration to these remaining minor fields of taxation over a period of many months. They7 were part of a whole series of special taxes which we had been forced to impose during the war emergency and which included a number which we did not regard as likely to continue indefinitely. No government wishes to keep taxes on a moment longer than
Tax Agreements with Provinces
[Stage Direction]
they are needed and the areas where reduction or removal can be effected soundly and equitably are under constant study. As the end of the war receded into the past, we were succeeding more and more in effecting large reductions in our expenditures, and at the same time as a result of the speed and smoothness with which reconversion was being accomplished our revenues were showing a buoyancy to which no one could have looked forward with assurance. It was against this economic and financial background and in the desire to do as much as the dominion government could responsibly do to assure the agreement of all provinces that on April 21 last I wrote to the premier of Nova Scotia outlining the dominion's position in regard to the remaining minor taxes. In regard to the electricity tax I referred in the terms I used a few minutes ago to the dominion's recognition of the interest which provincial governments attach to this tax and concluded with this sentence:
At the moment I cannot go beyond assuring you that the representations of the government of Nova Scotia and those of other provincial governments, respecting the present sales tax on electricity, will be fully considered.
In regard to the amusements tax, I made the following statement:
The dominion recognizes the desire of the provinces to have taxation fields of their own. We are prepared, therefore, to say that in view of the nature of the amusement and pari-mutuel fields, and of the special interest of the provinces in respect thereto, it will be our policy to vacate these fields as soon as circumstances permit.
In a later letter to Premier Macdonald I made it quite clear that in the sentence just, quoted I was stating, that it would be our policy to vacate the amusement and parimutuel fields without compensation as soon as circumstances permit, although this of course did not imply recognition by the dominion of the desirability of any change in the constitutional position respecting taxation.
I have dealt at this length with the question of minor taxes because I wished to remove any cause for misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the dominion position. In addition I trust that this exposition has made it clear that there cannot be found in this question of minor taxes any sufficient basis for failure of any province to enter into an agreement with the dominion.
My third point relates to the magnitude of the annual payments to the provinces. There are some who point out that they are larger than those contained in our original offer to the provinces of August, 1945, larger even than those contained in the budget offer of June 27,

1946, and criticize us for making several improvements in our proposals during the course of the protracted negotiations. We certainly did try to go as far as we could to meet the objections and secure the agreement of all provinces. We admit that the annual payments to be made to provinces under our present offer are substantially higher than those recommended by the Rowell-Sirois royal commission, than those made under the war-time tax agreements, and than those we originally offered. If we can be criticized at all, I think it would be on the ground of the generosity of our proposals. On the other hand, we believe we can justify these agreements, if they result in placing the governments of all provinces in a position to carry out their constitutional functions efficiently and independently, if they safeguard against a scramble amongst ten competing governments for revenues in the field of direct taxation, and if they allow the dominion to develop a sound and efficient tax system calculated to increase employment, production and national income rather than one which acts as a drag upon production.
I believe that those provinces which enter into the agreement will find themselves in an enviable financial position as compared with anything which they have experienced in the past. They will receive revenues from income and corporation taxes and succession duties very much larger than ever before. The guaranteed minimum payment of 8206 million and the estimated adjusted payment for 1947 of over $228 million to which I have already referred compare with a peak yield obtained from the rented tax fields by provincial governments of some $117 million. AVhat is more important in enabling provincial governments to plan programmes of service and expenditure over a period of years is the assurance that for the next five years they will have at least the very high guaranteed revenue from these tax sources, regardless of fluctuations in the national income, regardless of whether the next few years are to bring a business recession. a crop failure or a substantial decline in commodity prices. If, on the other hand, the national income increases and their own population continues to grow, they know also that they are assured of proportionately increased revenues from these tax sources.
Finally, as I said in my budget speech, instead of the provinces which accept the agreement-
-weakening their autonomy or sacrificing any of their constitutional rights, they have merely found a method of utilizing one of these rights, a method of renting instead of cultivating a tax field, whereby they can assure this revenue at generous levels guaranteed against the risks of

Tax Agreements with Provinces
economic adversity and participating also in the profits of growth and prosperity. With this assurance of stable and rising revenues, they are for the first time in a position to plan with courage and confidence and a sense of real independence, programmes for the efficient discharge of their constitutional responsibility.
If I may state this in a different way, we are convinced that acceptance of the proposals will increase rather than diminish the power and prestige of provincial governments because it will enable them to carry out far more effectively and independently the responsibilities which have been assigned to them under our constitution. Nevertheless, it is quite open to any provincial government to hold a contrary view. There is no obligation on any government to enter into the agreement unless it is convinced that such action would be its own best interest. We trust and believe that when the proposals are fully understood, they will commend themselves to all provincial governments. Such general agreement is necessary in order to make possible the achievement of the great national purposes which inspired the comprehensive proposals of August, 1945. The details of our original proposals may of course change as a result of further study or of developing public opinion or of discussion with provincial governments at a general conference which will be necessary before they can be implemented. The proposed contributions which the dominion may be able to make in the field of public investment and social security may, as I have said publicly and as I advised the provinces which were negotiating with us last winter, have to be revised to take into account the substantial increase in the financial payments which' the dominion has now undertaken to make as rental for the tax fields in question. But the main objectives expressed in those proposals remain the guiding objectives of this government. We are hoping that agreement of all provinces may be secured in order that the people of this country may be able to secure the benefits of an efficient and equitable tax system, and in order that all governments may be able to follow policies which promote high employment and high national income, and safeguard against the recurrence of the "boom or depression" experience of the pre-war period.
John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us this evening is one which has to do with the financial relationships between the provinces and the dominion. This is a country which has a federal system of government, one in which we find a division of government responsibility. We have the central government-in this case the dominion governmentand we have the provincial governments. Each of these governments has certain responsibilities and certain taxing powers.
In Canada the responsibilities are divided between the dominion and provincial jurisdictions. In some cases these responsibilities are not clearly defined. In this country the taxing power is limited in the case of the provinces, and unlimited in the case of the dominion. In other words, there is no taxation field in which the dominion cannot operate. But the provinces are limited to direct taxes.
The bill before us tonight is one to authorize the government of Canada to enter into agreements with the governments of the provinces, agreements in which, in return for compensation, the provinces agree to refrain from levying certain taxes. In other words, the dominion government in this bill asks the provinces to refrain from taxing in certain fields, and for that concession the dominion government undertakes to pay money to the provinces. I believe I have thus correctly described the basic principle in the bill.
The minister has reviewed in brief the history in recent years of dominion-provincial financial relations, and I do not propose to go over that ground again. I did it in a general way on one or two occasions in the last session of parliament, and I do not know that there is anything I can add by way of detail to the statement I then made.
May I at this point refer to one or two comments made by the minister. He referred to the report of the Rowell-Sirois commission, a commission which was appointed by this government ten years ago and which made its report to the government seven years ago. It was a commission the functions of which were to study this question. It did study this question; indeed it studied it thoroughly and for a longer period of time than any other dominion commission of which I am aware. That commission made a most valuable report, one in which is contained what I believe is the fullest and most valuable statement of dominion-provincial affairs made since confederation.
The basic recommendation of that commission was that the provinces of Canada should be aided by the central government on the basis of,fiscal need. What does that mean? In a federal system where we have a central government and, in this instance, nine provincial governments, some of those provincial governments may be operating in an economy which does not give as high a standard of living as is enjoyed by other sections of the nation. That condition is true in Canada. The standard of living varies in different parts and from time to time; and one section may be
Tax Agreements with Provinces

down today or five years from now as compared with the others. In this nation the economy of each province is not exactly a duplicate of the economy of every other province: in fact there are vast differences, so that we find in this nation six different major types of economy.
In the past, some of these provinces have not been able to secure as high a standard of living or of public service as some of the others. In the past, they have been the prairie provinces and the maritime provinces. The result is that in those areas if the people are to have a standard of public service equal to the average in Canada they have to apply ;axation rates much higher than the average taxation rates throughout the rest of the ;ountry.
For many years that condition was permitted to pass by without serious protest, although it is a fact that practically since the time of confederation there have been protests pointing out the inequality of the situation. Any province which has had this condition has considered it a serious matter, but it was not until the depression in the early thirties that the difficulty came prominently to the fore. At that time the provinces in those sections of Canada to which I have referred -and perhaps others-felt they could not face the future and meet their obligations unless these problems were solved.
I believe it will be admitted that it was partly due-and I was going to say largely due-to pressure from certain of those provinces that the dominion consented to have this study made ten years ago. As I have pointed out, the basic recommendation of the royal commission was that the less favoured provinces of Canada should be aided by the central government, the only government able to collect taxes from whatever sources they may be obtained throughout the nation, and that they see to it that the needed moneys will be spent where they are required. The recommendation was that the central government should collect taxes wherever they can be obtained, and that the provinces suffering from poorer economy should be benefited on the basis of fiscal need; that is to the extent of the amount of money necessary to enable those provinces to have the same level of public service as the other provinces have, without having to apply a higher level of taxation.
I need not go into the history of what happened to that report. Everyone knows that in the second year of the war a conference was called and that owing to the objections of certain provinces and the unwillingness of the dominion government to

proceed in the face of those objections, those proposals failed of acceptance. The dominion government came along with another kind of agreement which met these difficulties in somewhat different terms. Those agreements were arranged to terminate at the end of the war.
Then, anticipating the termination of those agreements, the government came forward about two years ago with the plan to which the minister has referred. He has spoken of it as a plan broader in scope than that envisaged iby the Rowell-Sirois commission. It is true that it is broader in scope, much broader. The cost of the plan proposed by the Rowell-Sirois commission cannot in fairness be compared1 on equal terms with the cost of the present proposals. It is just as well, however, to know what the costs were. The minister says ithe plan of 1945 was on a broader scope. The net cost bo the dominion government under the plan proposed by the Rowell-Sirois commission was not $228 million a year; it was but $40 million a year. I am not suggesting that the figures are exactly comparable, but those were the figures they gave. Tonight the minister intimated that the cost of paying the provinces during the war was $117 million, although I had thought the figure was lower than that-some $86 million.
The Rowell-Sirois commission plan was to cost- the dominion $40 million; the wartime tax agreements, as I gathered from the minister, $117 million, although I thought the cost, was less than that; the 1945 proposals, $138 million; the 1946 proposals, $198 million; the present proposals, $228 million. We are in this position then; not only were the 1945 proposals much broader than those of the Rowell-Sirois commission, but the proposals tonight are very much broader at least in cost; they constitute a much greater burden on the Canadian people than the proposals made by the Rowell-Sirois commission; they are very much greater than the payments made by the dominion under the wartime tax agreements; they are very much greater than the proposals brought forward in 1945, and they are very much greater than the proposals brought forward in 1946. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) intimated the other night that if the 1945 proposals were fully implemented they would mean a charge upon this country of $500 million to $600 million a year. Briefly, there is the growth in the development of these projects in recent years.
In my judgment, no good Canadian in any province can oppose payments by the dominion to the provinces on the basis of fiscal

