1949-11-24

Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved:: That for the remainder of the session standing order 105 respecting the posting of private hills be suspended.


Mr. Knowles:: Does this motion not require forty-eight hours' notice?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think so. In my view standing order 45 does not apply to private bills. It states:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills-
And so on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: It has been brought to my attention by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that in connection with the motion moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler) the house probably should have considered standing order 116. In fact when the hon. member rose I thought he was going to bring standing order 116 to my attention rather than the question of notice. As hon. members will recall, we discussed this standing order one day this week. It reads:
Except in cases of urgent and pressing necessity, no motion for the suspension or modification of any standing order applying to private bills or petitions for private bills shall be entertained by the house until after reference is made to the committee on standing orders or to one of the committees charged with the consideration of private bills, and a report made thereon by one of such committees.
I delayed putting the motion to the house in order to give hon. members the opportunity to raise the question with regard to the committee on standing orders. When no one raised that question I took it for granted that the house agreed that this was a case of urgent and pressing necessity, and I allowed the motion to be put.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the name of Mr. Helme be substituted for that of Mr. McCusker on the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: the first reading of Bill No.
200 (from the Senate), to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Guy Merrill Desaulniers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Margaret May Lester Rajotte.-Mr. Winkler.

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


Mr. Higgins:: What medical services have been provided for the Indians and Eskimos of Labrador?


Mr. Martin:: While the federal government has given some assistance in emergency cases provision of medical services for the Indians and Eskimos in Labrador has been and has continued to be the responsibility of the Newfoundland government.
A. R. DECARY Mr. Courlemanche:
1.	Is Mr. A. R. Decary employed by the federal government in the province of Quebec, by the Department of Public Works?
2.	If so, has he reached retirement age?
3.	Why has he not been superannuated?

Questions


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes, in a temporary capacity.
2.	Yes.
3.	He has been superannuated effective October 22, 1949.



LEGAL SERVICES


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	Have the services of Arthur Slaght, Esq., K.C., been retained by the federal government during the years 1948 and 1949?
2.	If so, in what capacity and in what matters?
3.	What remunerations has he received from January, 1948, to date, in each of the matters in which he has been engaged?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As consulting counsel to the Criminal Code revision commission.
3.	None.
^COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT



LEGAL OPINION AS TO PROSECUTIONS

Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Has the government sought the opinion of the Department of Justice or of any outside counsel as to whether the evidence contained in the McGregor report on the flour milling industry is sufficient in order to prosecute?
2.	If so, what opinion or opinions have been received by the government?
3 Has an outside counsel been consulted? If so, what is his name?


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Has the government sought the opinion of the Department of Justice or of any outside counsel with respect to the application of section 1141 of the Criminal Code to prosecutions under the Combines Investigation Act?
2.	If so, what opinion or opinions have been received by the government?
3.	Has an outside counsel been consulted? If so, what is his name?


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, these two questions asked by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) seek the disclosure of legal opinions received by the government. Upon making inquiries I am informed by my deputy, Mr. Varcoe, that this is the first time within his knowledge that production of opinions of this sort has ever been sought. I have also conferred with Mr. McGregor, commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act, with regard to these two questions, and, after that conference, I am of the view that the government should refuse to disclose any of the legal opinions in connection with any combines report.
It should be remembered that these opinions usually take the form of a review and analysis of the relevant parts of the report. Usually the opinions are quite long, and analyse the report from beginning to end. On occasions they refer to the transcript of

evidence upon which the report is based. Possible defences in fact or in law, and how they may be met by the crown, are usually commented upon and appraised. The result is a communication between lawyer and client which is and should be privileged from disclosure, because in most, if not in all cases, such disclosure would give the accused and their counsel a preview of the crown's case. This would have a most prejudicial effect upon the prosecution of the case. The government therefore takes the position that it cannot table opinions of this sort.


Mr. Coldwell:: Under the circumstances I am prepared to drop the questions. However, I would ask the minister to let me confirm this.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I shall be very glad to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions dropped.



UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	How many persons were receiving unemployment insurance in the months of September and October (a) 1948; (b) 1949?
2.	How many new applications for unemployment insurance were received in the months of September and October (a) 1948; (b) 1949?
3.	What was the total number of unemployed (applications for employment) by provinces for the month of October (a) 1948; (b) 1949?
4.	What was the total number of positions vacant by provinces for the month of October (a) 1948; (b) 1949?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-LaSalle):: 1.	(a) In September and October, 1948, 44,761 and 55,384 claimants respectively were receiving unemployment insurance.
(b) For the same months in 1949 the figures were 83,525 and 105,064.
2.	(a) 28,143 applications were received for unemployment insurance benefits in September, 1948, and 38,104 in October, 1948.
(b) In September, 1949, 51,935 made application, and 69,349 in October, 1949.
3.	Unplaced applicants registered with national employment service offices at the
end of October, 1948 follows:	and 1949,	were asProvince	1948	1949Newfoundland 	7,583Prince Edward Island.	585	195Nova Scotia 	6,485	9,772New Brunswick	4,153	8,099Quebec 	28,131	49,631Ontario	31,445	45,811Manitoba 	5,136	7,976Saskatchewan	3,322	4,258Alberta	3,948	6,336British Columbia ....	18,417	24,068
4. Unfilled vacancies recorded by offices of the national employment service at the end of October, 1948 and 1949, were as follows:
Province	1948	1949
Newfoundland 			31
Prince Edward Island.	231	151Nova Scotia	912	1,064New Brunswick 	1,077	710Quebec 	13,230	7,488Ontario	24,697	15,197Manitoba 	3,482	2,001Saskatchewan	1,565	1,132Alberta 	2,723	1,963British Columbia ....	2,383	1,656



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What is the total amount paid by the wheat board for the storage of wheat between the 1st of April, 1947, and July 31, 1948, with particulars as to the companies to whom payment was made and the amounts paid to each?
2.	How many government storage elevators were in existence during the said period of April 1, 1947, to July 31, 1948, and what is the location and capacity of each?
3.	Were any of the said terminals or storage elevators leased or rented to private companies? If so, which?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. MacNaughi (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and at the same time say how glad we are that he is back in the house. I am receiving complaints all the time from Prince Edward Island about the shortage of refrigerator cars. Can the minister make a statement about this situation as it affects Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The information I have on my desk this morning indicates that the position with regard to refrigerator cars on Prince Edward Island is excellent. As a matter of fact, at the moment there are 276 cars on the island ready for loading, which is more than there have been normally at this time of the year; and there are 152 cars in transit.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if Arthur W. Gilmour, director of
Inquiries of the Ministry income tax in Montreal has resigned, and if so, for what reason?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Gilmour has resigned his position in Montreal, giving as his reason the fact that for family and personal reasons he did not care to accept a transfer to head office in Ottawa.



THANKSGIVING DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I would direct to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that today is United States Thanksgiving day. We in this country have reason to be thankful for having such friendly neighbours.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: asked a question yesterday which was taken as notice by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. May I now have a reply?


Mr. Paul E. Cole (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: This matter is being looked into. I may say, however, that certain communications have been received by the minister. But as these communications were addressed to the minister personally, I suggest it would be advisable to wait until his return later today, and let him check the matter himself, to ensure a more complete and satisfactory answer to my hon. friend's question.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Can
the Minister of Mines and Resources tell me when the papers concerning Count de Bernonville will be produced?


Hon. Colin Gibson (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I shall be glad to make inquiry and find out whether they are available.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. It was

Inquiries of the Ministry announced over the radio this morning, as well as in the press, that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply had stated that the brief presented by the national film board to the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences was not government policy. Why is it not government policy when there are two cabinet ministers on the national film board? Did they have anything to do with the brief? If not, why not?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I have not had an opportunity of reading the reports in the press, and under the circumstances I do not think I should comment on them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was definitely stated over the radio that the minister had made that statement.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the minister whether he is still chairman of the national film board?


Robert Henry Winters: The answer is yes.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) to the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald, one of the fathers of confederation, which is situated between this building and the east block. The other day the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) referred to a conversation that had taken place before the monument, and it gave me the idea of going to look at it. I notice that the pincenez which Sir John holds in his hand has become broken and is now a monocle. That is an historical error, and I hope it will be corrected as soon as possible.


Thomas Langton Church: Perhaps there should be a relocation of the monument to place it out in front beside Laurier.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with a notice in Votes and Proceedings. I think an innocent mistake has been made in preparing it, because it asks that the house sit on Saturday, November 26. I wonder if the error was in not providing that the house should meet on that occasion at Varsity stadium in Toronto, where we will all be?


Righi Hon.  L. S. Si. Laureni@Prime Minisier: I am sure a large number of hon. members would enjoy being at the stadium in Toronto instead of here, but I am afraid that their public duties must prevail over their desires.


Mr. Smiih (Calgary Wesi):: Speaking only for myself, mine will not.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interject, may I say that my sympathies are with the hon. member for Calgary West.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the motion is out of order.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Weniworih):: As a past president of the Canadian Rugby Union may I say that the game last year between Calgary Stampeders and Ottawa did more to cement good feeling between the east and the west than anything this House of Commons has done in the last ten years. The game that will be played in Toronto on Saturday between Alouettes of Montreal and Calgary Stampeders will have a like effect. I think that if this house meets on Saturday it will be an insult to the sporting fraternity of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Exton Lennard: -and I for one will not be
here.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Mackenzie King said the same thing about the accomplishments of Barbara Ann Scott.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is not before the house.


Mr. Cruickshank:: The west will win, anyway.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance when the public accounts will be distributed. On Monday last, when this question was asked, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance said he would look into it and would make a statement the following day. No statement has since been made.


Mr. Gleason Belzile (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: The
king's printer has not had time to print the number of copies that will be required, but we expect that they will be available in the.jiear future, perhaps in seven or eight days.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. 144, to amend the Combines Investigation Act-Mr. Garson-Mr. Dion in the Chair.
On section 1-Attorney General of Canada may institute and conduct prosecutions.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, so far as the strengthening of the Combines Investigation Act is concerned, we of the C.C.F. party are thoroughly in accord. As I said in the letter which I wrote to the present Prime Minister on December 4, 1947, we believe not only that the act needs strengthening but also that the combines investigation commissioner should have sufficient staff to deal with what we believe to be the large number of cases of price fixing and combinations we find in this country at the present time. Incidentally I might remark that the act does not deal with the question of monopolies as the anti-trust legislation of the United States, the Sherman Act, does.
We have long felt that if the government and the house believe in competition and free enterprise there should be legislation on the statute book to prevent private monopolies and combinations. I want to be specific; I do not believe the anti-trust legislation of the United States has been successful in meeting the needs of that country in relation to combines and monopolies. The only way to deal with a monopoly is to bring it under some sort of public control. As my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, said yesterday, when an industry reaches the stage where it can exploit a community, at least it should be brought under effective control, which I believe involves national ownership of that monopoly. On the other hand, the majority of the members elected to the house do not believe that; consequently either the act should be strengthened or another act should be placed on the statute book to deal specifically with the matter.
I want to make one or two brief comments about some of the points that have been made in connection with what the minister has said, and what I have said, in this debate.
The minister's defence of the non-observance of a vital clause of the act is based entirely on wartime experience and alleged wartime agreements. That is not the point. The point is that the activities about which complaint is made in the report stem from the years before the war. The practices about 45781-138
Combines Investigation Act which complaint is made were carried through the wartime period, and we believe into the period that followed the war. Consequently I do not think his contention if it were accepted is a valid one.
There is no documentary evidence to support the contention that immunities existed. There is nothing in the record except one interesting memorandum of June 21, 1943, indicating that a discussion occurred between the minister, the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, and certain officials, about the position of the subsidies, their implications, and so on. Let me refer to the paragraph reading in part as follows:
... it may be desirable or necessary to place a minimum price on sales of flour in order to prevent any miller from taking undue advantage of the arrangement to reduce domestic flour prices at the expense of the government.
There is nothing in the record indicating that this was actually brought to a final conclusion. Moreover, I say again, as I have said several times-and I think it has been overlooked-that if the milling industry had told the combines investigator, and had presented substantial evidence of it, either documentary or oral, to the commissioner, that an understanding had been reached during the war concerning these matters and concerning the immunity of the milling industry under the Combines Investigation Act, at that point all further investigation would have stopped, and a report would not have been made of the kind which was to be placed before the people of Canada by the combines investigator.
I have not seen Mr. McGregor since long before this controversy began, but I am satisfied, from what I know of his past work and his reputation in the civil service, that if that had been done, this report would not have been made. I want to be quite clear about that, because it is vital to the discussion.
There is one paragraph in the memorandum of June 21, 1943, which I still find puzzling, and as a matter of fact I think the minister did too. There are these words:
The foregoing is to be treated very confidentially and not made known to either the Administration, or to the industry at this time.
In this document, which the minister was good enough to send across to me- it is the one that was omitted from the return-"administration" has a capital "A". Mr. Donald Gordon was present at this conference, and he was the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board; consequently it cannot refer to the wartime prices and trade board. The only interpretation I have been able to place upon it is that "Administration" means that this tentative understanding,

Combines Investigation Act which was never brought to a final conclusion, should remain confidential and not be made known to the flour milling industry or the government. If that is so, surely it is exceedingly strange. If the treasury board and the government were to be protected as alleged, why on earth should such an understanding be withheld from the government of the day. Surely if this was in any measure -and I mean the suggestions made in the memorandum-an understanding with a view to protecting government expenditures, why should it be kept secret from the government of the day? I ask the minister to explain that, because if I am wrong I want to be corrected.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I did explain it. Perhaps my hon. friend was not listening, and I certainly could not blame him for that.


Major James William Coldwell: Perhaps I was out of the chamber, attending a committee meeting.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When one speaks for two and a half hours he cannot expect to hold the attention of everyone for the whole time. I explained that in these terms: that I had asked that question myself, since the question suggested itself at once to anyone reading the memorandum. The explanation given to me is set out in Hansard. It is that they did not want the negotiations complicated by premature disclosures to the industry on the one hand or to the government on the other. They wanted no word of this discussion to go back prematurely at that stage through the people who had participated in it, to the government and to the industry, which seems to me a very natural desire. I hope my hon. friend realizes that the Minister of Finance himself was present at that meeting, so there was nothing sinister at all about this. I might also add that in substance the arrangement subsequently formalized by orders in council, notwithstanding what my hon. friend says, was the arrangement contemplated in that memorandum. The only difference I recall at the moment was in connection with the floor prices, which is also explained at great length in my statement.


Major James William Coldwell: I know the explanation, but I do not think it is good. In my opinion the orders in council to which the minister referred did not in any way validate the actions of the millers during the wartime period. That is an opinion, of course, which the minister can attack if he wishes; but to my mind those orders in council have no bearing on the contention made in the McGregor report. As I say, if they have, I cannot understand why the point was not made during the investigation, and why under those circumstances the report would have been made, knowing the careful way in which

the commissioner under the combines act has always proceeded in regard to these matters. Moreover, as the hon. member for Vancouver East suggests to me, Mr. McGregor was one of the enforcement officers during the war, and he would have known of this arrangement when finalized and would have understood the implications of the orders in council. Consequently I do not think the argument advanced in rebuttal of the charges is good or valid.	.
I am not going to thresh old straw. We have had a long debate; and when the people of the country read it, so far as they are able to do so they will have to draw their own conclusions. I am satisfied the government was wrong in withholding the report. I am satisfied that the commissioner acted in good faith; that he made a report which was warranted, and that his recommendation that prosecution should follow was entirely justified on the basis of the evidence placed before him. If the millers had any reason to give as to why they should be granted immunity, I cannot understand why that reason or that evidence was not given to the investigators.
The minister said yesterday that if somebody came and wanted to see documents and so on in an office, the natural thing would be to see that anything which might have a bearing on a subsequent lawsuit would be to some extent protected. Well, I think if any evidence could have been produced to show that they were given privilege or immunity, they would have produced it, because that would have saved a great deal of public discussion and removed any possibility of the industry being under a cloud, apart altogether from protection against attack in the courts when the report was made. Indeed, it would have obviated the necessity for making any report at all.
That is all I want to say at this stage. I shall have some suggestions to make later, because I believe the act needs expansion so that certain other services and so on may be included within its scope. So far as I am concerned, however, the evidence that has been produced and the discussion that has taken place here should enable parliament and the people of Canada to form a considered judgment and conclusion on this matter.


Mr. Drew:: I have not made any comments on the explanation of the Minister of Justice in his extended review of the situation, but I think this is an appropriate point at which to make those comments, since they bear on the question in the minds of hon. members as to the effectiveness of the amendment proposed in section 1 of this bill.

There was a short discussion yesterday during which the minister explained that the amendment contained in section 1, which provides that the Attorney General of Canada may institute and conduct any prosecution or other proceedings under this act, is really only a statement in statutory form of what already exists de facto, and that the existing provision of the combines act which leaves prosecutions under the Criminal Code exclusively to the attorneys general of the provinces has not in fact deprived the Attorney General of Canada of effective power to proceed with actions under both the code and the combines act by the process of consultation and co-operation with the attorneys general of the provinces. In effect that is a correct interpretation of the present situation.
I do suggest, however, that there is another reason why hon. members should feel they cannot pass this section. It is true that a law of this kind does not name individuals, and does not provide that a particular attorney general may do a particular thing; but the effect of this amendment will be that the present attorney general will be able to prosecute under the combines act with a degree of authority which he does not now possess. I think hon. members of this house should question whether the present attorney general, no matter what his motives may have been, has given any good reason for our believing that the act will be strengthened and not weakened if he has a wider measure of authority for prosecution than he now has. It is because of the wider powers that, in form at any rate, he would acquire under this amendment that we must examine the explanation he has given.
The Minister of Justice quite properly took adequate time to review the whole sequence of events which have brought us up to this position. In that review he had full opportunity to explain every detail of the course which has been followed from December 29 last until today. I submit, Mr. Chairman, there is not one word in that explanation which gives any reason whatever for the failure to publish this report in accordance with the act. From the point of view of the relationship of the position between the Minister of Justice and parliament, the regrettable thing is that nowhere in his explanation has the minister indicated any recognition of the gravity of the offence to parliament and to our system in this country. Moreover, I submit there has been a regrettable absence on the part of any member who ordinarily supports the government of any evidence of recognition of the effect of a proceeding of this kind upon the reliance of members of 45781-1381
Combines Investigation Act parliament upon statements given to the house by the Minister of Justice or other members of the government.
In effect, what is the explanation? The Minister of Justice quite reasonably explains that he was in Winnipeg until the third of January, and that on coming to Ottawa he was confronted with an accumulation of problems which required his attention before the opening of parliament a short time later. He quite reasonably explains it was not possible for him to devote the time that he otherwise might have devoted to a reading of this report, and for that reason-it is a valid reason-the time set out in the act for publication passed. I do not think there is a single member of this house who would not accept the explanation of the Minister of Justice about the difficulties he encountered at that time. I do not think there is a single member of this house who would raise any serious question if there had been a delay in publication resulting from a situation of that kind. I do not believe any member would challenge the minister's explanation if he said: I was confronted with these problems. These are difficulties that every member, particularly one who has had cabinet responsibility, will understand. The minister could have said: I am simply stating that under the pressure of business I did delay publication so that I might have an opportunity of examining this report before publication, with the consequent effects that it might have, because as Minister of Justice I felt that when the report was released I should be in a position to make some statement as to the attitude of the government in regard to it. All that is so reasonable, and so much in accordance with the difficulties all of us encounter day by day in meeting our own tasks that no member would have been unreasonable in that respect.
That explanation, however, does not for one moment explain a ten months' delay. It does not for one moment explain the delay in publication until a date which made it impossible for any prosecution to be undertaken. I submit that is one of the very serious aspects of what has developed. It does not reveal why the explanation that has been given to the house on this occasion was not given to the house when parliament was meeting from January until April. No explanation that the Minister of Justice has given suggests for a moment that the same views in regard to the publication of this report were not present in the minds of the cabinet members and in his own mind at that time.
On the contrary, at the time this report first came to his attention he was aware of the effect of its contents. He discussed it
2156	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act with the cabinet, as he has explained to us, and at that moment the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) raised the objection which he raised about a week ago in the house when he interjected a statement about this report on a motion for supply and which, in itself, had no relation to the combines act. The objections which were stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as reasons for not publishing this report are the same reasons he has held since January. The reasons given by the Minister of Justice on this occasion are not consistent with the reasons which he gave to the commissioner in his explanation to him of the delay in dealing with this report under the terms of the act.
It will be recalled that in his letter to the commissioner he stated that the publication of the report was being delayed until steps could be taken to amend the act, in view of the effect of the judgment in the dental case which-had been rendered last February by the Ontario court of appeal. I do not believe the Minister of Justice will suggest that the provisions of this act are retroactive, Mr. Chairman. I have heard no suggestion to that effect. If that is so, then I fail to understand what bearing the enactment of the proposed amendments could have had upon the publication of the report of an alleged combine in the milling industry.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my friend will permit just a word of explanation there, may I say that provisions of the act to which he is referring are set out in clause 3 of the bill concerning certain rules of evidence. The law is that the enacting of these rules of evidence would apply to all prosecutions as from the time they come into effect, and in that inexact sense they might be regarded as retroactive, since such prosecutions may relate to past offences. These rules would apply, for example, to a prosecution launched upon the basis of the bread report. My hon. friend's remarks would apply to substantive law, but not to provisions such as these in clause 3 of the bill which are of a procedural and evidentiary character.


George Alexander Drew: What the Minister of Justice has said is that the only part of this amending act which could have come within the scope of his explanation to the commissioner as having some bearing on the effect of the judgment in the dental case is section 3 of the bill before us. That is correct, is it not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Section 3 is really the heart of the bin.


George Alexander Drew: There is nothing, Mr. Chairman, in section 3 which has any bearing whatever on the attempts which the minister explains


he was making to bring some measure of harmony and understanding between the senior government officials who were dealing with this matter, because the difficulty encountered in the presentation of evidence was all disclosed, not only when the Ontario court of appeal gave its judgment, but, long before that, in the trial judgment as well. Hence the difficulty about presentation of evidence and proof as to the association of certain officials and certain documents with what had taken place was clearly in the mind of the government; and if that is the heart of the bill, then there is no reason why this bill was not presented to parliament last spring, with the explanation which has now been given and with the opportunity which then would have been available to this house to express its views at a time when action might still have been taken, if action was deemed appropriate.
Moreover, I am inclined to think that the problem which the amendments proposed in section 3 seek to cover is not so much a problem of new rules of evidence as it is of the presentation of evidence. A careful examination of what took place in the dental case will disclose that without much difficulty the evidence could have been given which would have connected the appropriate documents and individuals with the alleged combine. In making this statement I am directing no criticism to those who handled the case. It would appear either that they were instructed or that they held certain views which in effect prevented judgment in this case.
I come back to this argument: If the meat of the bill now before us is merely an amendment as to rules of evidence and the establishment of association with an alleged combine in cases of this kind, then there is no explanation for this delay; because we did not need to wait until now for the presentation of this simple provision as to how evidence can be brought in that will be effective. These rules as to evidence can have no conceivable bearing upon the appropriateness or otherwise of publication of the report on the alleged milling combine.
I hesitate to say this, Mr. Chairman, because the Minister of Justice has sought to explain the details. But after all, this is the high court of parliament, and it is the duty of every one of us to state what he believes to be the obligation of each minister, of the government as a whole, or of individual members within this high court of parliament. The fact that we may make statements that are in themselves extremely critical or that imply grave concern about the position of any individual within this parliament, is

no more a personal matter than is the necessary statement by a judge or the necessary action by a jury in our courts because it is their duty not to allow personal feelings to restrain appropriate action or to call for action or for statements which would be unjust or inappropriate. It is our duty to state the position as we see it in the light of our understanding of the responsibility to parliament of the government and of individual ministers. In this light, Mr. Chairman, I can only say that the explanation given by the Minister of Justice makes the case infinitely worse than it was before he made it.
Let us come down to what the minister now tells us. He says that the core of the oill before us is merely a provision for more effective proof of certain documents and the more effective establishing of the responsibility of individuals to an association of this kind. If that is so, then by no stretch of the imagination does this amending bill offer the slightest explanation of the minister's failure to comply with the law when he could reasonably have done so, having regard to the difficulties he has explained as to his arrival here on January 3 with an accumulation of work before him. On the contrary, he has given to the commissioner, for his failing to act under the Combines Investigation Act, an explanation which, in the face of this bill and his present statement, simply does not hold water, and in itself challenges our opportunity to place full reliance on the explanations he has given.
Let us see what section 1 does. It is section 1 that we are discussing; the reference to section 3 arose out of the minister's explanation that it was the real core of this amending act.
Section 1 says that the Attorney General of Canada may institute and conduct any prosecution. It is so easy to forget that our established customs may be weakened, step by step, without full recognition of what is happening. Why should the attorney general, and particularly this attorney general, have wider powers and wider discretion when the discretion he has exercised in this case was a discretion not to prosecute without following the ordinary provisions of the act in regard to publication at the time? Everything that has been placed before the House of Commons is an argument why the present attorney general should have no greater responsibilities, but rather infinitely fewer. Every explanation that has been given is one which denies to the present attorney general that wider discretion implied by this amendment, even if it is only placing in statutory form what already exists de facto.
Combines Investigation Act
The explanation given by the Minister of Justice is a long one which seeks to justify the breach of law by the government itself. One of the explanations which I think should be given full attention is that there were changes in the report after January 14, by which time the report should have been published under the act. The minister speaks of different amendments. Mr. Chairman, this explanation is not one which can inspire confidence in the house in connection with any explanations given by the Minister of Justice concerning his responsibilities. The minister, and everyone who has had practical experience in dealing with reports of this kind, knows exactly what may happen under circumstances of the kind. I will go so far as to say that one member of the house particularly, who has had some judicial experience, knows of similar situations in connection with judgments of courts. While a judgment is held up and while a report under any statute is not presented, either a judge or an official will constantly refine and perhaps improve the wording. On rereading he may say to himself that a particular sentence does not express, quite as clearly as it might have, the opinion he had wished to express. He will change that sentence.
It must be remembered that the minister has told us that an effort was being made to bridge the gap which existed between the opinions of certain senior officials who carried on their responsibilities in different departments of government. It may well be -and I imagine it is so-that the commissioner under the combines act, while not in any way varying the sense of the report, sought to give an explanation which would leave no doubt as to what his opinion was in law concerning some of the discussions which had taken place. And that, I submit, Mr. Chairman, was a perfectly proper course, right up to the date the report was published. But it offers no explanation of the failure to publish the report; because we have the statement of the minister that he received a memorandum from the commissioner in January indicating to him when the report should be published. The evidence before us is conclusive that the commissioner felt all along that the report should be published. The withholding of the publication had no relationship in the commissioner's mind at any time to the minor amendments that were made.
So far as the present bill is concerned, I wish to leave no doubt as to our position in regard to the Combines Investigation Act. We believe that it is necessary legislation,

Combines Investigation Act . and that it should be strengthened and clarified. We believe that it should be strengthened from the point of view of effective prosecution, and we believe that every provision in the act must be adhered to by the government of the day and the members of that government-particularly the minister charged with ultimate responsibility under the act.
We believe also that the act should provide a mechanism which will prevent abuses, but at the same time not interfere with those associations which are not injurious to the public interest. That was the purpose intended to be included in the act under the provision that in order to constitute an offence under the act there must be a combine contrary to the public interest. We believe a much more effective way of handling this can be provided. We believe, in other words, that these amendments are inadequate. If the motion to refer the subject matter of the bill to a committee had been adopted-and I am not debating the decision in that respect-there would have been an opportunity to examine fully that point, and to make recommendations. At this stage, in the debate on the bill, it is impossible to provide for adequate amendments which would really make the act effective.
It may well be that some who are discussing the combines act may have different views as to its purposes. I really doubt if there are the differences of views which have been suggested. I believe it is immensely important that combines which are contrary to the public interest should be dealt with effectively. I believe that legislation-and effective legislation-of this kind is essential to the very type of the free competitive system in which I believe.
I am convinced that our idea as to the advantages of free competition is premised on the fact that there will not be a denial of competition by agreements between companies which have the effect of preventing improvement in quality, improvement in usefulness, and reduction in prices by competition. Failure to have an act of this kind which is really effective, and administered effectively by the government in office, is in itself an invitation to that very rigid type of economy with which I disagree, and with which I am sure most members in the house disagree.
Sometimes these discussions are related to a misunderstanding of definitions. I was interested this morning to hear a reference to competition, and the necessity for competition to keep prices down. That is what we believe in. When we talk about a free

economy and free enterprise, we are asserting our belief that the individual man or woman in his or her home in this country benefits most from a system which by competition itself will improve quality and lower prices.
That has been the advantage of this system; and it is because of that system that we have on this continent today the highest standard to be found anywhere in the world. It is because we want to continue that system, to continue that competition and to continue the improvement of the living conditions which come from lowered prices, improved quality and improved usefulness, that we so strongly insist upon an effective act to prevent combines which would destroy competition and which are contrary to the interests of the people of Canada. That is why we are devoting so much attention to what has happened in this particular case and expressing such strong opinions about it.
The Minister of Justice was asked if he would give the assurance that under no circumstances in the future would there be a similar breach of the law-again with that detachment which it is our duty as members of this high court of parliament to observe. The minister's explanation yesterday in that respect was the most cynical statement I have heard since I came into the house early this year, and I regret that there have been a number of them. The minister did not say to the hon. member who asked him the question: I recognize the enormity of a breach by the Minister of Justice of the laws of parliament which every citizen is compelled to observe, and it will not recur. He did not say that. He said in effect-I do not pretend to give the exact words, but I trust he will not question my interpretation: The hon. member who has raised the question places a very low estimate on my intelligence if he thinks that I would let myself in for this much trouble again. That is what he said. I am sure the minister will not suggest that I have misinterpreted his reply. In other words, what he says is this: If we keep it dark, we will really keep it dark this time and will not make this mistake once more.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I think I would be prepared to leave it to hon. members of this house to decide whether or not the interpretation the hon. member has placed upon my language is an unjust one. Lest there be any misunderstanding about the matter, may I say that in response to the question of the hon. member for Lake Centre, as has been reported, I said that he would be placing a rather low estimate upon my intelligence if he thought that under circumstances over which I had

any control I would let myself again be placed in this position, or, if I were, that I would not authorize publication.
I may say that my situation in the department now is quite different from what it was last January. I had nothing to do with the authorization or initiation of the flour investigation. I had nothing to do with it at all. About anything that is done while I am Minister of Justice I will be kept informed as it goes along. When the time comes that a future report comes down, I hope to have a fairly intelligent view of what the report is concerned with and its nature. This fifteen day period, which is altogether too short a time for anyone to know what he is publishing if he has never seen the report before, can be complied with only if the minister has been in the department beforehand and has some idea of how the investigation has proceeded, what it has dealt with, and so on.
The duty of conducting the investigation and making a report is by statute entirely upon the commissioner, but there is nothing in any part of the set-up which prevents the commissioner from conferring with his minister. If a minister is to avoid difficulty of this sort he should, at the time the report comes in, have a better grasp of the situation which is being dealt with than any minister could possibly have if he is new to the office.


John George Diefenbaker: Publication does not mean approbation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend says that publication does not mean approbation. When you have a set of circumstances such as we had here, while publication may not legally mean approbation, the fact is that if the government publishes a report on the authority of the minister it cannot help but create an impression all through the country that it approves it. The man in the street does not know about section 27, subsection 5; all he knows is that the government has published a report. So far as he is concerned he says: If they do not approve it, why do they publish it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The man in the street knows it now.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think that would be true of all men in the street.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the minister suggesting that he is going to interfere with the independence of the combines commissioner?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, sir; not under any
circumstances.


Major James William Coldwell: That interpretation might be placed on the minister's words.
Combines Investigation Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am glad my hon. friend has raised the point. If my remarks are susceptible of that interpretation, I certainly did not so intend them. I do not think any better indication of my good faith can be found than my conduct all through this present difficult matter. Where there were circumstances under which I might have been tempted to do that sort of thing, I have scrupulously avoided putting the slightest pressure upon the complete independence of judgment exercised by the commissioner. But there is no reason why the commissioner should not keep his minister informed of the progress of an investigation as he goes along. My information from Mr. McGregor is that that is the practice he has followed.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the minister not try to have the commissioner make an addendum?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In this particular case I could not follow that course, because the report had been filed before I appeared on the scene at all.


Major James William Coldwell: Did he keep the former minister informed of the progress that was being made?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am informed by the commissioner that he kept the minister informed. I would not say that he kept him informed as to the language of his report, but he would keep him informed as to the progress of the investigation. I want to emphasize the fact that no authority is required from the minister to permit the commissioner to carry on an investigation; it is done entirely on his own authority. But I do not think the act could be properly administered if the commissioner started an investigation and carried it on in complete secrecy, without keeping his minister informed, and then at the end of the period produced a report, placed it on the minister's desk and asked that it be published within fifteen days, whereupon publication would take place.
Suppose we had taken a different course from the one we did take. Suppose we had published the report and then came along as soon as we were able to resolve the facts, which took many weeks, say from the spring of 1949 to the fall, and said: We cannot prosecute, because we have no case. I do not mind the criticism that has been directed against me, and I do not think I have shown any indication that I have any personal resentment in the matter. I do not think there has been anything personal in it. But take the case I am speaking of; would that result in strengthening public confidence in the combines investigation commissioner?


Major James William Coldwell: Is it not extraordinary that the document upon which so much reliance

Combines Investigation Act is placed now, which dealt with a matter of which Mr. Ilsley as Minister of Finance had knowledge, because he was being kept informed throughout the period from September 1947 to July of 1948, was not made available to the commissioner? If he was kept informed by the commissioner, why did not this document come to the attention of the commissioner, or why was it not a material factor in stopping the making of this report?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To which document is my hon. friend referring?


Major James William Coldwell: The memorandum of June 21, 1943.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is a memorandum made by Mr. Hart, I think the name is.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Ilsley was present.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, quite.


Major James William Coldwell: And he was subsequently minister of justice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Quite right.


Major James William Coldwell: Then I cannot understand this at all. It makes it more difficult to understand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think not. I am afraid I am getting off on a tangent from the remarks of the leader of the opposition, but I do not think I can afford to ignore the point the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has raised. The memorandum to which he has referred sets forth the beginnings of the negotiation for the profit control arrangement that was imposed upon the milling industry. That profit control arrangement ultimately went into effect, and it was covered by the various orders in council, references to which are appended to Mr. Gordon's last memorandum. The position Mr. McGregor took, which is basic to an understanding by hon. members of this whole difficulty, was that he did not deny the existence of the arrangement with regard to subsidy and profit control contemplated in this memorandum. In that respect he could communicate with Mr. Ilsley on any number of occasions and there would be no point at issue between them at all.
Mr. McGregor's difficulty was simply this. He said that although the subsidy and profit control arrangement might be in effect, in his view it was essential that the milling industry should preserve free competition below the price ceiling in order to keep the prices of these products at all times as low as free competition would take them. His view was that if the milling industry did not do that, it should be prosecuted, because that was an offence against the Combines Investigation Act.


Angus MacInnis: Did Mr. Ilsley disagree with that position?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is a rather subtle point to get over.


George Alexander Drew: It is very subtle.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: 
George Alexander Drew: We are in the same boat there.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I hope I am not lacking in frankness in these matters. I will admit it seems inexplicable. I do not understand why a man who had worked as an enforcement officer of the wartime prices and trade board under the chairmanship of Mr. Gordon would undertake, at different points in the report, to state what was the policy of that board, and to put an interpretation upon that policy, affecting the milling industry, upon which the whole report is largely based, without at any time even having a single conversation with Mr. Gordon, who had been chairman of the board.


Major James William Coldwell: Let us take one or two of these points. First of all the minister said-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid we are being discourteous to the leader of the opposition.


Major James William Coldwell: With his permission, I would just say this. In the first place, the minister
Combines Investigation Act has made a great deal of the combines investigator moving in on the business. But that was not for the purpose of prosecution; that was for the purpose of investigation. If they could give a reasonable explanation, there would be no prosecution, so they would have nothing to fear.
In the second place, we all knew Mr. Ilsley in this house and the meticulous care with which he examined every detail. To my mind it is most extraordinary that Mr. Ilsley, who was a party to or had knowledge of the memorandum to which I referred, and who was minister during a major portion of the time the investigation was proceeding, almost one year, would not have raised this point with Mr. McGregor and stopped the investigation.
With regard to the financial advantage the minister has claimed for the government with respect to this memorandum, what do the millers themselves say? If we look at page 111 of the report we find this:
Another representative wrote in 1945 that he recognized that "no agreement has ever worked one hundred per cent, but" he added, "by working seventy-five per cent it means a lot of extra dollars in the treasury."
That is their treasury, incidentally.
In oral evidence he stated that this was his estimate of successful operation in 1945 in the west. On being questioned he conceded that conditions had been better in this respect in 1946, and better still in 1947 (evidence, pages 531-2). The effectiveness of the agreement on prices of one product, rolled oats, was estimated by the head of another company in 1938, not in percentages but in dollars and cents, when he wrote that . . the rolled oats conference has made us real money during the past five or six years. We estimate it has been worth $75,000 to $100,000 a year more than we got during the preceding years . . ."


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it is only fair that I should interrupt right away, because by reading these extracts my hon. friend, unwittingly, is going to convey quite a wrong impression to hon. members. If before the war there were price fixing agreements, obviously they would be to the benefit of the treasury of the milling companies. But when this profit control arrangement was in effect, the milling companies could have had price fixing agreements until they were black in the face and they could not have made a penny by them, because anything they made would go back to the government in excess profits.