Tax Agreements with Provinces
need. I do not think any provincial government in Canada would oppose that. I do not think any thoughtful student of these matters in. Canada would oppose it. I would think they would all take pride in trying to bring about that measure of equity in this nation. Certainly that is my view and I hope it will be found to be the view of those who sit with me. I am sure it will.
I have not seen certain of the calculations and figures which the minister put on the record tonight, but I am going to refer to them in a moment. But in so far as this measure provides fiscal need for the provinces of Canada, it will receive our support. In so far as it fails to provide fiscal need, the bill is weak and should be remedied. In so far as it provides more than fiscal need, it is not a sound method of financing in Canada.
Does this proposal meet fiscal needs? I will not answer that myself; I will let the government's figures answer it. The 1945 proposals were to cost $138 million; the 1946 proposals, $198 million, and these proposals, a minimum of $206 million, and on the basis of the 1947 figures which the minister gave, $228 million. If in the 1945 proposals the government was planning to meet the fiscal needs of the provinces by providing $138 million, certainly it is paying enough to meet the fiscal needs of the provinces now by providing $228 million which is $90 million more. On that basis I do not think there can be any question but that this plan does meet the fiscal needs of the weaker provinces.
The question now arises: How wise is it to proceed to do more than that? Do ndt misunderstand me; I am not proposing that the provinces of Canada get less than the plan offered now. We are looking at the question of the wisdom of the policy of one government raising money and giving it to other governments to spend. To the extent that it is necessary to meet fiscal need, I will support it and I think every good Canadian will support it; but to the extent that it goes beyond that, I ask this question: Is that sound fiscal policy? Is that sound financial policy? I am not going to depend upon my own opinion in that matter, I am going to quote what another authority had to say several years ago on this question. I should like to quote from page 316 of Hansard of February 21, 1929. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking at that time, had this to say:
I believe that everyone who has given any attention to public finance will agree that it is a thoroughly vicious system to have one body raise taxes and another body expend the money thus secured. In other words, give to the provinces these grants from the federal treasury,
without their being obliged to raise the money themselves by taxation, and you will not get, with respect to expenditure, that careful supervision which would be exercised if the provinces themselves were obliged to raise the money in the first instance. It is a bad system, a thoroughly vicious system, and that is the reason wby the present administration has been seeking to put an end to a system that grew up at a time when the country was in the throes of war or had to meet a post-war situation-a system which, had it been permitted to develop, would have become thoroughly destructive of anything in the shape of economy w'ith respect to the expenditure of the people's money.
The same position was taken later on, on April 3, 1930. The same authority, the present Prime Minister of Canada, had this to say, as reported on page 1237 of Hansard:
When on a previous occasion we were discussing this matter of grants from one treasury to another, I said I thought it was an unsound principle; in fact, I think I used the expression that it was a vicious principle to have one body raise the taxes and another body spend the people's moneys thus raised. Is there any hon. member who will disagree with me in that statement?
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Prime Minister. That question is his question, not mine. Then he went on to answer it as follows:
There is none. That is the extent of the statement I made. I was referring to a principle of financing, speaking simply in relation to what is sound and what is unsound in financing. Anyone interested in financing, whether of a municipality, a province, a dominion, an empire, or a league of nations, will, I think, admit it is unwise, an unsound, a wrong principle for one body to have to do with raising the taxes and another to be concerned with the spending of the money so raised, that other body not having to account to the representatives of those *who have paid the taxes.
As I said, this measure, in so far as it provides fiscal need to the provinces of Canada will, I hope, receive the support of every right-thinking Canadian. This measure does that; but I criticize it on several grounds. I criticize it, first, because the government goes at the question of solving this problem in the wrong way, a way which makes for disunity in Canada. It approaches the provinces one by one. It has now got seven provinces in out of nine. These seven provinces represent only about one-third of the tax-paying part of Canada and only a little more than one-third of the population of Canada. Of the money that is being used by the government for this purpose, two-thirds or three-quarters of it come from those provinces which, under the present arrangement are receiving no benefits. The point I am now making is that the approach is wrong; the government, as I said, is going at the problem in the ivrong way. It is an
Tax Agreements with Provinces

approach which makes for disunity. Was there ever any question in anybody's mind that when a proposal like this came forward, a proposal in which the government of Canada said to the provinces, "we will get two-thirds or three-quarters of this money from two provinces and give it to you", those six or seven provinces would eventually accept? None at all. That is my first criticism. Is it a healthy condition that we should have seven provinces accepting this, seven which get much more than they could raise from these revenues in their own jurisdiction, and two not having it; yet paying much of what the others get? I ask, is that a healthy state in this nation? Should we not be applying ourselves seriously to trying to solve these problems without having such a situation as this arise?
My second criticism is this. In a federal state this policy of the government goes a long way toward centralizing taxation powers. Whether that is good or bad there can be no question of the facts. That is what it does. We have admitted that it does secure a small measure of equality, having regard to the responsibility of the provincial governments. This measure helps certain provincial governments; but it does not help correct inequalities in the economy of the different parts of the nation. It helps governments improve their problems with respect to public services. My immediate criticism is that in a federal state, with each government having to raise its own revenues, this plan goes a long way toward centralizing taxing power in Canada. The government asks the provinces to give up their powers to tax. The government says, "We will give you money back for this concession; we will give you more than you raise yourselves". But the fact is, that having been done, the powers of taxation rest in this government, not with the provinces.
The minister talks about "renting" taxes. It is more than renting taxes; it is asking the provinces to give up constitutional rights.


Mr. ROWE:: Renting rights.


John Bracken: My third criticism is that in a federal state-and that is what ours is- this plan fails to give to the provinces any clear field of taxation of their own; it does not give them even any minor fields. There is not a single taxation field into which the dominion cannot go. There is scarcely a single field into which the dominion has not gone. I do not think there is a single field into which the dominion has said that it would not go. It has left some fields temporarily; it may stay out for a while, but it has not said it would

stay out indefinitely. It does not say that the provinces can have any small taxation field of their own from which the dominion would keep away.
My fourth criticism is that the government's procedure, as it worked out, has failed to achieve continuance of plans for dominion-provincial conferences. That is a serious criticism. The government may say, "Well, we tried and we failed; we have not any hope of getting anywhere if we call another conference," and the other folks will give their answer and say, you were too rigid, and so on. If we are to wait until these problems are easy to solve before we are willing to sit down together and face hard difficulties and overcome 'them, we are going to be a long time in getting a better country. My criticism is that the government has failed to achieve a continuance of dominion-provincial conference. In a federal state that is a serious condition of affairs. Here we are working together, dominion and provinces; sometimes our jurisdictions overlap; sometimes they do not, but they are always closely related. The healthiest condition this nation could have would be for the dominion to have regular conferences wi'th the provinces. I feel that, to the extent powers are centred here in Ottawa and used here, we are arriving at a dangerous situation where a few men can make major decisions on important matters. This nation will be a healthier place if the dominion and the several provinces were to sit down together more frequently. If the provinces are not well informed, inform them. But do not try to order them. Inform them ahd educate them. Geit them to come together with the dominion. But I am not suggesting that the provinces need education.


Mr. HARTT:: I think they do.


John Bracken: All right; name which ones.


Maurice Hartt: I will name them.


John Bracken: My fifth criticism is that this policy has resulted in delaying certain social security, health and public investment policies which were well received across this nation when they were put forward by the experts of the government some -two or three years ago. This government brought forth these policies and said they were good. They said, we will put them into effect if the provinces will agree. It turns out that these policies will cost the nation $500 or $600 million a year when they are implemented. The government now comes forward and says, only seven provinces having agreed, it cannot bring

Tax Agreements with Provinces
forward these policies which it said would help this nation head off a depression in the future. It is said that a depression is in the offing and these things would help avoid it. Yet, the government fails to come forward with these measures itself and it fails to call the provinces together to tiy to get a plan to put them into effect. I say their plan has delayed the bringing forward of these policies of social security, health and public investment-public works or whatever you like to call them-policies aimed to correct certain social inequities in Canada and at the same time help to head off the danger of a recession.
My sixth criticism is that the plan abandons the principle of fiscal needs. The minister referred to that. He said that it is different from fiscal need. He said that his plan had covered the principle of fiscal need; but, Mr. Speaker, this plan'is not a plan of fiscal need; neither is this plan on the basis of equal per capita payment; this plan is the result of going at things piecemeal and having to consider something different for each province. This plan is the result of going at this thing piecemeal; having got three provinces to agree at first, the government found that British Columbia wanted more and they had to give more to get British Columbia in. The government having got British Columbia in, the other provinces felt they had a grievance and came here and the government felt it had to give them more.


Thomas Reid: We think we did all right in British Columbia.


John Bracken: Finally, as the minister said tonight, the seventh province has come in. Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this to the minister who has introduced the bill. He put on the record certain calculations, certain figures, which none of us have seen. I can complete my remarks tonight at this stage and be through, but I am wondering whether that will accomplish most in the way of expediting the debate. We are not planning to have many speakers on this side. I should like to deal with the matter as fully as needed and as fairly and frankly as I see it. If the government is not ready to go on with anything else and wishes me to complete my remarks tonight I will do so but if I do, and I find in the record something that we have not seen, or something that is new, or something that needs to be answered, we shall have to deal with it as necessary in committee of the whole. We can do that, and from the point of view of the opposition, perhaps from a purely political point of view, that would
be the better thing for us to do. I am willing to go on and finish my remarks tonight, or I am willing to leave the matter over in order to see what there is that is new in what the minister has put on the record, and then conclude tomorrow. I am not asking any favour of the minister. If he feels that it will expedite the work of the house in dealing with this particular matter to go on with other matters now, that can be done, but if he prefers to have me conclude now I can follow that course.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am willing to meet my hon. friend's convenience, but I do not think he will find in the tables I placed on Hansard tonight anything that contains new material. It is largely informative, to show how the increased commitments are calculated on the basis of the gross national production, set out in detail, the minimum payments on the latest population figures we have for the various provinces, and so on. But if my hon. friend prefers to adjourn the debate and go on later, I would not object. As I say, however, he will not find that the tables I have put on Hansard tonight will supply any material for which he would have any particular need for the purposes of his statement.


John Bracken: I will leave it with the minister. He may not think so, but I am trying to help him.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps the hon. member had better adjourn the debate.