Major James William Coldwell: Then why did they try to get price fixing arrangements, if such arrangements would not inure to their benefit?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am not saying they did, but a conceivable reason why they might do so, and why perhaps they did so, would be this. As I explained to my hon. friend, the price structure which was frozen by this government order was highly complicated in the

Combines Investigation Act flour industry. Since different firms had different ceilings, some had to sell below the ceiling in order that business might be carried on, because if they did not drop their prices in order to meet those of their competitors they could not get any business. So there was bound to be a certain amount of selling below the ceiling price, and the government recognized this from the start. But the government told the milling industry-and this is not open to any question; these are the uncontradicted statements of highly responsible men who were in charge of these matters- that it had decided how much it was going to put up by way of subsidies to the industry, and that it did not want to put up any more. Therefore the government would tolerate this competition to iron out these anomalies of the frozen price structure, but if there were any greater amount of competition beyond that necessary extent the government would step in and take away from the industry the benefit of the subsidy, to the extent necessary. Therefore it was in the interests of the industry to minimize that competition in order to maintain the benefits they were receiving in the form of the subsidy. There can be no question about that.


Major James William Coldwell: But apart from the subsidies, the returns to the millers, according to the reports of the Bank of Canada, went up after that year by year.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I think so.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt this very interesting discussion, but I would not want to be placed in the position of having to suggest that the minister was adopting a one-man filibuster on this bill.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I want to be courteous to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and at the same time I want to be courteous to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and I am finding that a difficult task. I must apologize if I have interrupted my hon. friend.


George Alexander Drew: I recognize that the minister did reply to questions which were asked, and I did not want to interrupt the discussion.


Major James William Coldwell: I thank the leader of the opposition for permitting me to ask some questions at this point.


George Alexander Drew: I should like to complete what I was saying, and the questions may be asked afterwards.
To come back to the point I had reached in my discussion, I wish to leave no doubt as to the exact words I referred to as having

been used by the minister so I quote from page 2147 of Hansard of yesterday, where the minister is reported as having said:
Well, Mr. Chairman, I thought my hon. friend had greater respect for my intelligence than, to ask for an assurance of that kind. If he stops to reflect for a moment on the difficulties that he must know I have had to face in connection with this matter, he will feel quite sure that upon the lowest possible basis of self-preservation he need have no fear for the future.
I suggest those words were correctly interpreted in what I said, subject to the fact that I made a subsequent observation with which the minister may or may not agree, but which did express my own opinion as to what those words really meant. I am definitely convinced that what the minister has just said to this committee demonstrates that far from recognizing the seriousness of what has happened-and I cannot overemphasize my own realization of that seriousness- the minister really thinks it would be a good thing if embarrassment of that kind could be avoided; and I cannot see any evidence that he has any other thought on the subject.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Then let us clear up that point now, if we may. I think it would be a good thing if embarrassment of that sort could be avoided, and I also think the best way to avoid that embarrassment is to publish in accordance with the act. I mentioned the lowest ground of self-interest, but that would be equally advisable upon higher grounds, upon grounds as high as my hon. friend likes. I do not think I could be any more specific than that; but if this matter is worrying my hon. friend he might write out a reasonable formula, and perhaps I would agree to subscribe to it. I would not want my remarks yesterday to be misinterpreted. May I say that there was no meaning intended such as my hon. friend has taken from them.


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire not to co-operate in any way possible, but I would know in advance that any memorandum I might prepare would not be acceptable; therefore I will save my time in preparing it and the time of the minister in reading it. Perhaps what I would prepare would have some relation to what I find in one of the many editorials that have been written dealing with this subject. I do not think I have seen the core of the really serious aspects of this matter more clearly brought into focus than they are in an editorial appearing in Toronto Saturday Night of November 22-a highly responsible publication which has not at any time indicated partiality against the government in its discussion of public affairs. After a review of

certain events under the heading "Lawbreaking ministers", I find this in the issue to which I refer:
It is a most dangerous attitude and one which, if allowed to go unrebuked, will extend eventually to even more important matters, if that be possible.
That the report was unjust to the milling industry, and that the government would have been ill-advised to take action upon it, is in our opinion entirely true, but has nothing to do with the case. The law does not say that the government may suppress any report by the commissioner which causes it uneasiness, or with which it disagrees, or which it thinks likely to cause undue agitation in the public mind. The law says that the reports of the commissioner shall be made public within fifteen days; and the whole object of that provision was, as our Ottawa correspondent pointed out last week, to put the reports beyond the reach of any possible political pressures.
In the United Kingdom, we do not hesitate to state, the unearthing of a situation such as this would lead to the resignation of at least the minister chiefly concerned. If the political atmosphere of Canada were as healthy as that of- the United Kingdom-if electors demanded the same standards of their responsible rulers, and if rulers had the same sense of obligation to parliament and to the country-the same result would follow here.
This is not an overstatement of the seriousness of the situation with which we are confronted, and the attitude of the minister. If the minister had said: I came to Ottawa only on January 3; the report had been presented on December 29, and I remained in the west to clean up certain details; when I came here I was confronted with the necessity of preparing for parliament and I was not able to attend to this for a while; as Minister of Justice I have no discretion in regard to publication, but I did want to know something of what it was about; therefore, there was some delay which I regret. If this had been said, every hon. member would have agreed that we could not be critical of so reasonable a position. This default is continued, however, and when the explanation is given it is clear that the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not want the report published, and the Minister of Justice was not prepared to create an issue such as would have resulted, under our system, in the resignation of the minister. That is the situation.
Instead, however, the minister comes here and says he is assuming the responsibility. This morning he says, in effect, that a thing of this kind will not happen again; remember that on this occasion I did not have an opportunity of reading the report before publication. Why should he, unless he believes he should have an opportunity of reading it before it is in final form? What does that mean? Is there any hon. member who can misinterpret what the minister has in mind, that the report should toe the subject of discussion before it is published? The purpose of publication was stated by the one who
Combines Investigation Act moved in this house the insertion of that section of the act, Mr. Mackenzie King. In his explanation of the purpose, he emphasized the prophylactic power of publication, and the independence of the officials in carrying out what they thought to be the necessary exposure of the conditions they had found, without the intervention of the government or any member of the government. That was the intention of this idea of publication. I believe it should be carried out.
I could easily put into the minister's mouth words in the form of verse which do seem to sum up his attitude. He will find them in Gilbert and Sullivan's "Iolanthe":
The law Is the true embodiment Of everything that's excellent.
It has no kind of fault or flaw,
And I, my lords, embody the law.
In other words, never mind what parliament has passed; never mind what the responsibility is under the acts that those elected by the people pass; if we think anything might result from this with which we do not agree, then we will assume the responsibility as members of the government for changing the law, in effect if not in actual words.
I heard a comment a moment ago about quoting Gilbert and Sullivan which was not loud enough for the reporter to hear. As a matter of fact, Gilbert and Sullivan might well be quoted in respect to certain aspects of this matter. There is another reference to Gilbert and Sullivan which might be applied to another minister. I believe he well occupies the role of Pooh-Bah in another famous play which perhaps is better known than "Iolanthe". Nevertheless the fact that the ministerial Pooh-Bah is running not only his own department but the Department of Justice as well is no explanation for the Minister of Justice waiting ten months to get on his feet and resist that overriding power, with the qualifications he made, as soon as he had found out what it was all about.
For ten months, the government has been in contempt, and deliberate contempt, of parliament. The longer the explanations are that are put before us, the more it is emphasized why this government still thinks it had the right to break the law under the circumstances which existed at that time. If that explanation is sound, then it applies to other responsibilities of the government. If that explanation is sound, we have no way of knowing whether there are any other reports that should have been made or any other things this government should have done which it has failed to do under the

Combines Investigation Act same comfortable doctrine. It strikes at the very root of our system of responsible government.
I think it is time for us to recognize, Mr. Chairman, as has unfortunately been recognized too late in some other countries, that the first line of defence of our free society is not the Oder or the Rhine, but is right here in parliament. The first place for us to defend our free society and our system is the place where that freedom can find its guarantee, if the full responsibility of parliament is exercised as it was intended to be exercised.
If the present explanation is accepted, there is no assurance that this intolerable situation is any nearer an end than it was when this default was exposed so reluctantly. Who will forget the incident when the Minister of Justice was prepared to table the correspondence and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said, "No, no."


John George Diefenbaker: The veto power of the government.


George Alexander Drew: It is the veto power carried right into the government.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt on a point of order? I shall not follow the trend the leader of the opposition has followed for the last two days. We have been dealing for quite some time with section 1 of the bill. There is a rule with which speakers are obliged to comply, and that is standing order 58. It reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
When the chairman took the chair, he read to the committee the item under discussion, which is an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act by which the Attorney General of Canada may institute and conduct prosecutions, a right which he has not at the present time. I know this is an interesting debate. I myself have followed it with great interest. I have listened to the arguments pro and con. There have been lengthy arguments, not only from the opposition but from my colleague. So much time having been taken in the discussion, if we are not now convinced that the opposition is right or that the government is right, I doubt if we ever shall be. I suggest to hon. members that from now on we confine the discussion to the matter before us, in compliance with standing order 58, and try to limit the arguments to the amendment which is before the committee. I will ask for a ruling by the chairman, if not before one o'clock, then later.
I do not often intervene in these debates, because I get more enjoyment out of listening to other people speak than out of speaking myself. But I have listened to a great deal of discussion, and I see that our minds will never meet. The leader of the opposition has his own views, others have their views, and we have ours. But the various views have been repeated and repeated by those who have spoken, and few new arguments have come out of the debate this morning. I therefore ask, Mr. Chairman, that we comply with standing order 58.


The Chairman:: We are not discussing the principle of the Combines Investigation Act. We are discussing the principle of an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act, which is not the same thing. On the first clause I think it would be permissible to discuss, not the general principle of the Combines Investigation Act, but the general principle of an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act. There are three sections in this bill. The matter dealt with in section 1 is: Attorney General of Canada may institute and conduct prosecutions-we have discussed that; section 2: corporations to be tried without a jury; section 3: evidence. That is all that is dealt with in this bill. I think we have had a general and orderly discussion on the principle of an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act; and I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to section 1 only.


George Alexander Drew: I am glad to have that ruling, Mr. Chairman. I had almost concluded my remarks, all of which, I submit, have been directed to the reasons why this committee should be greatly concerned about extending any further powers to the present attorney general, and particularly with regard to extending to the attorney general the power to institute and conduct any prosecution or other proceedings under the act or the Criminal Code.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Not in regard to publication; in regard to prosecution. That is not the same thing.


George Alexander Drew: That is right. The present Minister of Justice has broken the law, and I submit that he has no right to prosecute any Canadian for breach of this or any other law. He has put himself in contempt of the law of parliament, and of the house in which he sits today.


Angus MacInnis: As to section 1, the section under discussion, ordinarily I do not believe there would be any disagreement in the committee. My understanding of the Combines Investigation Act as it stands is that

prosecution, or the question whether there shall be prosecution, is first referred to the attorney general of the province in which the industry is located. If the attorney general does not prosecute, then the Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Justice, may do so. What is involved in the amendment is concurrent jurisdiction in the matter of prosecution. I think that is correct. I have no objection to that. But so far as the section refers to the Attorney General of Canada- and that does not necessarily mean this Attorney General of Canada-I submit that the present Attorney General of Canada has put himself in the position where he should not ask for nor be given any further authority under this act. The fact of the matter is that throughout the country the suspicion has been created in the minds of the people that the present Minister of Justice, indeed the present administration, is not favourable to the purposes of the Combines Investigation Act. The thing that should be done now is that the Minister of Justice should resign and that the government should appoint a new minister of justice to administer this act.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall section 1 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Weir:: There are two minutes yet.


Alphonse Fournier: Can we not carry section 1?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall section 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Demobilization and reconversion-
250. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $547,497,388, including authority, notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $401,942,006, and commitments for future years of $145,555,382, against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1949-50 will not exceed $339,442,006.


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Chairman, some questions were asked which I should like to answer at this
Supply-National Defence time. The date of the naval order with regard to Canada badges, asked for by the hon. member for Three Rivers, was May 13, 1946.
The number of privates in the Canadian army (reserve) at October 31, 1949, is approximately 24,000. I say "approximately" because a return was requested from local commands on October 31, 1949, for this information. The information is collected at local commands, and had to be verified from certain units. We have received final returns from the areas representing 70 per cent of the strength, and extending the figures from the areas definitely reporting so as to cover the whole, gives a figure of approximately 24,000. That would be correct within 100.
The hon. member for Nanaimo asked questions with regard to air crew. In Canada at the present time there are approximately
60,000	men now in civilian life who during the second world war served as pilots, navigators, wireless air gunners and bombardiers. Approximately 47,000 have signified their intention of joining the armed forces again should a state of emergency arise. Because of age and physical factors the percentage of those suitable for employment in air crew duties will be reduced progressively each year.
In the R.C.A.F. itself, out of a strength of 16,356 there are 1,630 who are qualified air crew in the regular forces. Out of 3,086 in the air force auxiliary 471 are air crew. During the fiscal year 1949-50, it is estimated, approximately 200 men will qualify as air crew. There are now seven channels through which men may be qualified for air crew:
1.	Men entering the R.C.A.F. from civil life for long service commands;
2.	Men entering the R.C.A.F. from civil life for short service commissions;
3.	University undergraduates who, as flying cadets, qualify as air crew throughout full-time work during the summer;
4.	Cadets at Royal Roads and R.M.C. who will similarly qualify as flying cadets;
5.	Serving officers in air crew trades which have been abolished-gunners, and flight engineers-who are being retrained as pilots, radio officers or navigators;
6.	Serving airmen who have applied and have been selected for air crew training; and
7.	Civilians with previous R.C.A.F. experience either as officers or airmen.
That covers all the classes by which men may be qualified.


Mr. Pearkes:: The total number is 200 out of all those classes.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, 200 for 1949-50. At the present time the intake for air crew and the

Supply-National Defence production of qualified men is sufficient to The hon. member for Calgary East, speak-meet the requirements of the R.C.A.F. or to ing in the house on Friday, November 11, fill the gap until new air crew could be made the following statement as reported at trained in the event of an emergency.	page 1689 of Hansard:


Mr. E. W. George (Westmorland):: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily,, but in view of some of the remarks of hon. members in the opposition I feel it my duty, both as a member of the Canadian reserve army and as a member of parliament, to correct some of the impressions which have been given.
First I want to congratulate the minister upon the able way in which he has presented the report of his department to the committee. The minister is also to be congratulated upon having the courage of his convictions in asking for an investigation into the affairs of the Canadian navy, and for his subsequent publishing of Admiral Mainguy's report in full. I intend to leave the high-sounding philosophy on the theory of defence to the opposition, and to deal with the facts as I see them in relation to the reserve army.
Before the outbreak of the last war we had two armies in Canada, namely the permanent force and the non-permanent active militia. These two forces were governed by the same book, but actually were two distinct forces, with not too much good feeling between them. We had different rules and regulations in regard to training, pay, rations, clothing and equipment. In spite of all this, history has proved that we would not have been able to field the troops we did at the first of the war had it not been for the excellent work done by the N.P.A.M. between the wars.
Today, thanks to the policy laid down by the Minister of National Defence, we have one army. There is a good feeling of comradeship between those in the active force and those in the reserve force. All of us draw the same pay and allowances. We draw the.same rations and wear the same clothing. Our training is the same; and it is the aim of all reservists to become as proficient as those in the active army. Those of us who were in the N.P.A.M. between the wars and are in the reserve army now, are most grateful to those who have laid down this policy and saw to it that it was carried out. The aim of those in the active army, from the top to the bottom, seems to be that of furthering the interests of the reserve army. After all, that is one of the main sources of manpower for Canada's army in the event of war.

However, I think everybody admits that there has been extreme difficulty in getting men into the reserve units. The recruiting campaigns which have been put on have been flops.
In Calgary we have had two or three army weeks that I remember, during which the various units came down town with pieces of their equipment. This equipment was put in prominent places such as busy street corners and so forth to be seen by the people. Posters were put up. Advertisements were put in the newspapers. Talks were given on the radio, and so on, all designed to draw in recruits for both the reserve force and the permanent force. So far as the reserve forces are concerned, these means were just hopeless. Very few recruits were secured as a result of them, in Calgary at any rate. I understand the same thing was true across most of the country.
Speaking on the same day the hon. member for Kamloops said, as reported on page 1695 of Hansard:
If we are to play an effective role in defending our own territories, we must be able to put in the field an effective striking force within weeks or at the most a month of the time of the outbreak of hostilities. Is our reserve force capable of expansion in that way, to fill the role which that picture thrusts upon it? It certainly is not.
A little further on the hon. member said:
If my hon. friend who asked me the question, or any other hon. member who is interested, will take the trouble to consult with the commanding officers of any of our reserve units, he will find the answer to his question. Those officers are reluctantly compelled to say that their units would not be battleworthy for a period not of weeks or a month, but of months or a year. We therefore have not a reserve force capable of taking the field, under present conditions, within less than a year from the outbreak of hostilities.
I quote those examples because they are typical of the criticism which has been levelled against the government and the reserve army. I do not propose to tell the committee what is wrong with other units in Canada; rather I propose to tell hon. members about one unit that has been able to recruit all the soldiers it wanted and to train them efficiently. There certainly are several units in Canada which are outstanding, and what I say in connection with one probably has to do with them all.
I refer to the Eighth Princess Louise's (New Brunswick) Hussars, fifth armoured regiment, with headquarters at Sussex, New Brunswick. Lieutenant Colonel G. R. H. Ross is the officer commanding and I have the honour to be second in command. I shall not go into the history of this regiment except to say that it is a very old unit and had a good war record in the recent war where it served throughout with the fifth Canadian division.

Upon being discharged from the active army in 1946 those members of the overseas unit who were interested were struck off strength to the reserve unit, the second regiment which had carried on during the war. A short summer camp was held in 1946 and I believe we were the only reserve unit in Canada to go into camp that year. The following year the unit trained at Camp Utopia, New Brunswick. In the meantime the four squadron headquarters had been established with A and B squadrons at Sussex, C squadron at Sackville and R.H.Q. at Hampton. This meant that we had personnel spread over a radius of 100 miles, which gave us a number of self-accounting units. This in itself is good training for the personnel concerned.
Recruiting was slow at first but those with the interests of the unit at heart soon developed a system which worked. We had been supplied with sufficient building accommodation for an armoured unit together with tanks and wheeled vehicles. This with the stores required for general military training and an A and T staff gave us enough to make training constructive and interesting. General military training was carried out at local headquarters and all armoured corps training was carried out at Sussex. We found that the recruiting campaigns made people think about the armed services and then all that was required was a little personal contact. Today our unit is within one hundred of being up to strength and we attribute this to the following:
1.	Efficient administration, at all levels.
2.	Well "laid on" progressive training leading to the qualifications of trained soldiers and tradesmen.
3.	Good "Q" management-this includes good meals, sufficient clothing of the right size, regimental badges, flashes, ties, et cetera. All personnel attending week-end schemes or special courses are issued with sheets, pillow slips, pillows, blankets and the barrack rooms are conducted properly.
4.	The social life of the unit. No unit can exist wholly on its social activities, but they are very necessary to maintain a proper level of military life.
All the items just mentioned should be the usual and not the exception. By making military life in the reserve army interesting and constructive, we built up an esprit de corps which, as you all know, is the secret of any unit. I cannot agree with the hon. member from Calgary East that it is hard to get men into the reserve army, nor can I agree that the recruiting campaigns which have been put on were flops. On the contrary we find these recruiting campaigns a great asset.
Supply-National Defence In fact, on checking the records I find that allowing for wastage the strength of the Calgary reserve army units as at October 31, 1949, compared with the strength as at October 31, 1948, shows a net gain of 17-7 per cent. This shows that these advertising campaigns were not a flop in the hon. member's constituency as he suggested.
In my opinion no unit will ever recruit by waiting for the men to come to it. Each man presently on strength has a friend and he in turn has a friend and if the soldier is sufficiently interested he can bring several of his friends into the unit. We can bring our unit up to strength at will, and this will be done during the next recruiting campaign. There are, of course, always a number of non-effectives. In the case of officers and N.C.O.'s they are immediately struck off strength if they do not attend training without having obtained permission to be absent. In the case of other ranks an attempt is made to ascertain why they are not attending and if they persist in not attending, then they too are struck off strength. Of course, personnel can be forced to attend training under the Militia Act, but we do not want anyone on strength who does not want to belong.
In 1944 at the battle of Coriano Ridge, which was one of the battles of the Gothic line, members of the unit came across a badly wounded colt several days old beside her mother which had been killed during the battle. The colt was taken to the M.I.R. and patched up. The colt lived and was taken with the unit as a mascot. Eventually, the mascot went with the unit to northwest Europe and eventually was shipped to Canada. This colt, named Princess Louise, has become a member of the Hampton branch of the Canadian Legion and is also a member of the reserve unit. On all ceremonial parades and guards this mascot leads the parade. This unit put on guards of honour for both Viscount Alexander and Field Marshal Montgomery, and Princess Louise formed part of each parade. The presence of this mascot has helped to build morale within the unit and has helped recruiting.
For the past two years we have taken more troops into summer camp than any other unit in Canada and in each case could have taken far more than our allotment. The winter training done at local headquarters and at R.H.Q. trains the soldier for the specialized training he will get at summer camp. The troops enjoy summer camp and there is always a high percentage who would like to remain for additional training.
As you all know, a tank driving range requires a lot of territory, and since the tanks

Supply-National Defence are so heavy it is impossible to transport them around the country without doing permanent damage to certain bridges, and roads. As I mentioned before, all armoured corps training was of necessity carried on at R.H.Q. at Sussex. Each squadron must attend one week end training period per month and one week end is reserved for officers and N.C.O.'s. This is all specialist training, which in the case of other ranks can lead to qualification as tradesmen.
In addition, there are many schemes arranged with other units in the area. Three weeks ago, for instance, there were over 600 personnel quartered in our lines doing a tank-cum-infantry scheme. Last year we put on a tank-cum-infantry scheme with the air force and artillery in support. Two weeks ago we were hosts to the area shoot at which every unit in the New Brunswick area was represented. You can see by this that the attitude toward the reserve army in New Brunswick is very good. In fact, according to figures published in the press recently, the province of New Brunswick had more personnel in the reserve army per capita than any other province in Canada.
An important part of the work of a reserve army is sponsoring cadet corps. We have affiliated with us five cadet corps. These corps are trained under direction of the area cadet officer together with what help we can give them with our own officers and N.C.O.'s and with the A and T staff. The members of these cadet corps are brought into R.H.Q. at least once a year and are given a practical knowledge of tanks and wheeled vehicles on strength. Annually we present a suitably engraved cup to the best affiliated cadet corps. We find that these cadet corps provide a steady stream of recruits for the reserve army.
Our percentage of overseas personnel in the ranks in relation to recruits is rather high. Twenty-two per cent of the other ranks had service with the active force during the recent war. Sixty per cent of the N.C.O.'s and 80 per cent of the officers served with the active force. In my opinion this is exceptionally good, and is of great benefit in training recruits. There are many officers and N.C.O.'s in the area who are fully qualified and yet have been unable to get on strength of a reserve unit because the complement is full. To overcome this, and to give reserve units the advantage of having additional trained officers and N.C.O.'s at their command, the department has allowed us to take on additional personnel from the supplementary reserve officers list up to our war establishment in equivalent ranks. We are also allowed now to take on W.O.'s and N.C.O.'s surplus to establishment up to 100 per cent of our war establishment.

The minister has made the statement several times that the 8th P.L. (N.B.) Hussars is the largest and best reserve unit in Canada today. We are very proud of this fact. It is our intention to bring this unit up to strength in the near future, and to maintain its standard of efficiency.
The hon. member for Kamloops made the statement on page 1695 of Hansard for Friday, November 11, that if we take any year from 1924 to 1938 or 1939, we shall find that the size of the reserve army is substantially in excess of the reserve army today. Although the reserve army strength before the last war was higher than it is today, nevertheless this was to some extent a paper strength, for we were training only 64-4 per cent of our total strength at that time, while we have been training an average of 86-4 per cent over the last four years. As a matter of fact, last year was one of our best years when we were training 92 [DOT] 2 per cent of the reserve army. Training today, compared with that between the wars, is so far superior that figures do not tell the truth. We are actually training today with sufficient men, equipment and buildings, together with good training at summer camps and summer schools. The men are really efficient, and many of them are ready to take the field, whereas between the wars, as we all know, training was of very little value.
Those of us who were in the N.P.A.M. between the wars remember well the conditions under which we trained. I personally remember when all ranks contributed their pay to regimental funds in order that we could hire horses and pay expenses to go into camp. When we were formed into an armoured unit around 1938, we were not allowed to train sufficient personnel, although we did get some money for the hire of cars which we used in lieu of tanks. In 1939, a few months before war broke out, we took into camp our authorized training allotment of fifty-five all ranks. I want to impress on all hon. members again that this was only a few months before war broke out. These conditions do not exist today. We have sufficient equipment and are allowed to take into camp enough personnel to assure a high standard of training in the reserve army.
At the present time I do not feel that Canada needs or can afford a large standing army. There is only one source of money, and that is the Canadian taxpayer. If the money is spent on defence it is not available for the many other needs of the country. There is sufficient money allotted to the reserve army today to train it efficiently. Some members of the opposition have voiced the fear that this money is being wasted.

I know that it is not being wasted in my own unit, and I cannot entertain the fears expressed by so many of the opposition that we could not recruit quickly enough today in the event of hostilities breaking out. I was in Toronto the other night at the royal winter fair, and there was a guard of honour put on by the reserve army. I think it indicated the state of training of a good many of the units of the reserve army. The Irish regiment of Canada from Toronto provided the guard of honour for the vice-regal party, and it was exceptionally well done. I think they should be highly praised for their efforts.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I feel that if my own unit, together with several other units in Canada, can accomplish what we have under the existing regulations there should be no reason why other units cannot do equally well. It shows there is nothing wrong with our system, and we know by experience that we have sufficient equipment and material to make the program a success. There are local conditions which affect each unit differently, but surely these can be overcome by those who so successfully overcame the obstacles presented to them in the last war. To those who doubt the efficiency of the training being carried out in both the active and reserve army, I suggest that they arrange with the minister to visit units so that they can see for themselves the efficient way in which the program is being carried out.
By comparison with the N.P.A.M., and having in mind the success which we had in mobilizing the forces at the outbreak of the last war, I am convinced that we are in a far better position than ever before in the history of this country, and that we could mobilize our forces today quickly enough to take care of any emergency.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to offer some constructive suggestions to the government in connection with these estimates, and especially item 250. My suggestions are not made in criticism of what the minister has been doing, far from it. They are suggestions with which I think he will agree once they are presented to him. I am not a military man, but I have seen a great deal of the good work which the department has done. First of all I should like to refer to the book which the department has brought out covering many phases of its activities. One of the matters referred to in it is the union of the services. The United States have had the same trouble. You may remember after the Pearl Harbor disaster, and after the close of the war, they had the same trouble under two or three of
Supply-National Defence their leaders. They tried to unite into one organization the army, navy, air force and other services. We saw what happened there. Since that time there have been effected some changes which have been brought about by the new conditions now existing.
I want to call attention to a book by Lord Vansittart entitled "Lessons of my Life". He was the British ambassador to Germany for fifteen years. In his book he warns the world about the disaster that is surely coming between the east and the west. I say the minister would be well advised to ponder, hearken and listen to what the ambassador has said because he has offered some good constructive advice along these lines. In Everybody's Weekly of November 12, 1949, Lord Vansittart has called attention to the grave danger awaiting the world arising out of our association with the Soviet union, which never intends to carry out anything it proposes.
This is a very important matter. Here we have a representative of the United States and a representative of Britain conferring, with whom? They are conferring with the representatives of the Soviet. The picture shows Mr. Bevin of Britain and Mr. Dean Acheson of the United States enjoying a jest with Mr. Vishinsky of the U.S.S.R.; but the legend under the picture says, "but the time has come to cease 'smarming' Soviet representatives." The heading of the article is "Stop this foolishness" and beneath it is this statement:
Only fools play cards with notorious sharpers, yet our government continues to make worthless "agreements" with the communist states which are bent on our destruction.
That is exactly correct; and in the article Lord Vansittart goes on to say:
It is remarkable that the democracies still cannot really wake up to the true nature and intentions of the communist conspiracy. There have been encouraging signs in the United States and Australia, where some of the conspirators have been convicted and sentenced, but in the main the democracies go on blindly and softly preaching and practising "liberty to destroy liberty."
This was the line taken by the German republic towards nazism and by Czechoslovakia towards communism. In both cases-and in others also-the totalitarian system enslaved the people; yet we still will not learn the lesson that all these insidious and despotic systems are deadly poison, and that all their advocates should be regarded in that light.
Thus foolishly looking upon communism as a party instead of a conspiracy, the democracies- governments and peoples-always begin to recoil from effective action at the very moment when they begin to nerve themselves for it. Consequently, communism continues to enjoy wholly unreasonable facilities for carrying on its destructive work; and though it sometimes suffers minor setbacks-as in Greece-broadly speaking it is gaining ground, and democracy is losing it.

Supply-National Defence
Then the article goes on to describe where the landslide began. Hon. members may remember that the other day, speaking in a debate on defence, Mr. Churchill said the Soviet were invited to take part in the Pacific war just before the collapse of Japan, and he had not consented to it. He also said that instead of the western allies going right on into Berlin, which they could have captured, they halted a few miles away, at Stressen, and as a result brought about the situation we have seen in Berlin since the end of the war. I need not take time to read Mr. Churchill's speech, but he pointed out that the Russians were invited to join in the war against Japan by the late President Roosevelt and by General Eisenhower, and they came into the Pacific though that had been the preserve of the British and American armies. What did they do there, just three days later? Japan was about to collapse, anyway; but they landed five hundred thousand men in Manchuria about a week before the end of the Japanese war, and finally overran the whole of China, just as they have overrun about three-quarters of Asia.	Burma, Malaya, and many other
countries in Asia are gone, and there is very little left.
Then Lord Vansittart went on to say:
Briefly, we must "recognize" communism everywhere, not in the old diplomatic sense but in the modern one-as our inevitable foe. This attitude should be practised not only by democratic governments but by all democratic individuals. For example, British ministers should limit their attendance at communist feasts and festivals to the barest minimum, and should never be photographed shaking hands with, and grimacing at, communist politicians, diplomatists, or other treacherous agents. This smarming only misleads our own people. Truth requires a stern face; let our rulers wear it.
All this involves a break with past habits, procedures and traditions; but I have long said that we must revolutionize our own outlook, if we are to cope with the attempt at world-wide revolution which now threatens to engulf freedom. The enemy is at our doors-and within them. Why not hit him in time?
I believe that is the truth coming from a man who has had the greatest experience. He goes on:
I came early to the conclusion that nazism meant war, and coined the phrase "Keep Germany lean."
He goes on to point out that there is the same grave danger of Germany rising again. He was ambassador there for fifteen years, and he knows the people. He warns the nations of the world that Germany may yet rise and be restored as a great industrial and economic nation, and eventually cause a third war. The other day I mentioned these slave camps that are all over Europe. Here is the picture of a map of eastern Europe with the slave camps dotted all over it. There
(Mr. Church.]
are millions of slaves in these places in the Soviet, the satellite countries of the Balkans and the Far East. All those countries are as much afraid of Germany rising again as they are of the Soviet nation, and we should be aware of that danger also.
Lord Vansittart goes on to say:
We must revise our former definition of diplomacy. It no longer exists to ensure good relations. The missions of the iron curtain exist everywhere to foster bad relations by promoting subversion and preparing sabotage. Diplomacy therefore no longer consists in drafting treaties, which communists always break even when they have signed them. All that we get by trying to compromise with evil is first a series of unwarrantable humiliations, and then some waste paper.
This has been the course and outcome of every agreement that we have ever made with the Kremlin, and in particular of the so-called peace treaties with its satellites. We are reduced to constant protests that solemn pledges are being violated in every particular; and in return we receive an insolent smack in the face with Russia's open approval. Why continue to play cards with notorious sharpers? If we ask to be cheated, we must not grumble if we are gratified.
Let us drop all this, and on no account even try to conclude a treaty with this Russia about this Germany.
Nothing of this sort is possible, since it is the Soviet intention to dominate all Germany. We should, on the contrary, make our own arrangements with western Germany, regardless of any communist splutters.
Similarly the democratic powers should make their own treaty with Japan, irrespective of Soviet obstruction. Russia can sign or stay out. I prefer the latter. Yet when the American Secretary of State was recently asked what we would do if the Kremlin pursued its wrecking tactics, he replied that we had not thought about that yet. It is high time that we did.
Russian prestige has been badly rattled by the election of Yugoslavia to the security council, despite Vishinsky's threats. The ingenuities of our diplomacy should henceforth be bent to shake it still further-not to handclasps and negotiations. Communism is groggy in many parts of its empire; and we have many openings for weakening it, particularly on the economic side.
Moscow has bitten off more than it can chew. It cannot supply its slave states, which must consequently look west for machinery and raw materials. Do not let us help them out of their troubles. We need not, of course, break off trade relations altogether; but we should be careful to do nothing which might enable communism to cover up its commercial inefficiencies. The greater its troubles the greater its loss of face everywhere, and the greater, accordingly, the possibility of eventually liberating the oppressed.
Communism insists on 100 per cent servility to the Kremlin of all its members. This caused Tito to kick, and his gesture created a crack throughout eastern Europe. There is no Titoism in China, but we might help to bring it about by a policy which would ensure that communism cannot live up to its promises, or even extricate itself from its dilemmas.
Now, that is the gospel truth. There are three or four other matters to which I wish to refer. I am glad to see that the minister has followed the practice of the United States in issuing a booklet on national defence. I have in my hand the annual report of the

Secretary of the United States' Navy, issued by John L. Sullivan. There was a John L. Sullivan who was a champion boxer in earlier times. This booklet sells for thirty cents and is published in many languages. It gives an account of the efficiency of the navy, and is divided into subjects such as aircraft, ammunition, appropriations, atomic energy, chief of naval operations, cold-weather operations, and construction. There are references to many other matters such as the marine corps, what they are doing, fiscal administration and all that kind of thing. It lists the various departments such as the medical service, the naval stations, the national military establishments. I am glad to see that our minister has issued a similar booklet containing a multitude of matters, and dealing with civil defence.
At this point, I wish to thank the minister for giving the opposition a chance to bring these matters to the attention of the house under item 250. It is of course,-Mr. Amery says in the National Review-always open to Canada to become absorbed into the American economy. No doubt that would add to the balanced expansion of the North American continent as a whole. The greater part of the expansion would, however, by the sheer scale and momentum of the United States economy, continue to take place south of the frontier. Statesmen like Sir John A. Macdonald, with his insistence on Canadian east and west development and on effective protection against the United States, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, with his bold initiative in establishing unilateral preference to Britain, foresaw the meaning of Canada's position and of its opportunities. Today these opportunities are far greater. Canada has reached a point in her development when she should take a leading part in the development of the British commonwealth, as well as in the regeneration of Europe, if she but willed it. In Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Amery well says, she has a Prime Minister with an undisputed majority in parliament and an even more complete hold over French Canada. He has already shown his initiative and originality of outlook in connection with the Atlantic pact, and in his insistence on regional policies. Is it inconceivable that, like Sir Wilfrid Laurier before him, he might take a bold step that would help to loosen the present log jam in the world's economy?
The greatest obstacle to such a move in the direction of building up Canada's position as a leading member in an economic group more than capable of matching the United States is really psychological. I believe that is correct.
I should like myself to see some action taken towards the establishment of a Pacific
Supply-National Defence pact, since the Pacific is the back door into Canada, whereas the Atlantic is at our front door. The Atlantic pact involves about 200 million people, but in the Pacific area there are six or seven hundred million, if southern China were included. Some action should be taken immediately against communist Russia, which has met its match in the west but which is now out of control in the east. In 1938 I called the attention of the house to the fact that from Puget sound to the southern Queen Charlotte islands there are nearly 700 miles of unprotected coast line, and it was only by a miracle that Canada escaped direct invasion after Pearl Harbor.
Canada should take some action to control the east and stop communist Russia from controlling Asia. The Atlantic pact and the Marshall plan discourage the communists in the Atlantic region, but let us not forget that unless we have a Pacific pact all we do at our front door will be of little effect. It will not prevent Russia from overrunning the Far East. There must be a considered plan backed by economic support from the countries that are involved in the Pacific.
General MacArthur has done good work in the Far East, and the United States should take the lead in establishing a Pacific pact. In these modern days when bandits and burglars are so busy in our large cities, one must not forget to lock the back door as well as the front door, and we should remind ourselves that the same condition prevails in considering the possibility of warfare in the Atlantic and Pacific today.
What are Canada's defence measures, even after the signing of this Atlantic pact, and does the signing of that pact give us security in case of a third war? In this debate, I have a right to ask the government to give to the house and the country an assurance that all proper means will be taken to see that our armed forces are prepared with effective plans on land and sea and in the air, for the defence of our country. This should include the re-establishment of the air training plan in Canada, and if it is deemed necessary, such home defence measures as the setting up of a home guard. I am far from satisfied that Canada has real security today, and I am free to admit that so far as our defence forces are concerned we are like Ethelred the Unready. As I said in the debate on foreign affairs on July 26, 1948, there is no use pretending we have any adequate security today. I request the government to give us a clear statement as to what additional security the Atlantic treaty gives us.
For some time after 1945 and for about two years after Mr. Churchill's speech at Fulton, nothing was done to arouse the

Supply-National Defence Atlantic countries to the real situation. Communism was like an unsuspected cancer and its ravages went unheeded. Since last fall the western democracies have become wide awake to the grave weaponless war Russia is waging and they are aware of the grave danger.
Canada has worked with Russia as a neutral, as an enemy, and as an ally, and has done so on three occasions. The first was in 1935, when Hitler was beginning to show Germany and the world the fear of a second war; Mr. Eden went to Moscow and achieved a triumph-previously he had gone to France, Italy and the Balkans-in the matter of a union that included Russia. Mr. Eden, then Lord Privy Seal, was met at the railway station in Moscow by Mr. Litvinoff and also by the British ambassador; and at a dinner given by Russia Stalin drank the health of Great Britain, and the party went to the theatre after.
The second time was in 1941 after Hitler attacked Russia and Russia was welcomed by Mr. Churchill as an ally; and on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Soviet republic a celebration was held in London and the Archbishop of Canterbury prayed for the victory of the Russian army.
The third time of unity was at San Francisco and both the east and west united in the formation of the UNO to promote peace. Why then do they not allow the allies to get behind the iron curtain and to see what is going on there?
I would call the last three years the weaponless war; for the world now, thanks to Russia, is faced with two kinds of warfare. As the atom bomb has been perfected by the United States, the Soviet union has deserved a more powerful treatment. In the cold, brazen, weaponless war-and she conquers without destruction by this method of warfare-ten countries have been scuttled under, and behind the iron curtain others are almost under the shadow of aggression; the entire world is kept in restless fear of destruction. It is something new in warfare, this struggle for survival, and a challenge is given that armed forces are to maintain any challenge, for war is now waged against us. Unless we win the struggle of Berlin we shall not win the larger struggle. We seem to have failed to appreciate what was involved at Berlin. What was involved there was the command of the sea. That is what the issue was at Berlin. You apparently have lost it; and if you do lose it at Berlin, you are going to lose command of the sea on the Atlantic and the Pacific. Their cold war is only one of camouflage, and has lulled the west into a wrong sense of thinking it has security when it has not.