John Bracken: Then, if the minister is willing, and the house as well, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

William Henry Golding: The committee is considering item 551, national defence.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was reading a letter which appeared in Maclean's magazine, and I should like to finish it now:
Before the price to be offered to each owner was finally decided upon, each property was reviewed by a board of appraisers, made up of those listed herein, when the soldiers' settlement representatives appeared before the board to discuss and justify their valuation of each property. All were treated alike, tbfre was no coercion, no favouritism, and in my estimation, never was an expropriation more carefully planned and more equitably settled than this undertaking.
Supply-National Defence

If the owner thought the amount offered to him was not fair, and he had even the slightest reason for his contention, the property was reappraised by two soldiers' settlement representatives, and adjustments made if found warranted.
How you can print such a report without fully investigating the facts, does not seem in keeping with your usual standard. Surely you do not print everything any crackpot says, and I suggest a little more vigilance on the part of your editors would keep out such erroneous reporting.
It seems to me that in a spirit of justice you should rectify this statement by printing the facts in your next issue.
Yours very truly,
Westmount Realties Company,
J. W. Rankin, Vice-president.
That is a letter which appeared in Maclean's magazine. I may say that many of the statements in that letter were entirely wrong. The letter may express the writer's point of view, but it was certainly not the point of view of the settlers who had resided in that, area for thirty or forty years, and some of them perhaps longer.
While I do not wish to tire the committee, I should like to read a letter which I received from one of the residents in that area, a man who had lived there for thirty-five years and who perhaps knew the conditions in that district better than any of those the government had in there. The letter is from a man named Philip E. Birtwistle, a resident of Medicine Hat, who had resided in the area. The letter is dated June 21, 1946, and reads: An item appeared in Maclean's magazine of March 15, referring to the British block and the injustice of the settlement v7ith the expropriated residents. It evoked a letter from a Mr. Rankin of Montreal, which appeared in Maclean's of June 1, in which he says the article is misleading and makes several statements in support of his contention. I have written a reply to his letter, refuting his statements. I am enclosing a copy of the letter as it will probably be a month before it appears in print. I also enclose a resolution from the Redcliff town council. Plenty of supporting evidence can be produced should the case be reopened.
This is what this gentleman has to say. He s writing to the editor, Maclean's magazine, Toronto, Ontario:
^ Dear Sir:	I have read the article in Cross
Country of Maclean's, March 15 and a letter from a Mr. Rankin of Montreal, commenting on it. As the first article was a fair, but by no means complete statement of the case, I did not feel called upon to amplify it. But, as Mr. Rankin's letter may prejudice the chances of a reopening of the case, I would like to answer, and refute, the statements he made.
As a farmer in the block I was served with a notice of expropriation by an R.C.M.P. officer, not by mail, and told I must get out by a certain date. There was no question of negotiating agreements, but, being dissatisfied with the  .	,
amount allotted to my partner and myself, I saw Colonel Gibson, who was in authority, who did not think it necessary to interview me in an office, but did his business with me in the lobby of the court house, standing up. He refused to discuss the settlement in detail, or to give me a detailed, itemized statement. He said I could accept or let it go to the exchequer court, but, he added, by the time the exchequer court settled it, the buildings and other improvements, which we were to be allowed to remove, would be gone. I asked him where they would be and he replied, "Oh, just smashed up and got out of the way."
The statement that all interested parties accepted the terms offered, although apparently correct, is actually wrong. Two factors forced the farmers to accept, although most of them tried to get better terms with little or no success. The first factor was, that it was a war measure. We were told, and it was correct, that the area was needed for the prosecution of the war. To buck it or delay it would be unpatriotic and we definitely agreed with this.
The second factor was economic. The farmers had just been through the worst depression in history, with prices for farm products at an all-time low. They were making out all right, but were unable to leave their homes and finance themselves until the exchequer court settled the case. How could they set about securing another location, purchase another farm, move on to it and wait a year for returns from it, without any settlement of their holdings? What would the majority of them live on, for perhaps a year, before the exchequer court settled it, while their crop was in the ground and they could not harvest it? Although not legally forced to accept, actually they had no alternative.
The next statement, that, "of 275 interested parties, more than half had found it impossible to make a living." is another half-truth. There were actually 126 families residing in the block at the time of the expropriation. Like all such pioneer settlements, many left at different times for many different reasons. Some left for their health as the climate did not suit them. Some were unable to stand the grind of pioneering. Some left because of the distance from town, and the depression and low prices was a main factor in forcing many away. But the 126 that remained were doing all right, many of them were engaged in large scale farming, with power equipment, and stock as a sideline, and. had they been left there, would have made very good and substantial gains in the past five years of rising prices.	The last statement, referring to the
delegation who wished to be included in the block, is on a par with the other statements. They knew nothing of the prices, good or bad, but as their grazing and other holdings would be seriously reduced by the closing of the block and, as this would cut out a large part of their income, they considered they would be unable to carry on with their diminished holdings.
I enclose a statement of the holdings of my partner and myself, and the amount we received, which I believe is fairly average, and it may be appended if the editor thinks fit to do so. I could amplify this further but I think the above is sufficient to show we have a good case for reconsideration.
That is a letter from a resident of that block, who lived there for many years and

Supply-National Defence
made a success of farming in that dry area. I may say that the settlement in this Bing-ville district was one of the happiest communities in Alberta. Many social events were held there where the people got together. They were the ones who had been left there while the others moved out, and the settlement they got was entirely inadequate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried:


William Duncan McKay Wylie: It will be carried when I am through.


Mr. LESAGE:: Is that a promise?


William Henry Golding: Order.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I want to put on Hansard a statement regarding the settlement made with this farmer and his partner, and what he got for 640 acres of land with buildings and everything. This is a statement of holdings in the spring of 1941: land, 640 acres, full title, unencumbered and all taxes fully paid; 1.280 acres under crop lease from provincial government; 320 acres under grazing lease from provincial government; house, IS by 24, two story with verandah and porch; granaries, capacity, 10,000 bushels-five, 12 by 14; one, 12 by 16; one, 18 by 24; barns-one 18 by 30; one, 18 by 28, with lean-to 24 by 16; garages-one, 12 by 20; one, 10 by 16; blacksmith shop, chicken house and coal shed; fence, five miles, 850 posts, 12 miles barbed wire; two wells, one dam and two miles of graded road, built by them at their own expense. In addition to that, they had 620 acres seeded to wheat in that year. For those holdings they received the sum of $5,700. After a period of forty years, does anyone consider that to be a fair settlement? I should think not. I am afraid that those farmers are not in the same class as those whom we were discussing in this house just a little while ago, where one could go to the government and get a better settlement, and then another come along. These farmers were not in that class. They had to accept what was offered to them; and, being good patriotic citizens, they did that and assisted in the war effort all they could.
I feel that more consideration should be given to them and I see no reason why the case should not be reopened. I know of one farmer in particular who had gone through a period of bad years, when he had no crop for six or seven years. By 1941 he was just getting back on his feet and had a nice herd of cattle. He was running about 125 head of cattle and about forty head of horses. He was too old to go out and start up in a new community. Therefore he had to dispose of his
stock and everything and move into the city of Medicine Hat. Everything he got for his holdings is now pretty well gone, because of the increased cost of living and many other items. I hope the minister and the government will see fit to reopen this case and see if these farmers cannot get a better settlement and if a readjustment cannot be allowed on many of the settlements which were made. I should like to know what the government intends to do about this matter. There is no use in letting it slip along. The parliamentary assistant to the minister is here and he should be able to let me know what the government intends to do about it.


Mr. HUGUES LAPOINTE (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: I can only say that I shall be pleased to bring the matter to the minister's attention for his consideration; but, as the hon. member knows very well, it has been considered from time to time. Up to this date it has been considered that the settlement was adequate and no decision has been made to reopen the case. I shall again draw the matter to the minister's attention.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Can the parliamentary
assistant say when the consideration will be given and how many applied for consideration?


Hugues Lapointe: It has I know, been given just lately. As soon as the estimates are through, I shall be very glad to have the matter reopened.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant four or five questions, and in doing so I would not want to be understood as trying to injure the defence forces in any way. The present position of Canada is such that we must do everything possible to help the men who are trying to give us efficient defence forces. We have moved from the bush league into the big league in world affairs, and from now on for all time we must be prepared to face this question, not only of whether we vare able to defend ourselves, but also of whether we are able to do our share in building up an effective world police organization.
The first question I would ask the minister, who has now come into the house, has to do with the trained field force, about which very little has been said today. When the former minister of national defence laid down the policy in this house on October 16, 1945, he dealt fully with this field force. He was giving the two main elements of the post-war army. In the first place, he referred to the part-time reserve army, and then went on to
Supply-National Defence

deal with what we call the permanent force. At page 1135 of Hansard for October 16, 1945, he said:
The second will be the permanently employed active force, whose duty it will be to assist in the training and administration of the reserve army and to supply the necessary staffs, services and scientific research and development personnel, augmented by a small formation of essential field units. This formation will be maintained as a trained field force, fully epuipped, ready to meet whatever commitments may arise. Until we know more about our international obligations and consequent requirements, these active force units will be retained as a minimum and would be subject to whatever expansion might later be required in the light of any obligations which we might accept to assist in maintaining the peace of the world. Preliminary estimates indicate that the numbers involved in the active permanently employed force will be between 20,000 and 25,000 all ranks.
We were given to understand at that time that this trained field force would be, in effect, a brigade group, with infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and so on; that it would be a field force ready to operate as such. A year later, in October, 1946, the same defence minister, the present Minister of Finance, was questioned about Canada's peace-time forces while he was visiting in Victoria. At that time the Russians were demanding a general reduction in armaments, and the minister was asked what Canada would do about reducing her armaments. His answer was to this effect, that Canada's peace-time forces were so small there was nothing to cut. That was the substance of his statement at that time. Then in January, 1947, the present minister announced a twenty-five per cent cut. I should like to know what has happened to this trained field force, whether it is still in existence or just what has happened to it.
Then I wish to ask a question in the same connection about the reserve army. In the statement on October 16, 1945, the former minister laid great stress on the role of the reserve army, and referred to it as-
. . . this important force which will form the background of any possible future military endeavour . . .
Today w'e find much the same statement made by the minister as the fifth paragraph of the programme he presented, in these words:
Development of reserve forces of an age and with educational and physical standards and training approximating those of the active forces competent to go to sea, take the field or fly.
Yet this afternoon he said the men in the reserve forces would get only fourteen days of training in a year, though some groups such as trade groups may get extra training. In the face of a programme of that kind I would ask him to explain how it is going to be

possible to build up a reserve army with standards of training approximating those of the active forces, competent to go to sea, take the field or fly. Two years ago we warned the then minister that he would have to give a very strong lead at once if he wished to build up a reserve army in Canada. I have here a clipping from the Montreal Gazette, published in the minister's own city, dated June 28, just a few days ago-


Brooke Claxton: Not my paper, though.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the minister will agree that it is a good paper.


Brooke Claxton: I do not think I agree with that in regard to its news items or its editorials.


Howard Charles Green: This is a news item, and I do not think he will question it.


Brooke Claxton: I certainly do.


Howard Charles Green: The heading is:
Black Watch only military unit to arrange for summer camp.
All other reserve bodies are much below strength due to general lack of public interest, is claim.
The article goes on to say this, about this famous regiment:
The Black Watch (RHR) of Canada will be the only military unit in this area to attend summer reserve camp in a body this year, it was learned yesterday. The Black Watch will spend a week end in July at Farnham.
Because of a general lack of interest in reserve army training since the end of the war, all units are very much below strength.
I would ask the minister to deal with those two points, the matter of the field force and the possibility of building up a fully trained reserve army on the basis of a few days' training a year, as he announced this afternoon.