Never has the House of Commons been faced with graver issues than now. We face the most serious economic disaster, and a very direct military threat, as we go on pretending that we have security. We also err, as does the United States, in taking Britain's supremacy of the sea for granted. There is only one path to take, and our Ottawa politicians will not follow it, namely empire consolidation, which stood us so well in two long wars. Why is any scheme of internationalism, however absurd, preferred and adopted instead of finding real security with our own family members in the dominions and crown colonies? The United Nations are heading us into what I believe will be a third strife, and the west is now no match for the east. Canada should learn that we should follow our own dominions and crown colonies that saved us in two wars and not depend altogether on Washington, although the United States is a friendly nation. Stalin's Russia is just as dangerous to the peace of the world as was Hitler's Germany and, waging a weaponless war, has already conquered huge areas of Europe and Asia. I find an analogy between the failure of the United States and Britain to occupy Berlin and the failure of Hannibal to enter ancient Rome, and Carthage was afterwards destroyed. I note that 38,000 tons of rubber were exported monthly from Malaya to Russia while Canada and the empire got none. I have given this as my opinion: no more goods or services to these countries behind the iron curtain without some promises accordingly.
The .entry of Russia into the war had rendered the Japanese military position hopeless. The possession of Manchuria was vital to the Japanese war economy; it was impossible to hold Manchuria against the flood of vastly superior Russian armies. The use of the atomic bomb accelerated at most by a couple of weeks or so a surrender which would have been inevitable. But had it been the Japanese who had led the way with this particular weapon, the effects would scarcely have been of greater military importance than the German use of flying bombs and rockets in 1944. There would have been but few of such bombs available; to have used them the Japanese must have dropped them from aircraft. Attempts to bomb vital Anglo-American bases would have come up against a crushing Anglo-American superiority in fighter aircraft plus radar, and other means of defence. Manchuria is a land of immense spaces. An atomic bomb dropped here or there would have been of no particular importance. The Russian armies would have continued to flood Manchuria. The Anglo-Americans would have continued to push forward their

own plans for invasion. The use of atomic bombs by the Japanese would have been a temporary shock but would scarcely have affected the issue or _ its outcome. The very fact that every new means of attack evolves from older means connotes that the older means of defence can be swiftly improved and expanded to meet the new danger. Whether the new means of defence become available in time depends upon us.
I may say that the British commonwealth and empire must depend on its own strength for salvation as a family of nations. The league of nations, the United Nations, a united Europe, or the latest hope, the Marshall offer-none of these can do for the British commonwealth and empire what it must achieve for itself by co-operation, enterprise and the strength of its own right arm. Let us by all means seek co-operation with nations whose interests and outlook are akin to our own, and whose security would be jeopardized if the British empire were the victim of aggression. But let us turn once more to our own kith and kin within our own empire, and rely upon our own character and resources for the working out of our salvation as a family of nations.
The United Nations so far has been a modern tower of Babel. Canada and Great Britain should not allow their interests to be the plaything of the United Nations. You cannot obtain peace by any such agency. No country will ever allow other countries and the United Nations to settle its affairs unless that country is too weak to defend its own interests, as Canada is by our disarmament.
The future of both Canada and the United States depends on their own peoples. We need the closest and the most absolute cooperation, collaboration and understanding between this country and the rest of the British empire and between Canada and the United States. Our position is of great importance. Our air policy, for instance, should be planned in close consultation with Britain, and we should have an empire security council such as has been advocated. We should now re-establish in Canada the empire air training plan as a security measure in days like these, in addition to this Atlantic pact which I support and which I hope will prove successful.
Never has the House of Commons been faced with graver issues than at present. Canada should rearm. It is almost too late to do so. Our motto in Canada should be that of Oliver Cromwell: put your trust in God and keep your powder dry. And we should feature it as it applies at this hour in world affairs, which are so dark. Empty Ottawa platitudes will amount to nothing,
Supply-National Defence as will depending on the UNO at Lake Success for our defence. I do not forget when Hitler overran Sudetenland, and Czechoslovakia and the streets of Prague. Our policy has been to side with the Ottawa government in their disarmament policy, and that of scuttle, quit and haul down the flag on the seven seas. Canada should not do that. I believe the government of the day has a program which no doubt it will carry out. I believe Canada should at once send to Britain a message of hope and a promise for the future. I have tried the past few years to tell the House of Commons that the British at home and overseas are one great family, and we should remember that Mr. Menzies, then prime minister of Australia, when he addressed the members of the Senate and the House of Commons here, stressed that point. As he said recently in Australia:
If the price we pay for this second experiment in universal organization is a weakening of our understanding of the importance of the British empire or a lessening of our implicit devotion to it, then the price we will have paid for the United Nations will be almost as disastrous as the price we almost paid for the League of Nations. Do not misunderstand me in this.
I	am saying that it would be the blunder of our lives if in instinctive loyalty to a new world organization completely experimental and almost completely untried we cast away our ancient loyalty which has been the strength of our lives and the rock upon which our houses have been built.
On June 16 last I expressed the very same thing when discussing the estimates for national defence and foreign affairs. I said there was no use our pretending we had such security. It is difficult to understand a great many of these matters. However that is the position I take.
Fortunately the west can confront Russia with overwhelming strength in industry, munitions and manpower, and has established a lead in atomic research which it will be immensely difficult for the Kremlin to overtake. It is our duty to do all in our power to preserve that lead.
Yet, assuming that a balance of power in our favour is maintained, the question remains: Is this sufficient to enable the world to settle down? Is it conceivable that there can really be a secure and contented world while Russia holds half Europe in thrall? Can genuine peace be established while Europe is half slave and half free? Again, is not more than Europe involved? If Asia, besides China and including India, Burma and the East Indies, comes under the Russian grip, can there be world recovery? These are questions for the second stage of the conflict in which we are all at present engaged. When retreat is forced on Russia somewhere, the scene may brighten everywhere.

Supply-National Defence
The main point to remember about the atomic bomb is that its use may depend on the gradual restoration of a more civilized world. Humanity may have to face the question: Which is the less unendurable, a vast physical destruction, or the surrender of the whole of mankind to a diabolical tyranny such as the world has never seen?


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret much less not having read the papers recently because the hon. member for Broadview has been generous enough to give us the benefit of his reading. He made a most interesting speech which I shall send tomorrow to the military experts who are in town, especially to Sir William Slim, British chief of staff. It is important for them to know what is being said in the House of Commons on the subjects of military and external affairs.
I am not going to make a long speech, because everything that could be said about defence matters has been said by some experts whom I see in front of me. I give credit to the minister and his immediate predecessor for having done so well with the Department of National Defence, after all that had happened before. I wish them success.
I cannot do otherwise, however, than make a few observations which came to my mind some years ago, and particularly in November 1944 when the question of conscription was debated. At that time the late minister of national defence, the one who had resigned on the conscription issue, said that there were some weaknesses in the Canadian army in France. This was broadcast throughout the country and the world. Not long afterwards the German offensive thrust to the south causing the death of many soldiers in the American and Canadian armies.
I have often wondered if it would not be better to discuss questions of defence in camera. Expenditures might be mentioned in the house, because they are of interest to the public; but what does the average citizen know about defence? There are some military experts and some civilian experts who have studied the matter; but many people may be under the wrong impression. If defence matters were discussed in camera every one would have a full opportunity to say all he has to say without endangering the security of the country.
Some hon. members may say that would not be democratic. During the war some secret sittings of the house were held to discuss matters of defence, and they brought good results. Not long ago I saw two articles

which appeared in Maclean's magazine referring to the U-boats which came up the St. Lawrence river. At the time it happened there was difficulty in calling a secret sitting, because the then prime minister and the then minister of national defence objected. After some discussion however they agreed to have a few secret sittings, which served a useful purpose.
I submit this not only to the Minister of National Defence but to all my colleagues, so that if in future they think the interests of the country would be better served by a discussion in camera it would be up to them to make their representations to whom it may concern.
What appeared in Maclean's establishes clearly that	those who	at	that	time saidCanada was	in danger	of	being attackedwere right.	It has taken	some	years toprove those	statements,	but the	facts are
set out in this widely circulated periodical, which quotes the official report.
Even at the time of conscription no one opposed the defence of Canada. The subject matter of the argument was whether it was necessary to defend Canada in Canada, or not. The U-boats coming so far up the St. Lawrence river showed clearly that there was reason for concern.
There was considerable discussion about conscription at the time and Colonel Ralston, who was then minister of defence, resigned because he felt conscription had not been imposed early enough. I should like to know how many men were conscripted for overseas service after the legislation was passed. I had some correspondence with the parliamentary assistant to the minister and he gave me some information, but it is far from complete. I should like the brass hats to work on it and give the committee complete data as to the number of N.R.M.A. men who were conscripted for overseas service after the mobilization act was amended. I received some information, and I translate from a letter in French:
It has been brought to my attention that a publication entitled, "Canada at War" No. 45 of 1945, published by the wartime information services, contains the information you asked for. According to that article 13,000 men were called up by virtue of the mobilization act and were sent overseas to Europe on D-day. Moreover, 3,000 men sailed for overseas after having signed for voluntary service.
I have a clipping to the same effect. I asked three questions, as follows:
1. On what date did the 3,000 men sail for overseas and from what provinces did they come?	i

2.	From what provinces did the 13,000 men come who had not signed for overseas but who were sent overseas to Europe on D-day?
3.	Were they sent to Europe or to Japan, and on what boats did they sail?
I received some supplementary information about the N.R.M.A. personnel who had proceeded to the United Kingdom, as follows:
Military
district
1	London, Ontario	
1,1092	Toronto, Ontario	
2,3013	Kingston, Ontario	
2864	Montreal, Quebec	
2,0605	Quebec, Quebec	
5516	Halifax, Nova Scotia	
3997	Saint John, New Brunswick	
51910	Winnipeg, Manitoba	
1,34411	Victoria, British Columbia	
1,25312	Regina, Saskatchewan	
1,78513	Calgary, Alberta	
1,229Total	
12,836The following ships transported these personnel to the United Kingdom:	Pasteur,
Mauretania, Aquitania, New Amsterdam and Volendam.
That is not all the information I wanted, but I thank the parliamentary assistant for what he has sent me. It is now possible to talk sensibly about this matter, but it was not possible during the war. Those who were talking against conscription for overseas were described as isolationists and there was hardly anything that was not said about them. They were told they were not good citizens, they were not patriotic and were not doing their duty. The issue at that time was whether conscription for overseas service was actually helpful to the allied cause at the time the amendment was made. My contention was that it was not.
I crossed the floor of the house with other Liberal members because I was not satisfied with the policy adopted by my party at that time. We were called into a caucus to discuss conscription. The caucus was adjourned, Sir John Dill was here in the east block, the day after Mr. King did not return to the caucus and we were told of the quick turnabout, and conscription for overseas was announced as the policy of the government. I still wonder if it was not just political expediency.
I endeavoured to do my duty in the house by protesting against it in order to protect the farmers and those men who were engaged in essential industry. I was greatly surprised to notice in the Windsor station, the Canadian National station in Montreal, and in other places, that posters were put up stating that the men who were prepared to leave their essential positions to go into the army were doing a better job than if they continued in
Supply-National Defence their present positions. Of course, that was a matter of opinion. If we are believers in fundamental freedoms and human rights contrary opinions must be respected.
I view the future with some alarm because of certain things that are being done. We are likely to be at war with any country and we should look at the facts. Lord Carnarvon, who sponsored the British North America Act and who was unquestionably a great man, stated that the only danger to Canada would come from the United States. That was said at the time of the Fenian raids. That great English statesman felt that Canada was in danger from the United States and in his speech he referred to the number of men between the ages of 16 and 30 who could carry arms for the defence of this country.
I think that all hon. members who were opposed to conscription were opposed because they felt that the defence of Canada was not sufficient at the time. Nobody thought of the defence of Canada, although some of our statesmen and leaders of parties were telling us that Hitler had his eyes on Canada, that Canada would be a prize for him, and that he wanted to get hold of this country. I hope the fears of war expressed by the hon. member who spoke just before me, and by others, are exaggerated. I hope so, but I want to make it clear that nobody is opposed to the defence of Canada, and nobody is opposed to conscription for the defence of Canada, provided that the military authorities do not interfere with essential war services in times of war.
Perhaps what has been said by the leader of the opposition and by my good friend from Nanaimo is right. Perhaps there is some exaggeration in it. I am not in a position to say. If they go anywhere in the province of Quebec and ask the people what their views are about the defence of Canada, they will realize that the concern expressed in the house exists in the province of Quebec just as it does in every other province of Canada from Newfoundland to British Columbia. The people want this country to be defended just as well as it can be, and we rely on the Minister of National Defence to do all he can to further that purpose in the national interest. God forbid that we should have another war, but if we do we hope that Canada will be better defended than it was during the last war.
The answer will be made that the steps taken by Canada during the last war served to protect this country against aggression. There are great changes. When Lord Carnarvon spoke of the danger that might come to Canada from the United States, communications were not the same as they were-

Supply-National Defence during the last war. Since the last war various means of communication have made such progress that every part of the world can be easily exposed to danger, and requires protection. That being said, I should like to congratulate the minister upon the steps he has taken, and I hope that all the criticism that will be made of his department will be constructive. Those who will criticize may be right or wrong, but as long as constructive criticism is offered in good faith I am sure that all those who do so will render a public service.


Mr. Knight:: It would seem that this item forms the basis for a broad discussion of many matters. I am interested in a specific question. I refer to the proposal to build armouries in the city of Saskatoon. I am interested, as are all hon. members, in the welfare of my constituents. The construction of an armoury will provide a good deal of work, and it is a good thing for any city to have such a project being carried on. This proposition is now getting to be somewhat ancient in that responsible ministers of the crown have given their assurance that such construction would take place some time.
I remember it was my pleasant privilege to listen to a fine address -by the present Minister of National Defence at a meeting of the Canadian Club, I believe, in my own city. He assured the members of the club that this project was on the books so far as the government was concerned, and that it was merely a matter of time until construction would be commenced. It was my pleasant duty to move a vote of thanks to the minister for his address. I am sure he has forgotten the incident, because after all it would be an unimportant one to him, but I remember saying that when the time came in a year or so I would remind him of that particular speech and that particular promise. That is what I am doing now, and I am also coupling this question with my remarks. What is the status now of that particular project with regard to time of commencement, plans, and the amount of money which will be spent? I should like to know particularly when we can look for such construction to begin.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member for Saskatoon that the situation there has by no means been overlooked. As he knows, I visited Saskatoon in 1947 and saw the situation of the units there and their need for an armoury. I also had discussions with officials of the city which led to the acquisition of a suitable site. There is no doubt about the need of Saskatoon for an armoury. As the hon. member has said, the only question is when. In that respect Saskatoon is in the same position as a great number of other communities across Canada
[Mr. Pouliot.l
which should have armouries. It is one of the greatest needs for our reserve army. This year we have provided $41 million for construction, most of it for married quarters, although some of it will be spent on operational buildings. For the reasons I gave two weeks ago, we have only been able to begin construction this year on one new armoury, and that is at Sault Ste. Marie. I am afraid I cannot say when it will be possible to begin construction at Saskatoon or any other place. It will depend on how much money is provided for defence during each consecutive year, on how much can be spent on construction, and on how much of the money to be used for that purpose can be spent on reserve armouries. I can assure you that the need for reserve armouries is recognized by the department. It is simply a question of priority. I should like to begin tomorrow.


Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: I was greatly interested in the speech of the hon. member for Temiscouata. I agree with him, and I was pleased to hear him declare that today every good Canadian wants Canada fully defended. I think that was the case in the first great war and also in the last war. The only question is whether we should defend Canada on our own soil or in conjunction with our friends and allies meet the enemy where the enemy is. I shall not discuss that any further.
I should like to get information from the minister about new construction for the air force. When' the minister introduced his estimates on November 11, he said at page 1664 of Hansard:
We are continuing to overhaul and modify other aircraft. During 1948-49 we spent $22 million on aircraft. This year I expect the figure will be $45 million.
On the following page he goes on to say:
Electronic and electrical equipment: All three services use large quantities of radar and other electronic and electrical equipment. We have a large scale program of production of the most modern and high-powered equipment by Canadian firms. The amount provided for electronic and communications equipment in this year's estimates is $19 million.
I am sure hon. members are in agreement with a big program for the department. They recognize that Canada, situated as we are, must have its first line of defence in the air, and that we must be thoroughly equipped in respect to aeroplanes and the services associated therewith. During the last war we had various aeroplane repair plants in the maritimes and one large construction plant in Amherst, Nova Scotia, the centre of the maritime provinces. There we had a record equal to or better than that of any other place in Canada. According to sworn evidence before the war expenditures committee the department received better returns for tbn

money expended in Amherst than anywhere else in Canada. The town provided an airfield at heavy expense. I believe its outlay was greater than that of any other municipality in like circumstances in all Canada. The department expended some four or five hundred thousand dollars in the erection of buildings.	Unfortunateljy-and this is
very difficult to understand-those buildings were erected on land not owned by the government and without securing extended lease. After the war it was necessary to either sell or tear down the buildings that had been put up at great expense. The land is still vacant.
I want to ask the minister how much of the $45 million it is proposed to expend in the maritimes on aircraft this year, and how much of the $19 million provided for electronic and communications equipment will be spent in the maritime provinces. Because of our record in the past, because of what we did in the war, because of what we did in connection with the construction of aeroplanes, because of our historic place in Canada, we have a right to a reasonable distribution of these expenditures. In addition, the business and industrial situation in the maritime provinces has been growing worse rapidly. It is far below that in central Canada. We now have a great deal of unemployment. So I suggest there is a special obligation on the part of parliament and the government to see that a full proportion of expenditures are made in the maritime provinces. We should at this time be given a big share.
I should like a statement from the minister showing the distribution of the money to be spent on aeroplane construction work and equipment this year.