Brooke Claxton: In regard to the last remark of the hon. member, concerning a quotation from the Montreal Gazette, I should say that is the kind of incorrect editorializing that frequently appears in some newspapers in Canada. That article is not in accordance with the facts as I know them. Other units are going to train; and the kind of training provided, as I have said, is on a scale never before equalled in Canada. Provision is made for thirty days training for the quota of 30,000, and, in addition, fourteen days at camp plus fifteen days additional training for tradesmen. I would ask any hon. member who has had any experience with the reserve forces to say whether anything has

Supply-National Defence
ever before been done to this degree in Canada. With regard to the statement about the twenty-five per cent cut-


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If I may ask a question, surely that 30,000 covers all three services, not just one?


Brooke Claxton: This is just for the army alone.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Thirty thousand for the army alone?


Brooke Claxton: Yes; and, with regard to the 25 per cent cut, may I say that is something which I believe was developed out of the newspapers. What has happened is that for the purposes of the armed forces this year we are recruiting only up to 75 per cent of the established strengths of the active forces. There has been no change in their establishment. That applies also to the brigade groups. It is quite right for the hon. member to ask about the status of his brigade group. It does not yet exist as a fighting unit fit to take the field at any moment. That work is still in progress. The men are still being trained and organizational work is being done. In it at the present time there is a total of 192 officers and 1,952 men.


Howard Charles Green: What would be the establishment for that field force?


Brooke Claxton: A brigade group has always been a fairly indefinite term. I believe the idea in mind at the time it was first suggested was that it should amount to something of the magnitude of about 5.000 officers and men.


Howard Charles Green: That is the figure I had in mind.


Brooke Claxton: And I believe, on the 75 per cent strength, it would be of the magnitude of 3,541 officers and men.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister not think it would be wise to carry out the original policy, recruit this brigade group up to strength, and keep it up to strength and trained as a fighting unit? As I understand it, they are now scattered all the way from Esquimalt to Sydney or Halifax. Would it not be wise to relax the 75 per cent rule in respect of that field force, bring it up to strength, and have a first-class and efficient fighting brigade group in Canada?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member's question is a difficult one to answer because it depends upon a great many technical and strategical considerations, with which I am not competent to deal. But I should think that once one regards the armed forces of Canada from what I believe is the right point of view
at the present time, that is as a training force for future staff officers and leaders, and for the reserve forces of Canada, then I should think the wisdom of keeping constantly mobilized and ready for action anything in the nature of a brigade group in one place would be a mistake.
It all depends upon time, circumstances, dangers and everything else. Given the present development of weapons

and I say that advisedly in view of what was said this afternoon -we can take care of anything that happens in Canada in the immediate future. Given another kind of development of weapons and technique, that might not be adequate. But for the time being I believe our primary purpose should be to develop staff officers, officers training establishments, depots, technicians and tradesmen, as well as trained personnel who are competent to provide the nucleus for anything that might happen in the future.


Howard Charles Green: That can only mean, then, that the government has now abandoned the policy announced in 1945.


Brooke Claxton: No.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, it does.


Brooke Claxton: It has to be related to the time.


Howard Charles Green: The policy then as stated by the Minister of National Defence was perfectly clear, and here it is:
This formation will be maintained as a trained field force fully equipped, ready to meet whatever commitments may arise.
The minister's statement tonight means that we are reverting to the days of the thirties, when we are using our permanent force for training and staff work. Obviously there is a change of policy, and I do not think it is a proper change. I suggest, however, that the committee can see for itself what is meant. The minister cannot rise in his place now and say that the policy he has announced is anything but an absolute turning away from the policy announced on October 16, 1945, with regard to the field force.


Brooke Claxton: It is a question of time and of the wise spending of such resources as we have.


Howard Charles Green: Of course things are more serious now than they were then.


Brooke Claxton: Well, they may be. The fact is that I believe we can take care of things as they exist today in Canada. We are not abandoning, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South, the idea of a brigade group which might be ready to take the field if that were necessary. That
532S
Supply-National Defence

has not been abandoned at all; it is being organized, trained and worked at. On the other hand, we are concentrating our attention equally on the other necessities of defence: how much we do of each depends, in part, on the flow of training schedules, the flow of recruits and on other considerations which vary from time to time, as well as on the necessities of the case.
As I see it at the present time, we are going sufficiently fast with both, provided that during the current year we can encourage, with the support of hon. members and other public-spirited people throughout the country, young Canadians to go into the armed forces in sufficient numbers to bring them up to the strength authorized. That requires some additional enlistments, particularly in connection with the army. They are coming along; and in order to secure them we are putting on the campaign next September to which I have already referred.


Howard Charles Green: I believe the minister would find that one of the greatest attractions to the young men of this country would be the possibility of enlisting in a crack field force where they would receive the most modern training. We understood, in 1945 for example, that the whole field force were to be trained as paratroopers. If the minister were to set up something of that type he would find that young Canadians would respond quickly and would make the finest force in the world. But I say to him it will be very difficult to build up a first-class force if these units are to be scattered right across Canada, away under strength, and simply doing sentry duty or routine training of one kind or another. I would ask the minister to turn that over in his mind between sessions.


Brooke Claxton: That is one of the difficulties any country the size of Canada has in apportioning its armed forces among three services over a great area. I appreciate the point the hon. member made, because that is one thing that gave us much concern. I must point out, however, that all the men entering the armed forces receive the most modern training and that very few of them are engaged in sentry duty or anything of that kind.


Howard Charles Green: I meant duties of that sort.


Brooke Claxton: I understand that. But in anything of that kind our aim is to have as much as possible of the work of security guards, fire-fighters, clerks, mess orderlies, cooks and the like done by civilians, so that all in the armed forces will be trained fighting soldiers. Whether one of those soldiers is at any given moment made part of a brigade

group, which is a fighting operational unit, or is made part of a training establishment in one of the training camps in Canada probably matters very little from the point of view of that man's efficiency. We hope to have everyone efficient and we believe they are. It may be that we shall find that to isolate them in brigade groups doing nothing but operational exercises will not be the best way to keep up their keenness and that they should be associated with men in training in other fields. The whole operation and plan will have to be worked out, and I think it is being done in a sensible way.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest to the minister that he have some special name for that brigade group; make it a corps d'elite. I think, if it Were permitted to train in different parts of Canada at different times he would find that the effect would be most beneficial both to the reserve army and to the active army.
My next question has to do with these more modern weapons of war. This morning the minister referred to atomic bombs, jet-propelled planes, rockets and higher speed submarines as being the principal new weapons introduced near the end of the recent war. He referred also to chemical and bacteriological agents. During his statement this afternoon he explained that the jet-propelled planes were on order from Great Britain. Has the Canadian government taken any steps to invite the British government to send their airmen here to train in jet-propelled planes? I believe they have the greatest difficulty in training over the United Kingdom because they hardly get started before they are over the sea. Out on the prairies we have the air fields, the distances and the suitable weather, and it seems to me thait it would be appropriate for Canada to take a lead in setting up some type of commonwealth air training plan for the training of personnel in the handling of these jet-propelled planes. The same thing is true in connection with training in the use of mechanized units by the army. Has Canada taken any steps to arrange for this kind of training to be done in Canada? The Ottawa Citizen of June 14 contained an article headed, "See Canada as key in era of superweapons. Even atom mist range in northland reported." This was a dispatch from London, and referring to Canada it said:
For Canada this scheme is believed by these sources to envisage the setting up of an atomic range in -the frozen northland on the lines of the Australian rocket range in the bush country. Here experiments with radio-active "clouds" could be carried out in safety. This was forecast for the near future

Supply-National Defence
Will the minister state whether anything has been done along the lines I suggest?


Brooke Claxton: There is a great deal of misunderstanding about jet propelled planes. I certainly am far from being an expert in this or any other military field, except perhaps the six-inch howitzer which is long obsolete, but I understand that flying a jet propelled plane does not entail any particularly new problem. I am informed by my advisers that they are as easy to fly, if not easier, than many of the later type planes in the last war and that their landing speeds are not very different from those of other planes. Apart from their higher speed! and probably cheaper cost of production, they are not very different from ordinary planes.
We have not had any request from the United Kingdom that we should provide training fields for flyers along the lines of the British commonwealth air training plan, nor have we had- any request for training in mechanized warfare. I would think that the United Kingdom had ample facilities for both types of training. On the other hand, we exchange staff officers and technicians every now and then; we exchange information and have the closest kind of cooperation with the United Kingdom as we have with the United States. There is nothing additional that appears to be necessary to be done in this connection at this time. It has not been suggested by anyone with army experience. Our cooperation with what I described as other like-minded nations is free and frank and leads to greater efficiency on both sides.


Howard Charles Green: Would this suggestion, if carried out, not help our own air men? Would there be any objection from the Canadian point of view to carrying out a plan of that type? The training would be done under the department and the Canadian authorities.


Brooke Claxton: I am not sure how that would work out and I would have to discuss it with my colleagues. If it seems to be desirable from the air force point of view, then it would have to be considered from the point of view of policy and so on. I am not in a position to give a reply offhand. I can assure my hon. friend and the committee that there is the closest cooperation with regard to staff work, instructors and technicians.


Howard Charles Green: In recent weeks there has been considerable publicity with regard to the acquisition of United States equipment. There have been discussions in the United States congress about putting through a statute allowing them to help other nations in the Americas 83166-340
to equip their forces. According to newspaper articles, it would appear that Canada can acquire only used equipment or equipment which has been discarded by the United States forces. Is that correct, and can the minister outline the situation with regard to this equipment?


Brooke Claxton: The bill referred to by the hon. member was introduced in the United States congress quite recently and is still tinder consideration, not having as yet been adopted. It is purely facilitative or enabling legislation. It would permit the President of the United States or the administration to make arrangements with any of the American states to provide them with equipment or assistance with regard to defence. So far that bill has not been passed. Whether or not it is passed is, of course, for the United1 States congress to say. If it were passed it would, I think, within its terms, and probably hon. members will agree that it might, enable the United States to make equipment available to us on any terms that were agreed to by the administration. We, however, have a quite different arrangement with the United States, that expressed in the Ogdensburg declaration of August 19, 1940, and now carried forward by the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States of America on February 12, 1947. Under this w.e agreed to cooperate with regard to the defence of this continent. All hon. members are familiar with the provisions of that declaration.
So far, with regard to equipment we have bought from the United States with United States dollars the equipment we have .felt we needed, and we have got it on terms that have been worked1 out by agreement between the two countries. There has been no suggestion that we get only used equipment. That is not so. We get what we want when they have what we want and what we cannot make ourselves, and we have so far paid for it.


Howard Charles Green: Then we really do not need this enabling statute which is before the United States congress.


Brooke Claxton: So far we have not used it. It has not been in force and we have not used' it. We cannot see everything that will happen in the future, but so far this measure, which is HR-3836, and which was introduced in the house of representatives on June 13, 1947, has not been enacted. It has not been applied, and so far Canada has got along under a totally different arrangement.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to Canada's com-

Supply-National Defence

mitments to the united nations. In his statement this morning he said that Canada's defence force may be required:
1.	To defend Canada against aggression;
2.	To assist the civil power in maintaining law and order, within the country;
3.	To carry out any undertakings which by our own voluntary act we may assume in cooperation with friendly nations or under any effective plan of collective action under the united nations.
Can the minister give us any idea of. what sort of assistance Canada would be expected to furnish to the united nations? Within the last few days proposals have been put in to the security council for a world force. Does the minister know where Canada fits into that picture? I see that on April 12 of this year he ventured into print on the question at Winnipeg. That is a long way from Ottawa and the quotation may not be correct, or the minister may have been enjoying the western air out there, as we westerners all hope to to do in a few days. The heading is:
Canada may send troops overseas for peace force.
The press dispatch is dated April 12 and reads as follows:
Canada is prepared to send troops overseas to take part in an international peace force should one be established, Defence Minister Claxton said here. He is in Winnipeg on a tour of western Canada.
Can the minister give us some further statement with regard to that position?


Brooke Claxton: With regard to what I said at Winnipeg, it was just the same as what I said today; it. is the same as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said on previous occasions, namely, that any arrangements for our contribution to a united nations force would have to be agreed to in accordance with the charter of the united nations by the Canadian government and the Canadian parliament. I said that in Winnipeg; I cannot say anything different; it is a fact, both from the charter and from the realities of Canadian policy. If the hon. member had quoted all of what I had said-


Howard Charles Green: That is all they printed. I do not know what else the minister said.


Brooke Claxton: Then the newspaper may have left out something of what I said. The report that I saw of what I said at Winnipeg was completely correct; that is, that it was qualified in the sense in which I have just qualified it, and the only sense in which it could be qualified; that is, that we will agree to use our forces in conjunction with those of the united nations by act of our own parlia-

ment after they have seen what the situation is and learned what it is. I could not say anything more than that, but certainly we are not committing ourselves in advance to any blank cheque. As to what we may be expected to commit ourselves to, I can only say that, as a fairly realistic people, we would like to see what it is before I can give an answer to my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give us any idea at the present time?


Brooke Claxton: There is not the slightest idea in anyone's mind as to what it might be. The discussions of a possible united nations force have certainly not yet reached that level; but I would think myself that whatever it might be it would be well within our capacity to give.


Howard Charles Green: One final subject, the ques- * tion of civil defence. The minister listed as his eleventh objective today:
Organization of government departments and civilian agencies capable of putting into immediate effect a plan for civil defence.
What is in mind in that connection? Such a plan necessitates support of civilian bodies all over Canada, and that support cannot be gained in a hurry. They have to be sold on the need for some such organization, and there is a great deal of preliminary work to do before such an organization is made effective. Has the department taken any steps at all, or what is the picture at the present time? In April of this year, Colonel W. W. Goforth, retiring deputy director of defence research gave a five-point programme in Vancouver to prepare Canadians against possible atomic assault. He was not speaking officially for the Department of National Defence, but he listed five interesting ways of building up this special defence. They were as follows:
,1 That the three forces "will so combine and organize their strength within the limited resources assigned them that they may provide efficient early warning, interception and close support services to guard our great cities and vital centres from the first waves of enemy attack."	.
2.	That each community of 50,000 population and' over, "encouraged and guided by .provincial authorities," study the results of atomic destruction as now known and * translate these into amendments of greater dispersion, even into their system of granting building permits relative to the zone of danger."
3.	That professional societies such as the Engineering Institutes of Canada, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, Canadian Medical Association, and others "study and devise codes and simplified instructions for use by their members in local surveys and in expert counsel to local authorities."

Supply-National Defence
Mind you, all these are startling proposals.
4.	That individual industries and public utilities start reviewing ways and means for achieving gradual dispersion "but with comparable productivity and economy."
5.	Not an immediate problem but "one needing serious preliminary attention within the next five years," is the question of "a revived and greatly-strengthened air raid precaution (ARP) organization with gradually developed plans for mass evacuation and billeting of nonessential population from the larger cities.
The minister should give the committee some statement with regard to this question of civil defence. His department is obviously concerned about it, and there should be something more definite than statements such as that given by Colonel Goforth. It is an alarming statement which may be a thoroughly wise warning. Will the minister make a statement with regard to civil defence?


Brooke Claxton: Colonel Goforth spoke for himself. With regard to what I had -in mind when I suggested that, I can say at once that what we intend to do is to have the Department of National Defence and other departments concerned work out plans which might be put into effect progressively as the threat grew. We certainly have nothing in mind along the lines of the suggestion made by my hon. friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas John Bentley: There is quite a chorus of "carried" from the other side. If hon. members had the privilege of seeing the list of speakers, as I have had, they would not call "carried" for a while yet, because there are quite a few. Incidentally, I am not one of those who clamour for a hurried-up closing. I never did believe that we would finish on the 12th of July and I do not believe it. There are too many matters to be discussed. Those hon. members on the other side who shout "carried" should exercise some influence in their party caucus to have some of the important legislation -introduced in the early part of the session. If they had done that, instead of fiddling a month away in February, possibly it would not be necessary for them to join the chorus shouting "carried." However, let them have a good time.
I wish to compliment the minister on the clarity of his statement this morning. It was one of the clearest and most definite we have had on this or any other government subject since I have been a member of this house. I have not a copy of the statement, but I listened carefully, and the Evening Journal prints a copy of the fourteen points which the minister announced this morning. I presume that copy is correct. There are one or 83166-340J
two of the points that I might feel like questioning, but in the main I agree with them.
This afternoon the hon. member for Trinity spent a little time in extolling the value of the particular branch of the forces in which he had such distinguished service. I do not blame him for doing so, nor do I blame some other members who have promoted the particular branches of the service in which they were engaged; but I would remind them, without drawing comparisons as to which branch is better or worse, or which is more valuable, that we old mud-sluggers, the PJB.I.'s did our job too. The others might not have done so valuable a job had not our service played its part too. That is not an odious comparison. It is simply a reminder that whether you fly or tramp around in the mud to your waist you are doing the best you can.


Mr. FULTON:: How about a little more pay for the infantry?


Thomas John Bentley: Now you are talking. I suggest that it be brought up to the others. I will support the hon. member there, even though I may not succeed.


Brooke Claxton: They get the same rate.


Thomas John Bentley: I am glad to hear that. All the way through, considering allowance?


Brooke Claxton: Oh, yes, all three services.


Thomas John Bentley: I am glad to hear that. The hon. member for Selkirk says we joined too late, or too soon rather. We were born thirty years too soon. I want to point out that this group do recognize the need for a defence board. Once in a while some unfortunate statements are made in the house, possibly in consequence of a little stir-up, but I do not think the C.C.F. group need take a back seat to any other group, and again that is not an odious comparison. We all made what contribution we could during the war. There may be a difference in policy and in ideas from time to time as to when is the strategic time for Canada to enter war, but I do not think there will ever come a time when Canada is at war that those of our group, and those associated with us in the country, will not make their full contribution in man and woman-power and in other ways when they are called upon to do so. Whether there are more from one group or from another represented in the military forces, I do not know, and I do not see much difference in proportion to membership in the house.
Certainly we recognize the need for, and we-should like to see, a well-balanced military establishment, and that is one thing about
Supply-National Defence

the minister's statement that I liked. It appears at least that he has a good idea of how to bring about a well-balanced and well-coordinated military establishment. That means not only well-trained but well-equipped troops, and I hope he is successful, because, while I do not like war, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to wish that we ever have another one, unfortunately we have not yet any assurance that we shall have the permanent peace we all hope for but still are not too sure of.
We have our obligations to defend ourselves in the event of attack, which I hope never takes place. We have our obligation to the united nations organization when and if the security council makes some decision as to what Canada's part should be, and we must be ready to play that part if we believe what we say when we are members of the united nations. I am not particularly impressed by the minister's statement that we need military forces here for peace, order and good government in Canada. It has been a long time since the citizens of Canada have required anything more than a little bit of caution from the regular police forces to keep us in order. Generally we do not do much that requires a regiment of soldiers to come and prevent us from doing what we might be supposed to be doing.
I want to point out to the committee that there does not seem to be the urgency in this matter that some seem to indicate in their speeches. I would remind the committee that yesterday the Ottawa Journal, evening edition, carried what they said was a report of a statement made by Mr. L. B. Pearson at the secret session of the external affairs committee to which members of parliament and members of the other place were invited. I would never mention this myself, but I took it from the Journal, so that somebody must have told them and they reported that Mr. Pearson predicted that, in his opinion, there was no danger of a war before 1959. And we are led to believe that Mr. Pearson's opinion is something to which it is worth while giving consideration.
That being the case, considering the type of establishment the minister has envisaged in his statements, in answer to questions, it seems to me that he has time enough to introduce a well-coordinated scheme for national defence and training. This afternoon and at other times i't has been pointed out that the Canadian army did an excellent job in both world war I and world war II, and without a great deal of previous training. That is true. There are others who point out that a considerable time was needed between the day

we entered the war and the time we had the troops trained, and we could not afford to be unprepared the next time.
I agree with that, but I do not agree with the ideas put forward for preparedness. I want to remind the committee that before world war II, and in the early part of the war, there were many people in this country and in Europe who thought the Mannerheim line and the Maginot lines were good forms of preparedness. But when they came to be attacked by a modern force they were entirely out of date and therefore the preparedness they represented was not preparedness at all. I have no doubt the Maginot line, as a line of fortifications, wa!s well built and well equipped, if it represented all that the builders expected it to be, but it did not meet the needs of the blitzkrieg or the lightning warfare that came upon it at that time. It is equally possible that anything we may envisage now in the way of physical facilities would not be adequate if war came in 1959 or thereabouts. The kind of fitness and preparedness that is always in order is the physical and mental and moral fitness of our citizens. That is the most important fitness and preparedness that Canada can visualize. I believe the lack of that fitness was an important factor in our unpreparedness in the opening days of world war II. Time and again it has been stated that forty-seven per cent of those who submitted themselves for enlistment in our forces were physically unfit. Had those forty-seven per cent all been fit, as they should have been, and as a national plan before that would have made them, they would have been ready for their military duties much sooner and in greater numbers than they were. The same condition might have applied in our war and other industries if the same physical examination had taken place. The same weaknesses and unfitness might have been disclosed there. If they were there-and I believe they were-.then undoubtedly Canadian productive industry, including agriculture, mining and all others, suffered to the extent that probably forty-seven per cent of the workers were in the same physical category as those who offered themselves for the armed services. If we are to have a well-coordinated and well-planned defence equipment in this country we must have it powered by men and women who are themselves physically fit. Everything that goes to make that military establishment an efficient machine for Canada's defence and every one of the other industries must be powered by men and women who are physically fit and able to attain all the skills and speeds necessary to do the job at that time.