Brooke Claxton: The only aircraft or electronic industry in the maritime provinces, as far as I know, is the Fairey plant established at Dartmouth particularly to service aircraft of the naval air arm. It is expected that out of this year's appropriations approximately $1 million will be spent on the planes of that branch of the service.


Percy Chapman Black: That will be for maintenance, and will come under an item other than those to which I referred. That will not come out of the $45 million voted for construction, or the $19 million to be spent on electronic and communications equipment. If that is the situation I again point out to the minister and the committee that once more a great injustice is being imposed upon the maritime provinces, who are entitled to a big share of this expenditure by any standard that could be set up. Because of our record in the last war, because of our record in the construction of aeroplanes, which as I 45781-139
Supply-National Defence said was the best of any plant in all Canada according to sworn evidence before the war expenditures committee, we are entitled to better treatment than this. Here we are authorizing $64 million this year, after having spent many millions last year, and not a dollar has been expended or is intended for expenditure in our part of Canada.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: First I should like to comment briefly on the remarks made earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Westmorland. I want to compliment the hon. gentleman and the other members of his unit on the number of members they have and on the training and efficiency of that unit as he outlined it in his remarks. I should like to point out to him also, however, that we have very good units in Calgary and at other points throughout Canada. The things I had to say in connection with the reserve force in no way reflected upon any members of that force. I would remind the hon. gentleman that I am still a member of the reserve myself; and far from saying anything critical of the personnel of the reserves, as was suggested by the hon. member, I paid them a tribute at some length, for which the minister in his later remarks thanked me. I make this statement in order to clear up any misapprehension hon. members may have as to my attitude toward the reserve forces.
I would also suggest to the hon. member that probably I know better than he does whether or not the recruiting campaign in Calgary was a success. I was there, and my own unit took part in that campaign. During one campaign, I believe, we obtained one recruit; during another we got two, and during another we got none; and the other units were in the same position. As a matter of fact in Calgary we get our men just as the hon. member suggested men should be obtained for the reserve army, and as he said they were getting them in his unit; that is, by the men in the unit going out and interesting their friends in the work of the reserve force and bringing them into it.
Now I should like to turn to another matter;, the fact, which was brought out on Friday last, that the defence department does not entrust any of its classified or secret work to the film board. Since Friday evening I have carefully read over the debate that took place at that time in connection with this matter. I must say that, as a result of that, the situation is still confused in my mind and I am sure in the mind of everyone else. After reading that over, it is extremely difficult to know what the situation is. There are several questions which require answers in order to clarify matters. As a matter of fact, I believe

Supply-National Defence the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) summed up" the situation quite well when he said at page 1983 of Hansard:
Until the Prime Minister made his statement, I thought I understood the situation. The Prime Minister now says that work is given to firms where assurance is given that secrecy will be maintained. In other words, screening is not required. But earlier the Minister of National Defence said that this work is given to firms whose employees have already been screened. Can we say definitely that firms that are doing the work today have screened their employees? The Minister of National Defence said that they had; the Prime Minister says no; that they only required an assurance.


Mr. St. Laurent:: No, I do not say that they have not been screened; I say that I do not know.
Farther down that page, he said:
I cannot say that every individual employed by those firms has been screened. As far as I know, we were relying on the firm and not upon a decision of our own;-
As I say, that sums up the general impression left in my mind, and one which is still there as a result of reading this record. I do not know what the situation really is.
At the top of page 1978 the minister said that the screening of the film board had been started, so far as his recollection went, in May, 1949. Just after that, I asked him when the private firms were screened and who screened them. He replied that so far as he knew the screening had been done by the R.C.M.P. He did not know when the screening was done, but he would get that information. That is one of the questions I should like to have answered, when these private firms were screened, who screened them, and so on. In connection with that also, I should like to know who did the classified or secret work for the department up to the time these private firms were screened. Possibly the private firms were screened during the war, and that screening has remained good. If that is not the case, if the screening was done in May of this year, who did the classified work up to the time the screening was done?
There is another phase of this matter which needs clarification. At page 1980 of Hansard we have this statement by the Minister of National Defence:
When a report is received from the R.C.M.P. or from the Department of Justice with regard to the security of any person in a "vulnerable" department, it is examined by the department concerned. In the case of the Department of National Defence, the examination in the first instance would be by the intelligence officers.
Then later on the Prime Minister stated that all the mounted police did in connection with the matter was to make factual reports. I would take it from that, and from this statement of the Minister of National Defence that the Department of National Defence must have received reports from the mounted

police about persons in the film board concerning whose security the film board officials and the Department of National Defence were not satisfied. That question occurred to me on Friday night, and I brought the matter up at that time. I had been having a discussion with the minister and the Prime Minister in connection with exactly what happened when screening was undertaken, what was meant by screening, and so forth.
Near the bottom of page 1982 of Hansard, I said this in connection with screening:
If that is the situation, then so far as I can see the R.C.M.P. must have turned in to the Department of National Defence information in connection with certain persons in the film board, and as a result of that information the defence department people said, "No, we will not have those people do any secret pictures for us." That is the situation as I see it at the moment. Is that correct?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is only partially correct. It is not as a result of having seen reports that were unfavourable; it is due to the fact that enough reports have not been seen to say that the whole board is certified for security purposes.
In the Ottawa Journal of November 22 there is an editorial dealing with this matter which quotes some of my statements and that statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) which I have just read. The article goes on to say:
Is Mr. St. Laurent certain of this? Certain that he has not been misinformed, with the facts being as follows: That the decision of the national defence board to discontinue turning over secret work to the film board came after its discovery that a secret film made for it by the film board actually had been made, or made in part, by people about whom the R.C.M.P. had already turned in "information"? The Journal is told that this is what did happen-precisely what Mr. Harkness surmised to have happened.
I should like the minister to comment on both those phases of this particular question -when was this screening done, who did it, and so on-so as to clear the matter up. From the discussion that took place, the only surmise one can make is that unfavourable reports on film board employees had been turned in by the mounted police, and it was as a result thereof that work of a secret nature was not given to the film board. I doubt very much whether a reputable newspaper such as the Journal would print the statement they have unless they had some information which I have not. The Journal has said "This is what did happen." Certainly, both of those points need to be cleared up.


Brooke Claxton: With regard to the screening, it should be understood that until March 5, 1948, when there was a cabinet directive, screening in the sense in which we are using the word now was not done. The users of classified information were responsible for seeing that adequate security was obtained.

During the war that course was followed by the Department of National Defence with regard to processing film by the national film board and outside agencies.
From the date of the cabinet directive, certain government departments and agencies dealing with classified material were called "vulnerable", that is, they were the ones which required "screening" as regards officials and employees dealing with classified material. In consequence that screening process was carried on in the Department of External Affairs, Department of National Defence and no doubt in the national research council, the Prime Minister's office and other government departments. The Department of National Defence was responsible for the security of its own officers and employees dealing with classified material, and the security of outside agencies dealing with classified material for the Department of National Defence. When we had some classified films to be processed or prints to be made, we caused the employees of Associated Screen News and of Crawley Films to be screened individually.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Excuse me, but the minister says he caused them to be screened?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. We asked the R.C.M.P. It was done by the R.C.M.P. In the case of Associated Screen News there were five employees handling classified material; in the case of Crawley Films, there were fourteen. They were individually screened by the R.C.M.P., and the reports were made to the Department of National Defence, which was satisfied with them. So I was correct in stating that the screening was done; but the Prime Minister was also correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Excuse me, but when was this done?


Brooke Claxton: That was done in 1949. The Prime Minister was also correct that we required assurances from these firms and indeed satisfied ourselves that the sections of the firms dealing with our film had been properly isolated from the others; which was possible in the case of these two concerns. The department handling the classified material consisted of only five in the case of Associated Screen News and of fourteen in the case of Crawley Films. Therefore the job was one which could be completed in around a week; and as I say, the result was satisfactory. With regard to the film board, it was not until May, 1949, that it was treated as a vulnerable agency because we referred some films to it for processing.
Supply-National Defence


Douglas Scott Harkness: Excuse me, but does that mean that the screening did not start in the national film board until May, 1949?


Brooke Claxton: You will have to ask the
spokesman for the film board with regard to the details of this; but that is what I gather from what I have heard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that word "vulnerable"?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, "vulnerable". There is another word used in connection with security screening and that is "sensitive". You can have a sensitive part in a government department where special attention must be given. These are terms used by the security officials. The screening of the film board was commenced, I understand, and from the way in which they did their work it appeared to be necessary to screen some two hundred. I am informed that that process is still going on.
The reports with regard to the screening of the film board will be given to the minister responsible; that is the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. With regard to the statement in the Journal to which the hon. member has referred:
That the decision of the national defence board to discontinue turning over secret work to the film board came after its discovery that a secret film made for it by the film board actually had been made, or made in part, by people about whom the R.C.M.P. had already turned in "information"?
my information is that that is not a correct statement of the case as far as the information of the Department of National Defence is concerned. I should add that, in connection with the processing and preparation of films, there is no record anywhere of any leak or of any breach of security.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the floor.


Clarence Gillis: I do not want to take the floor from the hon. member for Calgary East, but I hate to see this develop into a family quarrel between himself and the minister. I should like to get in on it myself.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not think it was a quarrel; I thought it was a discussion.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member is doing a first-class job of starting a fight. I am also interested in this subject, and I think the minister's explanation is far from satisfactory. While the hon. member for Calgary East asks a great many questions and makes a great many accusations, neither he nor the minister says anything about what is going to be done to cure the situation. It is for that purpose that I get to my feet.

Supply-National Defence
I think there are several things wrong. In the first place, I do not think the Department of National Defence can be effectively and efficiently run by one minister. There is no one man in this country, I do not care how well qualified he is, who can undertake the responsibility of administering the affairs of the army, the navy and the air force on the scale that we are organizing them today. As long as we have just one minister and one parliamentary assistant, we are going to continue to get the kind of thing that we are getting, as exemplified by what has happened on these estimates. It is rather unfortunate that the minister, the Prime Minister and the members of this committee are obliged to get their information from the Financial Post, or some other newspaper, with regard to a matter that directly affects the security of this country.
I am not blaming the minister for not knowing about this matter because he did not know when this matter was raised. Neither did the Prime Minister. While the minister says that there is no suggestion at all of a leak anywhere in the film board or in any other government department, the fact that Kenneth Wilson had that story before the minister, and that it was published in that newspaper two days ahead of the dateline of that newspaper, proves to me conclusively that there is somebody talking in the film board, the minister's department or somewhere else. Otherwise, where did Kenneth Wilson get this story that he had in the Financial Post?
As members of the House of Commons, I think our first concern is to ascertain whether the minister, with one parliamentary assistant, has an impossible job on his hands in trying to keep track of all of the ramifications of this department. In the second place, the national film board does not come under him directly. It comes under the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. I am suggesting that we should determine whether we need more ministers, whether we need that department broken up, or whether we should have sufficient personnel put there to assure us that the responsible minister, coming into this house to answer our questions, has at least time enough to handle the affairs of the department and to know some of the answers, or whether we need maybe another parliamentary assistant for naval affairs and one for the air force who will take some responsibility with regard to answering in the house questions pertaining to the administration of the navy or the air force. I think the minister is in an impossible position in trying to keep track of all these matters.

It was not yesterday that this film board became suspect. We remember the espionage trials. We remember Freda Linton, and the position she occupied on that board. We remember the chairman of the board who is no longer in this country. But the thing I am concerned about with regard to the board is the way the personnel are employed. They do not go through the civil service. I believe the chairman of the board has the right to hire and select all personnel. According to the answer given in the house this morning by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, he is now chairman of the board as well as being the minister responsible for the operations of the board. Because the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is plenty tangled up in housing, I cannot see how he can keep his finger on the technical work that some 500 people are doing, and expect to be informed in the matter.
In my view the board should be brought under the civil service commission. The time to screen government employees is not after they are hired; they should be screened when they are taken in. If the civil service commission were employing members of the film board they would be screened when they were employed. Employees have the right to take part in competitive examinations, at which times they are supposed to give their background; and they are screened on the way in. I think it is an improper procedure to employ 500 people over whose employment the government had no jurisdiction, and then to ask the R.C.M.P. to screen them. These people handled educational films for the Department of National Defence and for other organizations in Canada during the process of fighting a war. In my view the board should be brought within the control of the civil service commission, and they should be screened on the way in. The R.C.M.P. screened them. Who screened the R.C.M.P.? One could go on and on and on with that sort of thing.
My suggestion is that the board should be placed under the civil service commission. It is an imposition to ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to accept the responsibility for the operation of the board, and to be responsible to the house for what it does. With all due respect to his capacity, I do not think he can do that kind of job; it would be an impossibility.
It would be unfair to expect the Minister of National Defence to keep his finger on everything pertaining to defence. I have said that no suggestions were made. I shall make two, the first of which is that there should be a check on defence to see if it is not necessary to have someone to assist the minister in

keeping his finger on all the machinery of defence. My second suggestion is that instead of screening employees of the film board after they are employed, they should be screened on the way in. Perhaps the reason we do so much screening lies in the fact that in the whole set-up there are too many patronage appointments. Sometimes the commission appears to me as just a smoke screen behind which people hide in order to make patronage appointments.
Then, with regard to defence matters, and the organization set-up, may I say I believe the minister-or someone for him-has done a good job in the preparation of "Canada's Defence Program", which has been set before us. I am pleased to see that in the report he stresses the fact that it is a defence program. Not only that, but as best he can he tries in this document to dispel references to the inevitability of war. I liked that feature of it.
There can be no defence of this country by ourselves. We would not be able to defend our long coast lines, and our defence program will have to be linked up with those of other countries in the event of this continent or country being invaded. Our link-up with the United States in the North Atlantic pact gives us that assurance. The point upon which I am critical, and which has not been stressed, is that of research. The hon. member for Nanaimo and others have discussed the development of airfields and matters of technical research. I shall not repeat what they have said; but in the breaking down of the defence dollar, instead of giving more of that dollar for research purposes the amount has been cut down by one per cent. This is done in the light of the fact that technical personnel will be expected to fight the next war, and the greatest development will be in the air. The amount allocated last year was six per cent, while this year it is only five per cent. In my view it should be at least ten per cent.
Then at page 25 of the defence program set out by the minister we find something upon which no stress has been placed during this debate:
In the second world war the Canadian forces had one motor vehicle for every four men and one wireless set for every twelve. All three services use equipment like radar, predictors and other complicated electrical and mechanical devices to a degree that is not commonly recognized. Of the officers and other ranks, no less than 74 per cent require special technical qualifications recognized as such in their service.
Greatest bottleneck in meeting a future emergency would not be in raw materials or tools or industrial know-how, still less would it be in trained sailors, soldiers or airmen; it would be in trained tradesmen. Steps are being taken to increase their numbers.
Supply-National Defence
I do not know what steps are being taken in central and western Canada, but I do know none has been taken in the maritime provinces. I leave this thought with the minister-because I think he is absolutely right-that there are approximately 260,000 unemployed in this country, of whom most are young and many are service personnel from the last war. While great stress has been placed upon university education, and while the wonderful job done in that direction has been mentioned frequently in the house- and properly so-let us remember that the minister is correct in his analysis when he states that in another war trained tradesmen will be perhaps more essential than service personnel, as we understand them today.
What this country lacks from coast to coast, and has lacked for a long time, not only in the field of defence but in the whole economy of the country, is a well-developed vocational training program through which people would be trained in the trades. While we may try to be a university country, with everyone a doctor, a musician or a journalist, we will still need the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, the people who create the wealth. We are doing very little to develop those people. If the Department of National Defence could augment what is being done in the field of vocational training by the Department of Labour, and the little the provinces are attempting to do, it would be a good defence investment.
While the minister has stated that steps are being taken to provide permanent service personnel with married quarters, the present situation leaves much to be desired. There are still many service personnel right here in Ottawa and in other centres in Canada where there are concentrations of the permanent force, men with wives and children, who are paying $60 a month rent. They are not living in barracks, and they are placed at a terrific handicap. The program in this respect should be stepped up, because we cannot have happy soldiers or other service personnel unless they are in homes where they may have some comforts and are able to meet the rent.
My chief purpose in speaking was to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that I do not think one man can handle the many tasks which have to be handled by the Minister of National Defence. Secondly, I should like to draw attention to the fact that there has been a lot of talk about the film board. I know that this particular group defended that board and advocated increases in their appropriations, but during the past few years there would appear to have been laxity on the part of the government in

progress made I am sure 'he will see that we
Supply-National Defence properly supervising the personnel employed. We owe it to them and to ourselves to clean up the matter as quickly as possible. We should either give the film board a clean bill of health and assure the people of the country that they are working for us and can be trusted, or the whole thing should be folded up until such time as we can do that.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to supplement the answer I made to the hon. member for Cumberland in connection with the aircraft factory. I should mention that a new English firm has been established at Dartmouth to carry on work in electronics. The utmost consideration will be given to both of these companies.
In replying to the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, may I say that in addition to the 200 persons in the production department of the national film board who are to be screened first, the whole board of about 500 is to be screened. The hon. member suggested that the screening should take place when people are taken into the employ of the government, but I think he will admit that we have to start at some date with the employees who are already in. We could not discharge them all and re-engage them.
We have been screening the people in the most vulnerable and sensitive departments first, and that operation has been carried on in the Department of National Defence to the point where we have covered all vulnerable places. We do not post any officer or man or civilian employee to any position, in any vulnerable place without his first having been screened. The hon. member's point has already been met as far as this department is concerned, and I believe that is the case with all other departments.
Then the hon. member doubted if one minister could handle all the ramifications of defence. I must confess that they keep one with a considerable physique busy for a good many hours a day, but I would point out that this instance can hardly be used as an illustration to support his point. I am responsible for the security of the Department of National Defence and we have taken adequate measures to protect that security. We know of no way in which it has been broken with regard to either films or anything else. Then with regard to this particular matter, I was familiar with it from the time I mentioned in May, 1949, and even before that. There has been no failure on my part as far as ensuring security from the defence point of view is concerned.
I am much obliged to the hon. member for his helpful support with regard to married quarters. I can assure him that we are doing everything possible. If he looks at the

in proportion have done more in the way of providing married quarters for our service personnel than, has been done by the other countries with which comparisons are usually made. We regard it as of first importance that we should complete or convert or provide by one means or another as many quarters as we can for married personnel so as to provide them with the amenities of life in a good community. That is our objective.
The hon. member made a very good suggestion with regard to the training of tradesmen, a suggestion which is directly in line with what we are doing. Supplementing the vocational work carried on by the provinces and the federal government working in co-operation, last year we started an interesting experiment. We took 200 boys out of the vocational schools of Ontario and gave them special training at Ipperwash camp for six weeks. This was in addition to the ordinary cadet work. They received training in wireless, motor vehicle maintenance and similar branches of the technical services related to the armed forces. If they satisfied the requirements after their six weeks' training they were given a bonus of $60.
We invited representatives of all the provincial governments to attend this experiment and I am glad to say that they all sent representatives. Several provinces sent their deputy ministers of labour. Naturally I cannot speak for the provincial governments but I think I can say that the reactions of those who attended the demonstrations were favourable. We extended the plan this year to include 1,100 cadets to be trained at a number of different camps, and here again we secured the wholehearted support of the vocational schools. Eleven hundred is a considerable number of boys to interest in this work, and we hope it is just a beginning.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Cape Breton South seemed to be a little critical of the way I was dealing with the film board, but I should like to be critical of the way he has handled this matter. I refrained from dealing with the film board as a whole because I thought that that should be done only when the estimates of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply are before us. I was careful to deal only with those aspects of the matter which related to national defence and naturally I was fairly well restricted. The hon. member for Cape Breton South carried on a general discussion of film board matters which I think is actually out of order at this time.
When I spoke before I had only one more question to ask in connection with this film board matter and that was because I was not

quite clear as to what the minister had said at the end of his remarks. Do I understand the minister to say that, after reading this quotation from the Journal, as far as the Department of National Defence is concerned they have no knowledge that any unfavourable reports have been turned in on any member of the film board? Do I understand the minister to say that?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, that is correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister had no knowledge of any unfavourable report on any member of the film board?