Supply-National Defence
This afternoon the hon. member for Regina City mentioned the fact that there is a tendency sometimes for our military authorities to decide, for reasons of their own, that it is necessary to move a body of troops from one place to another. I know there was a terrific movement in war time. I remember one sailor telling me that he had joined the navy at Esquimalt, had immediately been posted to Halifax away from his home in Esquimalt, and had served out of Halifax and saved up his leave, which I believe could be done then, so that he might have enough leave to spend a nice Christmas at Esquimalt. A couple of years after he finally achieved that leave which he had saved up for, and went across the continent on that leave thinking he was going to have a happy Christmas with his family. He just landed at Esquimalt when he received a wire from Halifax to report back to duty. He galloped back across the country and reported for duty; he marched in, saluted' and said, "Here I am, sir, in accordance with the instructions in the telegram." He was immediately told that he had been reposted to a ship in Esquimalt; so back he went there again. I do not know whether that happened very often, but that was the story I heard.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: It was good for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Thomas John Bentley: If it is necessary in peace time, while troops are being trained and while we are building up this country for peace and for war, if war does come, instead of moving troops from one place to another by train, let the department organize and assemble all the necessary troops, working, engineering and others. If we are to take troops from a point "A" to a point "B" in Canada, let them build a road as they go along; then, when they get to "B" the road will be built, and from then on they will be able to get back and forth on it without using the railroads. And goodness knows, if we never again have a war, we still need plenty of roads. One could mention similar things all the way through, but I offer those suggestions for the minister's consideration in the hope that he will integrate some ideas like that in his new defence plan.
I want to ask the minister a question on his statement, in particular on point No. 10. As it appears in the paper-as I said before, I believe it is correct-it reads in this way:
Support for Canadian Arsenals Limited and a limited number of Canadian industries to maintain and increase skills in the design and manufacture of munitions and aircraft.
I am not questioning the minister's integrity in this. I am asking him why it says a limited number of Canadian industries? Would not all Canadian industries, in some form or another, be required in any kind of defence plan? I should like the minister to explain that to me. Then point No. 14 reads as follows:
Cooperation with the countries of the commonwealth-
With which I heartily agree.

the United States and other like-minded countries in working out common standards, planning and training.
The phrase "like-minded countries" is a rather loose one. They are like us in some respects; we are like them in some respects; but we also differ in some respects. I should like us to be like-minded in many more things before we start to standardize our military equipment. I should like us to be so like-minded that we standardize our agricultural equipment, as a result of which every tractor combine, mowing machine or cream separator made here or in the United States, may have a screw or bolt bought for it which will fit in any place. That would be what I would call like-mindedness. I should also like them to let our wheat in there without the 42-cent tariff. I should like us to let their radios in here without any tariff on them. I should like many of those things to come about before we can say that we are like-minded to them or that they are like-minded to us. I do not think we should just plan for our defence equipment.
I know that, in the opinion of others, it might interfere with some of the profit industries of this country. But again I draw to the attention of the committee that if we, unfortunately, some day have to go to war again, then profit and- all other privileges of citizens will have to take not only second place, but a place quite low down on the list in comparison with other national needs. Therefore, when we start to standardize, let us try to get others to be so friendly toward us and let us try to be so friendly toward them that we can forget some of our little past traditions of protected profitmaking enterprise and have complete free trade and free exchange right across the border.
In conclusion, I wish to ask the minister a question which he was asked this afternoon but did not reply to. The hon. member for Regina City asked the minister this question about military properties which have been turned over to War Assets: To what extent have properties been turned over to War Assets Corporation and then others bought to replace those disposed of? There is a good deal of
Supply-National Defence

feeling in parts of the country that too much of that sort of thing has gone on, that some individuals have reaped the benefit, and that the Canadian taxpayers must now replace those things which went for little, or certainly not enough, to private individuals and which must be replaced as military equipment.


Brooke Claxton: I shall reply at once to the hon. member for Swift Current with regard to his last question. Referring to the question asked by the hon. member for Regina City as to what properties had been turned over to War Assets Corporation and then other properties bought in order to replace them, I can answer, absolutely none by the Department of National Defence, and I do not know of any by any other government department.
The other question the hon. member asked, to which I think I should refer, was in relation to point No. 10 in the objectives I set out, which reads:
Support for Canadian Arsenals Limited and a limited number of Canadian industries to maintain and increase skills in the design and manufacture of munitions and aircraft.
If I had not put in the word "limited" I am sure someone would have asked, how much support; for what industries; how can we support all industries; why should we support industries, and so on? The fact is there are a limited number of Canadian industries which have developed special skills in the production of munitions and aircraft which are not economic in peace time but which it is valuable to continue and which can be continued with a certain limited amount of assistance through orders, and the like; and we hope to be able to assist a very limited number of industries in the way I have indicated.


Thomas John Bentley: Without being too critical, I think the minister might well have worded the paragraph a little more clearly. If he had said, "those industries which are especially equipped" in the way he has just described, we would have understood.


Brooke Claxton: I should think that would be understood by anyone.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I have no desire to make a speech, but I want to ask a question. In referring to that branch of the service which won both wars, my understanding of the answer given by the minister to the previous speaker was that a private in the army will receive the same pay as the corresponding rank in the air force. Is that correct?


Brooke Claxton: Right.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I want to ask the minister this question so that his answer will be on record. What pay does a private

in the army receive? I do not know whether you have two ranks for privates in the army now, but I also want to know what pay is received by an L.A.C., which I believe is the correct term for the man in the air force. I have a couple more questions, the answers to which I want on record also. They slipped it over on the army during the war, and they are not going to do so in peace time if I have anything to say about the matter. I am an army man. I want to know what uniform the private or corresponding rank in the air force gets; what uniform and equipment the private in the army gets, and whether they get the same treatment in the army in regard to transportation as they get in the air force. In order to explain to the minister what I mean, during the war when a private was being taken across Canada he went in a colonist car, while an L.A.C. in the air force went in a tourist car. I have every respect for the air force, but no one can tell me that an air force man needs sheets more than an army man. I can tell the minister I am serious about this. I want to know definitely, and I want it on the record, what is the pay of every rank in the army and every rank in the air force? I am speaking of other ranks now, because when you get up to the generals and vice-admirals they are all air marshals or something like that, particularly when they want to be superannuated and get a pension. Is there any difference in any shape or form between the treatment given a private in the army and that given an L.A.C. in the air force? If so, what is the difference, and why?


Brooke Claxton: The pay of all equivalent ranks in the three services was put on exactly the same basis and at the same rates last year. The basic rate of pay for a private on entry is S50; for a trained private, $54; for a private first class, $61; after three years, $64, and after six years, $67. In addition there is a separation allowance and a marriage allowance, which are exactly the same for the three services. All other conditions of service I can think of, including pensions, are identical for the three services. The uniforms still have some differences-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, yes.


Brooke Claxton: They are different
uniforms.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And the air force gets the best.


Brooke Claxton: The navy, the army and the air force do wear different uniforms; but there is a committee of the three services called the senior supply officers committee, and another one called the personnel members committee, of the top people of the three

Supply-National Defence
services in those two fields, which have to clear all mew provisions, and any existing differences are being worked! out. I must say' I share the view of the hon. member who has just spoken. I could see no reason why three Canadians who enlisted from the same house and Who happened to wear the uniforms of the navy, the army and the air force, should have received duripg the war different rates of pay, different scales of rations and different uniforms. Except for the uniforms that are essential to the functioning of their services and in accordance with their traditions, our aim-and we are rapidly approaching it-is to have them on exactly the same basis for all three services. I believe that all three services are on exactly the same basis in every other particular.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then will the minister answer my question as to the rates of pay? I understand that he has given them for the army?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Now will he give me the rates of pay for members of the air force, so that- there will be no misunderstanding?


Brooke Claxton: The ranks in the air
force are aircraftman second class, equivalent to a private on entry; aircraftman first class, equivalent to a private, trained; leading aircraftman, equivalent to private first class. Exactly the same rates of pay prevail for the same service.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In other words, there is no difference between a private in the army and a private in the air force, whatever he is called?


Brooke Claxton: An aircraftman; no.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then suppose you are moving an army man from Camp Borden to the best camp you have in Canada, at Chilliwack, and you are also moving a man the same day from Camp Borden, where you have some air force men, in Patricia Bay; do they have the same accommodation on the trains, whether they are on leave or on duty; if so, when did that come into effect?


Brooke Claxton: For every equivalent rank in the three services the transportation allowance, living allowance and subsistence allowance while travelling are identical.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have been waiting so long to make a few remarks on this matter that if I had not a fairly good memory I would have completely forgotten what I was going to talk about. I am sorry I was not in the house this morning for the major portion
of the minister's statement. However, from the report in the newspapers and the comment I have heard, together with the way in which he has answered the questions which have been asked this afternoon and this evening, I believe I must express my appreciation and, I am sure, the appreciation of a large number of other people for the marked increase over the past two years in the frankness and, I think I can say, the definiteness he has shown in giving parliament the general policy in regard to defence, and in answering questions. Perhaps this improvement may be due to the fact that the minister is an ex-gunner, as are a considerable number of members of the house, including myself, I am glad to say; and that as a result he learned to shoot straight and has not forgotten. However that may be, I hope it will not be taken as any reflection on any other service. I should like the hon. member for Fraser Valley particularly to remember that some two years ago I made a plea to make the pay of infantrymen in action the highest of any servicemen. I still believe that would be a reasonable move.
However I wish to speak chiefly about the reserve army. I believe the minister knows that for many years before the war I had and at the present time still have an interest in the reserve army. Between the last session of parliament and this one, I believe I saw and talked to, at various conferences, nearly every commanding officer of reserve units in Alberta. Among them I found a general feeling such as that expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard; it is a feeling of discouragement. In some instances the commanders of these reserve force units were ready to give up, and in each instance the cause of discouragement was that they found it extremely difficult to stir up interest among the younger men in their respective communities to get them to enlist in reserve force units.
They were almost universal in their belief that this lack of interest was due to the fact that the government had not stated a definite defence policy. However I believe the minister's statement of this afternoon will go some distance toward correcting that condition. They were further convinced of the fact that when such a statement of policy was made- and they believed it should be made immediately-it should be publicized and that the department should take means to bring home to the general citizens of Canada the fact that the reserve army is necessary, and that it is the duty of ablejbodied young men to devote a certain amount of their time to reserve army, air force or naval training, as the case may be.