Brooke Claxton: As far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, that is correct. That is my information.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to paragraph 156 on page 35 of the excellent booklet he has put out. It is stated there that the Newfoundland regiment and the 166th artillery regiment have been authorized to perpetuate their fine records in the first and second world wars. A daily newspaper of St. John's on Thursday, November 17, reports a communique issued by the commanding officer stating that three regiments have been authorized and recruiting is taking place. It is stated that those regiments are to be stationed at St. John's, Grand Falls and Corner Brook, but apparently no provision is being made for a unit at Gander and Goose airports. I know very little of defence matters but in my humble opinion a unit of some nature should be stationed at Gander at all times. Possibly we could have an explanation from the minister.
This article gives the strength of the Newfoundland regiment as 380 officers and noncommissioned officers and 632 other ranks. That would appear to be a high proportion of officers. I do not know whether it is correct. The strengths of the other regiments are out of line. The Newfoundland field regiment has 380 officers and 632 men; the 59th independent field squadron, Royal Canadian Engineers, has ten officers and 299 other ranks, and the Newfoundland regiment has 38 officers and 812 other ranks. I presume it is intended to increase the personnel of these units later on.
I feel, in so far as Gander and Goose are concerned, some definite steps should be taken to provide a defence unit at both these places. The stationing of a unit at Corner Brook is hardly necessary, in my opinion, because the United States army based at Harmon field is very close. Even at St. John's there is a large
Supply-National Defence United States base, but there is nothing whatsoever at Gander. I think there is a United States unit at Goose, but I do not know whether or not there is a Canadian unit.
I should like to refer to the position of the naval establishment. During the past war Canada had a large number of naval bases-
I suppose we can put it that way-around Newfoundland and Labrador, and also a number of radio stations forming a radio hook-up. To my knowledge a number of these have been discontinued, and an attempt is being made to sell them. I believe some have been dismantled, but it seems to me to be a great waste of money. If they have to be repurchased or other properties bought it will mean a great waste of money. At the naval base at Bay Bulls there was a very fine dry dock. They used to pull corvettes out there when they came for repairs. I believe that has been sold, although word has come to me quite recently that the navy intends to buy it back again. I do not know whether or not that is the position. I think we should have some clarification.
Then I should like to refer to the port facilities at St. John's. I should like to know what the intention is. In the same paragraph it is stated:
We have also commenced negotiations to acquire the admiralty properties in St. John's.
Does that mean all of the properties owned by the Royal Navy? How far have negotiations gone? Are the properties to be purchased, or is it a matter of care and maintenance? What is the position? They are quite extensive, and I know they cost a lot of money at the time they were put in service.
I wish to discuss two further matters, and then I shall have finished. In paragraph 157 on page 35 it says:
Negotiations have been entered upon to secure modification of certain of the U.S. rights at the bases leased by the United Kingdom.
I do not know whether the minister can tell us at the present time how far these discussions have proceeded. Can he tell us what modification is being sought? I am sure he is aware of the article in Maclean's magazine recently written by Mr. Blair Fraser. I would say the contents of the article are pretty critically correct, as we say in Newfoundland. There may be some slight divergences, but I would say it is critically correct. I should like to know about these modifications, and whether they have to do with the troubles we are having, as set forth in that article.
The last matter to which I should like to direct attention is this, and I am not sure whether it is proper to raise it at this time. I have been told since coming to Ottawa that

Supply-National Defence communist schools are being openly operated, that they are taking children and indoctrinating them with communist ideas. I believe these schools are well known to the mounted police and to the minister. It seems to me to be a most peculiar situation to have this kind of cancer growth in the country openly eating at the vitals of our whole defence system. No matter what we may feel about freedom of thought and speech, it does not seem to me to be sensible to allow schools of that nature to carry on in Canada today.


Brooke Claxton: With regard to the question asked by the hon. member about the strengths of the units, these strengths are what they are authorized to recruit at the present time. There were no reserve forces in Newfoundland either between the first and second world wars or since the second world war, and since these units are just being organized the strengths naturally are heavy in officer and N.C.O. personnel. These will be needed to recruit and train the rest.
As to the protection of Gander and Goose, as I stated to the hon. member for Nanaimo last week, at Goose there is a considerable force of United States and Canadian air force personnel and servicing units. At Gander there is only a small handful of Canadian personnel.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Only seven.


Brooke Claxton: That is right. It is not part of our immediate plan to put active force personnel especially to guard all air establishments across Canada. If we were to distribute our active force personnel in static defence across Canada we would not be getting on with the other jobs which we think have a higher priority. If an emergency seems likely to arise, or should it arise, then it would be possible to take effective measures promptly to defend such places. As to the location of the reserve force units, the hon. member expressed surprise that one should be located at Corner Brook. Corner Brook is the second largest community in Newfoundland. Its population took a very active part in both the navy and the army in the first and second world wars, and contributed a great number of men.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is not for defence purposes?


Brooke Claxton: Not for full-time defence. It is for the purpose of organizing reserve units which would be available for use anywhere they were needed, but which incidentally would be immediately available for the defence of Corner Brook or any other part of Newfoundland. That would be their primary purpose. When I was in Corner Brook in July 1 had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the city, of the Legion,

and of the local company, Bowater's Limited. They expressed great interest in the formation of reserve units and promised active support. We thought it desirable to locate units at St. John's, Grand Falls and Corner Brook. We have very good accommodation for the reserve navy and army at St. John's, and we are moving hangars from another location to be used for army and navy training at Grand Falls and Corner Brook.
As to the naval bases, we are still negotiating with representatives of the admiralty. We are not going to acquire all twenty-two properties in St. John's because some of them have already been disposed of to the government of Newfoundland. We are going to take over a majority of them. We are only going to use now those which are useful in peacetime, but we hope to develop later one or two so that they can be put into immediate use in the event of war.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Before you go on, may I ask if any of these units are to become permanent active units?


Brooke Claxton: No, not at the present time. In connection with the operation of the naval reserve division at St. John's, and we hope later at Corner Brook, there would be about thirty active navy personnel, petty officers and men, to assist in training, looking after equipment and the like. At a later stage we hope to have the means of developing one or two permanent defence establishments, in connection with the defence of Newfoundland. The hon. member referred to the base at Bay Bulls. I also saw that base, and having seen it I must say that it was big, indeed an amazing job. But I think the advice followed by the authorities at the time was sound; that is, that it would be a good thing to let some private individual have it and carry it on, and such part as could be usefully employed again in the event of an emergency would still be there to be taken over if necessary, but that it would not be desirable to operate that great establishment in peacetime.


Gordon Francis Higgins: But it has been sold outright.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, but it cannot be taken away; it is too big for that. Such part as might still be useful to help meet any emergency which could arise in the near future could still be taken over.
With respect to negotiations with the United States government for modification of the lease agreements, the modifications we seek are those related to what may be called the non-military rights conferred by the leases, rights of extraterritoriality similar to those conferred by the British government under the stress of the crisis of 1941 at places other than Newfoundland. We believe the rights

enjoyed by the United States military authorities in Newfoundland should be the same as we give them under the operation of Cana

dian laws in other parts of Canada. As hon. members know, these rights are reciprocal. United States forces in Canada have the same rights in every respect as Canadian forces enjoy in the United States. We believe the principle of the declaration of February 12, 1947, should be applied to the Newfoundland bases and our representations have gone forward to that effect.


Gordon Francis Higgins: How far have they gone now?


Brooke Claxton: They are still under consideration.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What about the admiralty property in St. John's?


Brooke Claxton: Discussions are actually going on with a view to lining up the properties we are to take over. There is agreement in principle that we are to take over such properties, and discussions are going on with regard to the actual terms of transfer.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Then just one final question; would there be any comment at all on the matter of communist schools?


Brooke Claxton: That matter should be referred to the Minister of Justice. In referring to this matter the hon. gentleman said "as the minister well knows." I do not know of the existence of such schools in Canada, but that may be because I am too innocent.


Mr. Johnston:: I have just one short question to direct to the minister, arising out of a question I placed on the order paper the other day. It was answered by the Department of National Defence on October 31, and had to do with flying risk allowance. I shall just read the pertinent parts of the question and the answers given by the department:
4.	Under what conditions is risk allowance given?
5.	What is the amount payable?
The answers were:
4.	Risk allowance is payable to:
(a)	Aircrew officers on, the strength of units whose normal function is flying.
(b)	Aircrew officers not on the strength of flying units, provided they fly as members of an aircrew for not less than eight hours per month.
(c)	Personnel undergoing flying training, for the full period of such training.
Then this is the answer in which I am more interested:
(d)	Other ranks who form part of the crews of aircraft in accordance with established quotas, ranging from one crewman for every four two-seater aircraft to four crewmen for each multiengined aircraft engaged in photographic operations and fitted with Shoran equipment.
5.	$30 per month for all ranks.
It has been brought to my attention since I have been in Ottawa, and when I was in 45781-140
Supply-National Defence Calgary, that aircrew mechanics are compelled in the ordinary discharge of their duties to fly aircraft, but when they do so they do not receive the risk allowance. That was what led me to put the question on the order paper. I should like the minister to tell us whether it is definitely true that these men who in the course of their ordinary duties are required to fly, whether they be aircraft mechanics or others, are being paid that flying risk allowance. I am definitely assured that they are not.
The minister may say, as in fact I pointed out to those who drew this matter to my attention, that the proper thing would be for these people to go to their commanding officers. After having been in this house for so long, however, I know, as the minister knows, that this sort of thing is not done in the air force. Personnel do not go to the commanding officer on such questions. It just is not considered etiquette, and reprisals might be suffered by these men if they were to go to their commanding officers on such a matter. I am told on good authority, however, that there are aircrew who in the ordinary course of their duties are compelled to fly aircraft but are not in receipt of this flying risk allowance the government says is being paid.


Brooke Claxton: I am sure the hon. member has in mind the case of air mechanics who are servicing aircraft on the ground and in the course of testing them go up with the aircraft for a limited period of time and do not get the risk allowance during that period.


Charles Edward Johnston: But they are up all the time with one aircraft or another.


Brooke Claxton: I shall certainly look into that point. There is a time limit on this as well as a quota, but I shall look into the question and give the hon. gentleman the answer. It may be that there is a class which should receive the risk allowance and which is not getting it, and if they are entitled to it we shall be glad to see that they get it.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I want to support the hon. member for Cumberland in his protest against the treatment we are being given in the maritimes in connection with these expenditures on military equipment.


Brooke Claxton: Might I just interject that the expenditures on the dockyard at Halifax are very considerable, probably greater than in any other single locality in Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Halifax is very fortunate, but of course that is only one place, and there are other parts of the maritimes in addition to Halifax.

Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: Saint John has a dockyard, too.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I remember that during the war less than two per cent of the expenditures for war supplies went to the maritimes. This is quite in contrast with the statement made by the hon. member for Westmorland, whom I would congratulate on his remarks. He is very proud of his unit, the Princess Louise Hussars, and with very good reason. I might remark in passing that the headquarters of the Princess Louise Hussars is in my home town of Sussex, and we are also very proud of this unit. According to the hon. member, and I think also the minister, recruiting in the maritime provinces has been and is better than in any other part of Canada, and that being so I think we should receive greater recognition in matters pertaining to the manufacture and sale of military equipment.
I was amazed to hear the hon. member compare recruiting now with recruiting before the last war. I remember being in this house before the second war when this department asked parliament for between $30 million and $40 million. At that time many hon. members were opposed to voting that money, and I remember that one hon. member was even willing to reduce the amount to $1. In contrast with that, Mr. Chairman, before the war we find we were trying to carry on with estimates of between $30 million and $40 million, while today we have estimates of $350 million. There is no comparison at all. When the minister said there were as many men in the reserve forces in those days as there are today- well, to me it is quite amazing. We should have many, many more, not only because of the large amount of money that is being expended but because of the better accommodation for the troops and the sentiment in this country which is more favourable towards recruiting than it was in those days.
I believe the minister is quite fortunate, Mr. Chairman, in that he has behind him in Canada today almost a unanimous sentiment so far as military estimates are concerned, something which has never existed in this country before. There is no particular reason for it, but I rather surmise it is due to the fact there is not the same sense of security today as prevailed in this country previous to the last war. My seatmate, the member for Broadview (Mr. Church), has expressed the view on numerous occasions that we were secure because Great Britain had control of the sea. For a hundred years Great Britain was our chief barrier of 
defence. Today, she is not. For that reason, I believe Canadians today are more defence * conscious than they have ever been before.
My principal reason for speaking, Mr. Chairman, was to suggest to the minister that in the training of artillery, for instance, it would be better to have the artillery from the maritime provinces trained in the maritime provinces, instead of sending them to Petawawa. There is a camp at Tracadie, New Brunswick, which was used during the war and I believe it is still possible to train there. I feel that much better results would be obtained if that camp were used instead of wasting time bringing the men up to Petawawa. I say "wasting time" because last summer I believe the men had two weeks for camp. Two days are consumed in the journey to Petawawa, one day is always used after the men arrive in preparing for training the next day, and then in breaking camp another day is lost plus the two days for the return journey, making a total of six days, which is just wasted time. I suggest to the minister that far more men in these units would go into camp, and valuable time would be saved, if my proposal were adopted.
I had prepared a number of matters to bring to the attention of the house, Mr. Chairman, but I do not intend to speak on them this afternoon. The other day I was a little disappointed when the minister spoke of civilian defence. He suggested that civilian defence could be left in abeyance.


Brooke Claxton: No, sir, I did not; the local organizations at the block level could be postponed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not agree with the minister. I believe it is necessary to have local defence committees set up. In time of trouble, I do not believe these people can be trained. The minister said that they would be "browned off", or words to that effect. It seems to me that once they get their training, even though they do become lax or careless, that is something they carry with them and there is an organization available to be called upon.
I was reading an article about defence in Sweden. I have it before me, but I am not going to read it. In that country, they lay particular emphasis on this fact, and have the population in the large centres well trained. I believe we could follow their example.


Brooke Claxton: In answer to the question about training artillery in the maritime provinces, that is receiving consideration. I looked into it myself when it was brought to my attention, and the objections to it are that it would require additional staff,

for administration, training and housekeeping, and a splitting up of equipment. It would also prevent the artillery training in Tracadie from having the advantages of association with other arms which they have now in Petawawa where armoured and other units are in training. As hon. members know, every week during the training season there is a striking demonstration of fire power and modern tactics there. The matter is receiving consideration, however.
With regard to civilian defence I did not say we were not going to do anything, even in the matter of local organization. We are moving up step by step from federal, provincial, municipal and then to local organizations. We believe that is the right way to do it. We have not felt it desirable to rush in to the local field. We are going to press forward with that as soon as we can build the desired organization and get the full support of the local authorities.


Frank Exton Lennard: When I rose the other evening to make an appeal on behalf of the reserve officers, instructors and cadet corps to have their pay exempt from income tax, the minister said that a provision in the Income Tax Act was holding it up, and a formula was needed whereby the pay of those men would not be considered as income. He suggested that if I could get a formula I could solve the problem. Not being a gentleman learned in the law, I do not know the legal forms, but surely a clause could be inserted in the Income Tax Act making it unnecessary for these people to pay income tax on that money. I believe it is a simple thing. The Minister of National Revenue is in his place and I would urge that favourable consideration be given to it. I do not wish to hold this item up, nor do I wish to go over all the ground I covered the other evening, but it is something I feel should be considered.


Mr. Murphy:: The other day I dealt with the armouries at Sarnia. I know the minister is familiar with the situation there, so I shall not go over the details. The point I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, is to ask the minister whether a new armoury is in prospect for Sarnia in the immediate future?


Brooke Claxton: No, sir, I could not give that indication. I answered a similar question asked by the member for Saskatoon. About one-third of the members of this house have made such representations. I cannot start giving assurance to one without giving assurance to the other. It is a question of priorities and we shall proceed as soon as the money is available.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have been waiting all afternoon to ask these three questions. I have 45781-140-1
Supply-National Defence seen it stated that the minister is going to Europe within a short time to attend a conference at Paris. Will he inform the house as to the nature of the discussions which are likely to take place there, the attitude which Canada is going to take, and whether he is going to be accompanied to Europe by any of the chiefs of staff?