Supply-National Defence

I believe these men, whose experience covered the province, were correct. I do not believe we shall have a successful reserve army, nor shall we be able to recruit our reserve force units up to any reasonable strength until steps are taken to impress upon the general public the fact that the defence army is necessary and that every encouragement should be given to people to join reserve units.
I was glad to hear the minister mention citizens' committees this afternoon which, I believe, were set up in every locality in Alberta to increase interest and to give support to the reserve units in their particular communities. I believe, however, the minister was under some slight misapprehension as to who started those committees. The man responsible for that was Colonel Eric Snow, who at that time was in command of military district No. 13. My information is that he evolved the idea and had some of the committees started. The idea seemed such a good one that General Worthington then introduced it into his whole command. I believe that since that time an effort has been made to make it effective throughout Canada. I would ask the minister to indicate what success the movement has had and to what extent citizens' committees have been established throughout Canada, because I believe they will prove, with proper support by way of publicity from the government, one of the most potent means of making our reserve army a success.
I believe the whole question of our reserve army policy should be given more thought. I am very doubtful, as are other reserve force officers, as to the possibilities of a six-division reserve force. The minister said this afternoon it was never intended that all the units of these six reserve force divisions would be brought up to full strength. However, so far I have been able to observe, an effort has been made to activate all or practically all those of any size. The result is that in a city like Calgary with a population of about
100,000	we have three regiments of artillery. It is true that the batteries of two of those regiments are scattered. Then, we have an infantry battalion, a tank regiment, a complete divisional army service corps set-up, or at least a lieutenant-colonel's command of army service corps. We have an engineers company, a field ambulance corps, an ordnance corps, a signals company and so on.
To bring those units up to strength would require, I should think, at least 7,000 men. There just are not 7,000 young men in Calgary, and there are not going to be-indeed I do not think there should be the hope that there

would be-who will be willing to serve in the *reserve army under anything like present circumstances. In addition, the navy and the air force are bidding for the services of these young men.
1 Considerable thought should be given to the whole scheme of a six-division reserve army. I do not believe Canada can possibly support it, and I do not believe we can get the men into it. We were not able to support six divisions during the last war, and had trouble to support five. It seems to me that the scheme is too ambitious, and should be recast to something which would be more capable of efficient operation. I offer that suggestion to the minister in the hope that it will be 'received in the spirit in which it has been offered, namely, one of sincere desire for the improvement and success of the reserve army.
There is one other observation by the minister with respect to the reserve army upon which I should like to comment. He said that in the past year an effort has been made to secure a training nucleus of officers, noncommissioned officers and staffs, with administrative and training officers in each unit. Theoretically that sounds all right; but from the practical point of view and from experience, let me .tell the minister that if a group of officers and non-commissioned officers have no men to train they lose interest, because they have nothing to do. It is practically hopeless to attempt to bring down a group of officers and non-commissioned officers once or twice a week to have them go through a course of training when they have no men to train and to work with. In other words, in actual practice and from experience I know this just does not work out, although theoretically it may appear all right. If the minister expects the reserve army to be a success efforts must be made to get men into the reserve units. In fact, they must be got in, or the nucleus of officers and non-commissioned officers will disappear, so that we shall have nothing.
Somebody told me that the minister had said that there would be some sort of recruiting scheme carried on this fall. Will that be for the permanent force or for the reserve force as well?


Brooke Claxton: Both.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad to hear that. I should like the minister to tell the committee on what scale it is to be carried on and what form it will take. I do not want him to go into details, but perhaps he can give us a general idea of what is to be done along that line. It certainly is mcessary. The

Supply-National Defence
minister was to give some figures to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard in regard to the numbers in a typical reserve army unit. When he is giving those figures, will he give the number of men in the reserve army by commands?
The reason I ask that- is this. The people in Alberta are extremely interested in knowing what is the situation. Some six to eight months ago, when most of the commanding officers were discouraged over the situation, army officials were telling them that the situation in the reserve units in the west, particularly in Alberta, was the best in the dominion, that they were doing very well and to keep up the good work. They were told that they had more men than anywhere else in the dominion. The general idea among those men at that time was that if that was the case the reserve force was certainly in a bad way. Therefore I should like the minister to put those figures on the record.
There are one or two other points in connection with the permanent force brigade group matter which was brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver South. There is no doubt that in 1945 and 1946 we were assured that this brigade group would be an absolutely up-to-scratch force which would be trained for airborne operations and would be ready to move more or less on one or two days notice against any small attack which might be made. In other words, it was to be an up-to-the-minute force capable of immediate activity. We are now told that it has a strength of only some 2,000 men, that it is scattered all over the country and that there is no idea of bringing it together as a group. It seems to me that you have not a brigade group at all; you have not anything. All you have are men scattered here and there over the country who are not serving any useful purpose as a fighting force. They may be serving a useful purpose for training certain reserve units, for providing a training ground for permanent force officers and so on, but that is about all.
There is a disproportionate number of people, it seems to me, employed at national defence headquarters, on command staffs and so on. That number should be cut down a bit and this brigade group built up into a force of which we would be proud, into a fighting force. During the war it was found beneficial to switch men from staff duties to regimental duties. That policy was generally followed, and I would suggest to the minister that men be switched from the brigade group to staff jobs of various sorts and from staff jobs to 83166-341
the brigade group. I think that would be most beneficial as far as our permanent force is concerned.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member must know that- those kinds of changes go on steadily. For example, the commanding officer of one of the active force units at Calgary was recently moved to take a staff course. On the other point, there is no intention not to activate and form into one outfit this brigade group.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not think there were enough in the brigade group to permit changes.


Brooke Claxton: It is coming along. With regard to the number of units, I carry the figure in my head. In order to constitute a six-division army out of 180,000 men of the reserve in Canada it would take about 2,000 units. At the present time we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 650 units. My hon. friend will see that his idea is already being acted upon.
Mr. Harkness:	It is mainly the larger
units which have been activated, rather than the small units?


Brooke Claxton: In a country like Canada it is most important to have units where the population is. For example, a'unit like the South Saskatchewan, which probably was not very active in peace time, was one of the best regiments we had in war-time. The fact that it had a nucleus in existence enabled it to mobilize and raise its officers and noncommissioned officers rapidly, so that it proved a useful thing to have.
The hon. member asked what success had attended the effort to have citizens' committees throughout the country. That is not a new thing. For years units have had Committees back of them. What is new is that, possibly at Colonel Sims' suggestion, General Worthington made it universal throughout his whole command. As the hon. member said, that has been a great success, and I think it is spreading throughout other commands.


Douglas Scott Harkness: To what extent has it been successful throughout the others?


Brooke Claxton: It has spread gradually as units can form committees or as committees can be formed for units. It has not been applied as an order, because this is the kind of thing which should grow spontaneously in the community under the encouragement of the G.O.C. of the command or the officers commanding the unit. It is being encouraged and worked on.

Supply-National Defence

With the other remarks of the hon. meniber I have a great deal of sympathy, and I will give consideration to a great deal of what he has said. With regard to the general policy in connection with the reserve, the policy has been to form, first, a nucleus of officers and non-commissioned officers. That is following largely along the lines of the discussions we had with the reserve representatives. I can remember several of them saying that they had to get going on the basis of officers and non-commissioned officers and tradesmen strength before they could do very much with men. As the hon. member and all those familiar with this will agree, it is a question of timing. As soon as you get the officer and non-commissioned officer and unit organization working, then you must get the men for them to train. We are trying to work on that timing as well as we can.


Frank Exton Lennard: Before saying a word on the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, I should like to say that I was pleased to hear the minister state this morning that living quarters would soon be available for married personnel of the Royal Canadian Navy in the Halifax area. I know he knows that there are many cases where great hardship has been experienced. I have had several cases brought to my attention where families have had to live hundreds of miles from Halifax. I know of one case where the family needed fatherly discipline. The man was interested in his work in the navy but, because his family had to live hundreds of miles away, he became greatly dissatisfied with his situation. As I say, I was pleased to bear the minister state that that situation would soon be rectified.


Brooke Claxton: We are going to do our utmost to correct it as soon as we can.


Frank Exton Lennard: In connection with the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, as I said before in this house, I know of no movement in Canada over the past few years which has done so much for the youth of this country. It is not a flash in the pan. The Navy League of Canada has been operating for years. A great deal of the personnel of our Canadian navy of the past years was furnished and made available because of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets movement. In that connection I should like to quote Frank S. Rutherford, deputy minister of education of Ontario. He was appointed a few months ago. He said in part:
My association with the navy league sea cadet movement has convinced me that the training provided is essentially good, whether a young man enters the navy or civilian employment. Naval training presents opportunities for the use of mind and hand which are bound to be affected in any type of employment.

The associations which a young man will make in the sea cadets will be lasting and most helpful in the years to come.
I would go a step farther than that, and I believe the minister will agree with me. The Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps have within their ranks reserves for the navy of tomorrow or when they are desired. I would urge the minister to give every consideration to expanding that service. I know that a few months ago the cadet services were curtailed, and through negotiations with the navy league, I believe, certain adjustments were made. But there is one point I should like to draw to the minister's attention, which is one I brought up in the house some few months ago.
About a year ago, the sea cadet training officers were put on pay by the Department of National Defence. At that time I suggested that the remuneration should be in the form of clothing allowances and not as pay, because when it is given in the form of pay it is added to their income and the greater part of it is wiped out in income tax; it does not meet the purpose for which it was intended. Over the years, the sea cadets have given of their time and of their money. I know that, because I have been more or less actively engaged in the movement. They are constantly using their cars and different things to further the movement. When they are given pay it certainly does not go anywhere near recompensing them for the time and energy they put in the movement.
I should like to mention one other point. Certain curtailments were made in the size of corps, and there was also a restriction put on the units going to camp this year. Originally they were to go for one week. That was changed by the defence department and they were allowed the two weeks training as they had previously enjoyed, but the size of the unit that was allowed to go to camp was practically cut in half. One corps in which I am directly interested of one hundred cadets and officers was allowed to send to camp this year only forty cadets and two officers. I wish to bring that to the minister's attention, because it is discouraging to these boys, and especially to some of the boys who have worked hard all year in the hope that they would be selected to go to camp. It is a hardship; it is a discouragement to the officers and boys who are training. It should be considered and a change should be made, if not this year, next year to remedy the situation.
In closing, I wish to say that the sea cadet movement of Canada is one of the finest youth training schemes we have had. In its ranks you have the reserve navy of tomorrow.

*supply-National Defence


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish to ask the minister a few questions with regard to cadet training in Canada, but before I do so I want to say a few words about the statement which he gave this morning .which, as has already been said, is perhaps the first clear statement we have had since this parliament convened as to what would be our defence policy. Some of the things which were pointed out a short time ago by the hon. member for Swift Current as to bringing the training of our forces into a form which will make certain that they are attractive to all people of the country so that it will be realized there is a real career in the service for men of ability and activity, are important. They have been said before in the house. I shall not go over them, but I should like to emphasize what seems to me to be one of the most essential things today, and I hope that that aspect of the matter will be emphasized in the recruiting programme which the -minister has indicated will be brought into effect this fall; giving our engineers practical work to do in the country which will make a contribution, not only to their training, but to the development of the country; giving the signal corps in the various services practical work in the construction of communication systems, which will not only be of value to them as training but be of value in building up the communication system of Canada. These things should be emphasized so that the training of our forces will equip them, in order that when they retire from the forces at the reduced age which is now in effect they will be able to take their place in the civilian life of the country on an equal footing with other persons who have not been in the forces, but who have perhaps been on a superior level because their training and experience will all have been practical.
With regard to the cadet programme for Canada, I should like to say at the outset, as has just been said by the hon. member for Wentworth with reference to the navy, the cadet corps in this country are certainly the pool from which normally one would expect the armed services to be drawn.
At the outset one should pay a tribute to the work which has been done by civilian personnel and by officers in connection with cadet training. It would not be proper to stop at that. One should also pay a tribute to the provinces in this field, and to the work of the ministries of education of rthe various provinces. We recall that during the war they were urged to try to bring up their cadet training programme so that practically one hundred per cent of -those attending secondary 83166-341J
schools would be receiving cade't training. It is a fact perhaps worth recording that in some of the provinces, in one at any rate, a programme was worked out by agreement with the Department of National Defence, so that one hundred per cent of those boys in secondary schools would receive cadet training. The importance of this is not only in the military value which those younig men themselves will get from it, and therefore our armed forces will get, but the value to the whole country in training in citizenship which will follow and the contribution to the health and welfare of our youth. Perhaps these aspects are as important as the military value which can be derived from any cnde-t scheme.
In the light of these remarks I should like to refer briefly to an outline of the programme given by the -minister on February 17, at whic-h time he indicated to the house that, although certain reductions were contemplated, it was not intended actually to reduce the number of cadet corps in training in this country. The minister said that, following the end of the present school year, army cadet training would be organized in two types, open corps affiliated with reserve corps units and school corps sponsored by boards of education, some of which are also affiliated with reserve units. At the end of that statement on February 17 he said, as reported at page 506 of Hansard:
There will be no reduction in the number of cadet corps of boys who fall within the classes I mentioned, aged fourteen to eighteen, provided that they are organized in corps of twenty or more.
Sin-ce that time there have been indications that there is a substantial reduction in the number of cadets authorized to receive training in our schools throughout the country. I suppose that might have been done partly as an economy measure. Certainly it was indicated that some saving was to be effected by it. We all realize that saving is essential; but it seems to me, since the major contribution to cadet training is made by the provinces in the schools in which the training is taken, the saving will be negligible. I think I could go so far as to say it is another typical case where the government is taking a step in the wrong direction and at the wrong time, because the value of this cadet training, in terms of citizenship and in increase in health and welfare in the country, cannot be measured in terms of the money expended on it. The saving itself is certainly negligible and far more than offset by the value that would be derived from a thoroughgoing scheme of cadet training.
Supply-National Defence

I would ask the minister some questions with regard to the present programme. Were notices sent out by the Department of National Defence or the various headquarters or any of them in the country to school principals that they must reduce the number of cadets in training?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, certainly. The cadets in respect of whom the federal government would pay the grants would be cadets in schools who had entered in September, in the 9th grade, and were under eighteen years of age, and in open corps cadets between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. That was gone into fully in the house on February 17 when the same question was asked and the same answer given. As far as I know, it has been acted on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the light of that statement I would ask whether any notice was given at that time to the provincial governments and the ministers of education concerned that this cut would be made.


Brooke Claxton: The question of defence is a federal matter. The designation of the cadets in respect of whom the federal government pays money voted by parliament for defence purposes is a federal matter. It always has been and I do not know why it should not be. The question of cadets regarding whom federal grants are paid has always been a matter for federal determination. The communication was issued, as far as I know, in exactly the same way as all other communications have been issued with regard to cadets.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point is that there was in effect in one province an agreement made with the Department of National Defence and approved by the then ministers of national defence, that they would train all their boys in secondary schools, and they were prepared to pay their share of the cost of doing that. It seems that, subsequent to that agreement, notices were sent out from various defence establishments in the country that they would be required to cut down the number of cadets in training. I would ask whether any arrangement was sought to be reached with the provincial governments in that connection, since the provincial governments made their contribution and their ministers of education were anxious to continue cadet training. It is unfortunate the attitude was taken that this is so exclusively a federal matter, that we had already reached an agreement with the provinces, that there should be unilateral action to vary that agreement without consultation with provinces which were anxious to continue such training.


Brooke Claxton: Notification was made in this case, as in all other cases where there have been changes. Agreements were made with all the provinces in 1911 under the Strathcona trust and during the thirty years since, the Department of National Defence, under various names, has made changes in accordance with the votes and provisions for training, and those changes have been notified as they have been made. I have never heard it suggested* before that, prior to making any change, the Department of National Defence should secure the acquiescence or agreement of each of the nine provinces. That is a new notion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps not with each of the nine before the department makes anjr change in any one province; but certainly, inasmuch as cadets are trained in the secondary schools, if there is to be a change in the basis on which training is given, I should imagine the intention to make the change and the working out of the change would be a matter of consultation with tlhe province.


Brooke Claxton: There are in every command cadet officers available for consultation, and they consult with the local educational officers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I recall that sometime earlier this year a public statement was made by the premier of one province to the effect that in that province they were willing and anxious to continue, and I believe he went so far as to say they would continue, cadet training in their secondary schools for all boys in those schools. I want to know whether the minister has received any official communications from any provincial minister of education asking that he reconsider the position and inquiring whether the department will not enter into consultation with the provinces to work out some scheme whereby universal cadet training in secondary schools can be continued.


Brooke Claxton: The only communication received from any provincial educational authority was one I received last week from the minister of education of Ontario. The communication was dated June 25. It was the first I had heard from a provincial minister with regard to this matter and I made a reply. The officers of the department of education concerned with cadets and the officers of the Department of National Defence were in communication back at the end of February and the beginning of March, but these direct communications were stopped, and this is the first I have heard about it since.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The direct communications were stopped? That, I think, is unfortunate.

Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: I think it is very unfortunate. They were stopped by the province of Ontario.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, the public statement made by the minister of education of Ontario was to the effect that they desired to continue 100 per cent cadet training in their schools.


Brooke Claxton: We shall be glad to cooperate with them on the terms we announced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What was the last communication received-June 25? Was that a request to reopen negotiations?


Brooke Claxton: I do not suppose I should table that letter without the consent of the premier. I certainly have no objection to tabling it, or yet my reply, but that letter was one in which he referred to a state of uncertainty in the province of Ontario with regard to this matter and to his own attitude. Until I secure some consent from him to tabling the letter, I probably should not go any farther. The fact is that the first sign of any difficulty that came to my attention as a result of the communication from the province of Ontario was this letter of June 25, which was just about four months after the announcement of policy I had made; a little more than four months.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister considering a revision of the policy or some steps to enable-


Brooke Claxton: No. We have announced that we are not in favour of continuing junior cadets, and we propose to make federal grants from the federal treasury with respect to senior cadets; that is, cadets generally speaking in school cadet corps who enter the ninth grade on September 1, and who have not reached the age of eighteen, and in open corps who, are between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. We do not propose any more to make grants in respect of junior cadets. That is a definite government and department policy arrived at, we think, for sound reasons, and we have no disposition whatever to change that. I do not think there is any desire on the part of the country that we should.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have the department any objections, or have they made any representations against the provinces continuing cadet training outside of the categories which the minister has just mentioned?


Brooke Claxton: I have not had any representations with regard to cadets from any province except Ontario, and the letter of the
minister of education does not suggest extending the ages. He does not deal with the question of ages.


Mr. POULIOT:: I hope my hon. friend
opposite is through with his questions. I have only two questions to ask the minister, andi they are clearcut, concise and precise. I hope the minister will be kind enough to give me a clear answer. In the first place, I want to know if the experts of his department believe that Canada will be the theatre of the next war. In the second place, I want to know if we can expect peace-time compulsory training this year, or if it has been put aside for some time.
Before the minister answers, I will draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, the fact that the discussion has been going on for a whole day on item 551. There is another item, 552, in the demobilization and reconversion part of the estimates. Then at page 25 of the estimates there are ten other items which are as yet untouched. As I look at the list, I see that we still have quite a large number of items to pass. There is the auditor general, finance, part of fisheries, governor general and lieutenant governors, insurance, labour, legislation, mines and resources; all of national defence, all of labour, all of mines and resources, all of national revenue-


Mr. MacNICOL:: Reconstruction.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes; and the Prime Minister's office, privy council office, reconstruction and supply, veterans affairs, loans and investments; and under demobilization and reconversion, auditor general, finance, fisheries, labour, mines and resources, national defence, privy council office, reconstruction and supply, trade and commerce and veterans affairs. There are several hundred items. If we do not catch a fast train, we shall stay here for a long time, and we can say good-bye to summer as we did last year. This is not a lecture to anyone; it is an olive branch that I show to all.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member had better sit down.


Jean-François Pouliot: As I say, it is an olive branch that I show to all, in the expectation that there will be a certain spirit of cooperation and that we shall all do our best to bring the session to an end. I may tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I had some very fine stuff about the brass hats, about the dealings of the Canadian Department of National Defence, the British government, the United States government, the United States army, the British army and so on; but I have put all that
Supply-National Defence

aside, to think it over, and have not said a word about it. I asked two short questions about matters of general concern. I hope there will be more of a spirit of conciliation. Members may ask questions, as we have heard them ask them all day, but it will not change a single vote in the great old city of Halifax on Monday next. This must be kept in mind. While I am sure that hon. members have not that objective in view when they discuss the estimates, I will tell you what I have in view, Mr. Chairman. It is to get home as soon as possible.


Howard Charles Green: Then why does the hon. member not go?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want to interfere with the fundamental freedom of speech of all hon. members.


Angus MacInnis: Eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes; and I leave it at that. I wonder if it would not be possible to pass at least one estimate immediately after the minister has answered my question?


Brooke Claxton: To answer the first question, not possible for a good many years; to answer the second question, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you very much.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I have been in the public accounts committee since three o'clock, and I should like, to ask a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Mr. STOKES:: I should like to ask the minister a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. member has only one question, could we not pass one item?


George Henry Stokes: I am not sure whether I am asking this question under the proper item or not. My question has to do with the moneys which were expended in the Belleville armouries, principally in regard to the laying of a concrete floor. This floor in the Belleville armouries was laid in 1945, and was relaid in the early part of this year. The returns which I have been furnished show the expense for laying the floor in 1945 to be $2,770; and this year $4,344 were spent to replace that floor.
[Mr. Pouliot.l


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is eleven o'clock. We cannot get an item through. Why go on?


George Henry Stokes: It was an asphalt floor laid in 1945. My information is that the inspector of the work refused to pass it at the time. According to the return I have, the contractor was paid for the work, and the floor proved to be practically useless; it was going to pieces. During the early part of this year the floor was torn up and another asphalt floor was laid. The inference is that something was wrong with the first floor; and I understand that the inspector would not take the responsibility of passing the work.
Another question I should like to ask the minister is whether there is anything in these estimates for the erection of an armoury at Trenton, Ontario.


Brooke Claxton: No.


Howard Charles Green: What was the answer to the other question?


Brooke Claxton: In regard to the first question, return No. 286 was brought down in answer to order of the house on June 18, 1947. It shows expenditures of $683.09 for material and $169.32 for labour, and also $3,514.97 on the armoury to which the hon. member refers. I believe the information was given then. If the hon. member has any further questions I shall be glad to answer them directly.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: The question was whether the contractor was paid when the inspector did not approve the work. That is a simple question.	[DOT]


Brooke Claxton: I will have to look into the matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


William Henry Golding: Can we carry this one item?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I would not agree to this item being carried unless the minister would guarantee that I would be allowed to ask three questions on another item tomorrow.


Brooke Claxton: Very well; I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Reports of Committees
Thursday, July 10, 1947