Brooke Claxton: At Paris, on November 29, there will be a meeting of the military committee under the North Atlantic treaty; that is a committee of the chiefs of staffs of the twelve powers. Canada will be represented at that by Lieutenant General Charles Foulkes, chief of the Canadian general staff and chairman of the chiefs of staff committee. Since we want to save on transportation costs,
I shall go in the plane with him. We shall be accompanied by Air Vice Marshal Hugh Campbell, our senior liaison officer in the north Atlantic security organization and our principal staff officer at Washington, and also by a representative of the navy, Commodore Bidwell. We shall be joined in Paris by Lieutenant General Clark, who is our representative in England, the chairman of the joint staff there, and who is our observer in connection with the western European group under the North Atlantic treaty.
At Paris there will also be a meeting of the defence committee consisting of the defence ministers, which has been called by the secretary of defence of the United States, Louis Johnson who is chairman of the committee. The committee will discuss arrangements in connection with the organization of the north Atlantic regional groups and other matters relating to its work. The proceedings of the defence committee, like those of the military committee, have so far been regarded as secret. I imagine that the proceedings of these meetings will also be regarded as secret and therefore it would be quite improper for me to anticipate what would be discussed there as I think it may prove impossible for me to report on what happens there except in accordance with an agreed statement. However, this marks a further stage in the organization of north Atlantic security under the treaty, and that organization is proceeding rapidly and satisfactorily.


George Randolph Pearkes: Thank you. We shall do everything we can to facilitate your departure in time for the meeting on the 29th. There is another question, a rather local one concerning British Columbia. In a return which was tabled at the beginning of October 1 was informed that some 11,800 tons of coal were delivered to the naval establishments at

Supply-National Defence Esquimalt and Royal Roads, that coal was contracted for by tender, and the tenders were let to coal merchants in Victoria. I understand that the coal was delivered in Victoria and was then taken out to the Esquimalt establishments by truck. I am also informed that had the coal been delivered direct to the naval dockyard and unloaded there, possibly as much as fifty cents a ton might have been saved on the costs of that contract. It is of course too late to do anything about the matter now because I expect that the coal has already been delivered, or at least that much of it has been delivered. Might I suggest that the matter be looked into before next year's coal is applied for, with a view to seeing whether it would not be practical to deliver that coal actually to the dockyard and thereby save the trucking expense? All I am asking is that the matter be looked into.


Brooke Claxton: Yes indeed. My note would indicate that the quotation was made for delivery at Esquimalt and the dockyard at H.M.C.S. Naden and at the service college. If that was not done, perhaps we have spent too much money. I will look into the matter. The question makes sense.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think it was delivered in truckloads rather than in scowloads.


Brooke Claxton: Perhaps that was paid for by the contractor.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have just one more question to ask. Can the minister give me an answer to the question I asked the other day as to how far the moneys may be redistributed within this item? The details are set out back in the pages dealing with the details, and so much money is allocated to the army, the reserves, and so forth. It is all under one item. Has the minister authority to transfer some proportion of that money from the army to the air force or to the navy, or from the active to the reserve forces, or does he have to go to treasury board to get that authority?


Brooke Claxton: I have to go to treasury board. I make a recommendation on the advice of the deputy minister, who gets the material from the service heads. I make a submission to treasury board, and there is no difficulty about it.


George Randolph Pearkes: My last question is in connection with the training of medical personnel in the care of burns from radioactive material. Are any courses for the nursing and medical professions being conducted in Canada similar to the courses which are being held in the United States and in England on that subject?


Brooke Claxton: We have had representatives of our medical services present at those courses so as to get into a position to give that training in Canada.


George Randolph Pearkes: We have not yet started it in Canada?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is all I wanted to know.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have several questions with regard to certain specific items coming under the details of service shown at pages 198 and following. As it is now six o'clock, however, I think I had better reserve those questions until later.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Douglas Scott Harkness: When the house rose on Friday I had been asking the minister a few questions in connection with the specific items as they appear in the details of services. At that time we were discussing the ones headed "Personnel supplies and services". The minister had explained the increase of $10 million as being due to the increase in the number of personnel in the services- which I rather questioned.
Following that, however, he gave a breakdown, and looking at that breakdown I notice that there was an item of $4,204,000 for the purchase of cloth for the manufacture of undress blue uniforms, for the purchase of arctic clothing, bush-type summer clothing and airborne stores. I can readily see that this very considerable increase could be accounted for in that way. I would point out that the statement the minister made that it was due to the $2,600 per man which it cost to maintain our air force personnel was hardly applicable, because this item dealt only with food, clothing and things of that nature.
I should like to ask some questions respecting the next item in the details of services. This one deals with stores and equipment, and is greater by about $8,500,000. The item takes in stores of all kinds. I note particularly reference to armoured fighting vehicles and spare parts. Is any reasonable amount of that $8,500,000 for new tanks and S.P. guns?


Brooke Claxton: No, nothing at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If none of it is for tanks and S.P. guns, then I should like to have a breakdown of what it is for.


Brooke Claxton: The total is $8,649,512, made up as follows:
Signal and wireless equipment	 $ 884,467
Increase in requirements for maintenance spare and1 training equipment,
signal and anti aircraft	 218,940
Increase in requirements for R.M.C. technical equipment, and maintenance ...	50,000
Ammunition	 220,045
Increase in armaments	 1,470,499
Mechanical transport	 3,213,703
Engineering equipment	 698,837
Tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and
spare parts	 822,521
Provision for repair of civilian works and shops of that portion of the maintenance load which is beyond the capacity of R.C.E.M.E. workshops	 1,070,000

It will be noted, as I have said, that there is no provision for new tanks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do I understand that this $1,070,000 is for the repair of tanks beyond the capabilities of the R.C.E.M.E. workshops?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, that is right.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Don't get in a rush.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no use for these people to shout "carried". I have several questions to ask, and I intend to ask them. It seems to me that this loud shouting of "carried" by a lot of uninformed opinion in the committee not only does not help to pass the estimates but actually helps to delay them.
Has there been any provision for new types of tanks and S.P. guns in the past year, or during the remainder of the year covered by these estimates?


Brooke Claxton: No, there is no provision whatever.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My only comment is that I think there should be some provision.


Brooke Claxton: Then I would ask the hon. member if he can tell me where he can get the tanks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said tanks and S.P. guns, and I do know that there is at least a possibility of getting some S.P. guns of a recoilless model.


Brooke Claxton: We would be glad to hear about it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The next item deals with Northwest Territories and Yukon radio system. I notice that the sundries item has increased from $14,084 to $206,587. Would the
Supply-National Defence minister give the reason for that? Why is there this fairly considerable increase under sundries rather than under other items in this list?


Brooke Claxton: The first item in that list is printing and stationery, in connection with which there is a decrease of $2,199. The largest item shows an increase in communications services amounting to $194,202. This is due to the inclusion of items such as the construction of antenna networks, wireless repair and maintenance, telephone repair and maintenance, for which provision was made in the 1948-49 estimates. This provides for longdistance tolls, telegrams, cables and the like. There is an increase of $500 in sundries, which is for photographic stores-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not want those small items.


Brooke Claxton: Well, I have given the big item of $194,202 for communications services, which accounts for about 98 per cent of the increase.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In view of the fact that this is for increased and improved communication services, does not the minister think it would be better to have that amount included in one of the other items, such as stores and equipment, which must take in a large part of it; or under "Personnel supplies and services" or "Acquisition, construction and purchase"-rather than have it all included under the item for sundries, which makes a poorlooking item?


Brooke Claxton: I think that is a very good suggestion and we will take it into consideration.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The next item is a northwest highway system and I notice that here the cost for fuel is up from $323,983 to $812,830. Could the minister indicate why the fuel cost this year is almost three times as much as it was last year?


Brooke Claxton: This is due almost entirely to an adjustment of the division of fuel expenses as between the United States and ourselves. The United States residual stocks of gasoline at the Whitehorse tank farm which have been drawn on for the greater part of the fiscal year 1948-49 have been exhausted and the requirements for use from Mile 543 to Mile 1221 must be purchased from civilian supplies. As a part of the total takeover from the United States we acquired considerable supplies of gasoline which have been exhausted.

Supply-National Defence


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does that mean that the gasoline used by our engineers in previous years was paid for by the United States army or air force?


Brooke Claxton: We took it over from them and paid for it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Where would that item appear in previous estimates, or are we to assume that it did not?


Brooke Claxton: We took over supplies of gasoline as part of the bulk settlement with the United States. Those supplies have been exhausted and we have to provide for them in our estimates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Where did they appear in last year's estimates?


Brooke Claxton: They did not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In what way did we pay
for them?


Brooke Claxton: By a bulk settlement with the United States some years back.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My next question has to do with the personnel supplies item under the air force which is up better than $5 million. What is the reason for this increase? This item covers food supplies, medical stores, clothing and personnel equipment, et cetera.


Brooke Claxton: The comparative figures as between 1948-49 and 1949-50 are as follows:
1948-49	1949-50
Personnel equipment	 $1,153,021	$4,703,937
Barrack, hospital and camp
equipment	
1,124,094	1,870,430Food supplies1	
1,892,800	2,813,032Laundry and dry cleaning ....	90,819	102,500Medical supplies and services..	363,822	618,192

There was a net increase of $5,483,534 which arose in part from the increase in the strength of the air force and in part from the fact that up to this year they were using stocks and now have to provide for current requirements.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The largest increase here as in the case of the army seems to be for uniforms.


Brooke Claxton: That is partly related to three things: First, the increase in strength; second, the exhaustion of war supplies; and third, increased scales of issue.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The next item I should like to inquire about is stores and equipment for the air force which is approximately $44,500,000. Was that increase chiefly for new planes and, if so, what planes?


Brooke Claxton: The comparative figures are
as follows:		
	1948-49	1949-50
Aircraft engines and spares	$ 6,344,892	$27,131,015Mechanical equipment 	787,550	3,327,400Marine craft 	109,958	215,500Miscellaneous stores 	1,880,259	3,590,200Photographic equipment 	163,648	584,100Armament equipment 	200,000	497,700Ammunition and bombs 	149,000	671,300Signals and wireless equip-	13,407,875ment 	2,768,202	Overhaul of aircraft and en-	gines 	5,039,329	12,522,250$17,442,838	$61,947,340
That increase in part is due to increased activity, in part again to the fact that we are using up wartime accumulations of stores, and in part to the recognition that we must spend more money on equipment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: From what I could make out from the minister's statement, about $33 million was for engines and spares, but I did not hear any mention of aeroplanes. If there was mention, I did not get it. I suggest with great humility that we shall make greater progress if the minister will give what I would term a straight answer. My question was: Is this increase of $44,500,000 chiefly for new planes? I do not want to know how many thousands are for this, that and the other thing. I want to know whether most of it was for new planes. Apparently some $33 million is for engines and spares. As I said, I did not notice anything in connection with airframes. As a result I would come to the conclusion that a large number of replacement engines and so forth are being bought. Before we leave that I should like to ask the minister if any of this amount was for airframes?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, indeed. If the hon. member does not want figures I do not need to give them and we can save a great deal of the time of the committee thereby. I thought he wanted these details, and therefore I was giving them to him.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I do not want him to give a large number of figures which really serve only to confuse the issue, so many thousands for this, $50,000 for that, and so forth.


Brooke Claxton: Either the hon. member wants the information or he does not. I am prepared to give all possible information.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is such a thing as confusing the issue by giving a large number of figures. What I want is as straight an answer as I can get to the questions I ask without a large amount of detail, so many dollars for

this, and 50 cents for that, which only serves to confuse what we are trying to get at. My next question-


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. gentleman would like to have his answer with regard to new aircraft procurement and production I can tell him that for the all-weather jet fighter XC-100 we are spending $5,500,000 out of this item; on tooling, machinery and manufacturing equipment for the Canadian production of the F-86A we are spending $7 million, and on two helicopters $200,000. Total aircraft procurement and production expenditures provided for are $12,700,000 out of the total I gave before.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My next question has to do with what is listed as sundries. Just as in the case of the army, I notice a considerable amount here. Sundries are up from $2 million to $4,244,000. Once more I should like to ask the minister what is included in sundries. I know that films are included in that item, and I should like to know particularly how much of that $4,244,000 was for films, and also who supplied those films?


Brooke Claxton: I can either give the figures on sundries or not, as the hon. gentleman wants. I will proceed to give them on the assumption that he wants the figures. For special training equipment and films the figure for 1948-49 was $158,627 compared with $354,000 for 1949-50. The figure for fees for special courses was $265,137 for 1948-49 compared with $376,046 for 1949-50. With regard to films the total provided for there is $22,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The next item as to which I have a note has to do with the photographic squadron. I see that the estimate for it is up from approximately $868,000 to $1,967,605. Personally I think the photographic squadron can be extremely useful to Canada not only for the defence forces but for other departments of the government. As a matter of fact, I see there is a repayment of $940,000 to the department from the Department of Mines and Resources. I should like to ask the minister how much of the work done by the photographic squadron is performed for other departments and how much is done for military mapping.


Brooke Claxton: That is a very interesting question. We have been conducting a photographic survey of Canada supplementing and completing that already undertaken and carried through by the R.C.A.F. during the lean years from 1924 on. This has been one of the ways in which the R.C.A.F. kept alive during the period between wars. Last year our program was to complete about 800,000
Supply-National Defence miles of photography, and we exceeded that. This year a corresponding area has been covered, and that is probably the greatest amount of serial photography ever conducted. It is done by the R.C.A.F. using twenty-two planes operating in all sorts of weather.
The results are taken to the photographic establishment at Rockcliffe where they process some 100,000 films per month. Then these are put together in a mosiac and then turned over to the Department of Mines and Resources, which department performs the fundamental work of producing a basic map. That map is developed for various purposes, topographical, mineralogical and military. The map is used as a basis for civil and military purposes, and is used not only by a great number of our government departments but also by provincial government departments, and by the three services. It is a fine demonstration of the way in which government departments work together. This is done by the R.C.A.F. working in the air, by Royal Canadian Engineers working on base marks, and by the Department of Mines and Resources working through their own topographical experts. This is a field in which I venture to say that, through the combination of these elements, Canada takes second place to no country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I agree with the minister that this particular branch of the R.C.A.F. is an important and useful one. He will possibly remember that some two years ago I urged that greater use should be made of it. I am glad it is getting plenty to do. As regards the division between what you might call work for other departments and straight military operations, 1 presume it is pretty well impossible to separate that.


Brooke Claxton: That is right. We take photographs for many basic maps. Then they are developed for three or four different sets of civilian purposes, as well as military purposes.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: How much money is spent searching for and locating lost United States planes on the northwest staging route?


Brooke Claxton: It would be impossible to say, and I am sure nobody would want me to say, how much was spent on any rescue mission. We have spent great sums of money on various rescue missions, and other countries have spent similar sums of money on rescuing our personnel. We must work together wherever possible, and we have always done so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It just happens, Mr. Chairman, that the next note I have down here has to do with the item headed "search and rescue", and I see it is down from $9,200,000

Supply-National Defence last year to $2,289,000 this year. The question I had noted to ask was, why has this branch apparently been cut to less than one-third of its former activities, from a financial point of view?


Brooke Claxton: There has been no cut; actually the work has been increased. There has been a re-allocation of costs by which direction finding activities, such as loran, have been put in another account, so this figure more closely represents the cost of activities particularly and directly related to search and rescue.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think that is a very much better way of accounting, and I am glad to hear that it has been done. My next question is in regard to the northwest staging route. The total cost of this is up approximately $1,300,000, but I notice that the fuel costs are down from $630,000 to $291,000. This would seem to indicate much less flying and driving of vehicles than last year, and I wonder if the minister would give an explanation of that.


Brooke Claxton: There was an over-provision last year which has been rectified this year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have only one more question.


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah!


Douglas Scott Harkness: The cheering which greets that announcement indicates that those who made the noise have no interest whatever in these estimates, but are only interested in getting away from here as soon as possible so they can go home for Christmas. My question has to do with the general position in connection with commitments. At the end of the details I see this note:
Less-Estimated amount required for commitments nominally to fall due during the fiscal year, in accordance with navy, army and air force programs detailed above, but not required for actual expenditure in that year, $62,500,000.
Then in the general estimates under item 250 we have "commitments for future years of $145,555,382". I should like to know why it is necessary to have two commitments for future years, which is what this amounts to. The department is asking for commitments of $62,500,000 in this year's estimates to be spent next year or some subsequent year; then further authorization is asked for commitments of $145,500,000, also to be spent in subsequent years. Why does it appear in that form; why cannot one item suffice?


Brooke Claxton: The answer is given in paragraph 53 of the white paper, which I shall read because probably it is briefer than I might be:
Experience has shown that orders for equipment and other services for the armed forces often cannot be completed in the same year in which the

contracts are placed. At the same time it is not possible to say just which of such contracts will be completed in the fiscal year. Authority is therefore requested in the estimates put forward by the department to provide for the anticipated program, but at the same time to limit the appropriation to the cash expenditures which it is expected will be made against these contracts. Future years commitment authority is requested to cover contracts for equipment and services which it is known will not be received in whole or in part until after the current fiscal year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But why is the second item necessary? Surely there can be no question but that if the house is not prepared to vote these further amounts two years or three years from now, or whenever they may be required, they will not be available in any event. In other words the house is always able to vote or withhold money. If the house should be unwilling to vote it the money would not be available, so why provide for it two or three years ahead of time? I still cannot see why the one item covering what might be spent but is not immediately in view for the coming year should not be enough.


Brooke Claxton: I sympathize with the hon. gentleman, but the point is that in order to produce modern naval, military and air equipment a contract must be entered into which may not be completed during the current fiscal year. Take ships. We have entered into contracts this year for the construction of one icebreaker, three anti-submarine vessels, four minesweepers and one gate vessel, the total cost of which will be between forty and forty-five million dollars. It is quite certain that none of these vessels will be completed in the fiscal year 1949-50. It is also quite certain that almost none will be completed in the fiscal year 1950-51. Yet in order to enter into a contract which the contractors will regard as at least morally binding and as having the authority given by parliament through these commitments, we must be able to do so on the assumption that any parliament subsequently elected will honour those authorizations and commitments. Otherwise we could not make a contract running into the future. This is one of the ways by which we may provide a defence program over a term of years, which parliament will know about in advance and provide commitment authority for in advance, but in respect of which parliament must provide the cash year by year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the minister not agree that a contract would be quite as good whether or not this advance commitment is made, because it depends on the particular year when the estimates are voted, whether or not parliament is willing to grant the money? I cannot see any advantage in it.

The minister said people entering into these contracts consider that these commitments give them greater moral value, let us say; but X should think once Canada has entered into a contract for the construction of a destroyer, an icebreaker, an anti-aircraft gun, or whatever it may be, we are going to honour that commitment. It is not necessary for us to vote money two or three years ahead more or less tentatively, in order to do that. My chief objection is that it complicates the estimates, so it is very difficult to tell exactly where we stand. We vote so much money for current requirements and so much for what may be required because the department could not foresee what would happen; then we have another long series of commitments for two or three years from now.


Brooke Claxton: The fact is that parliament cannot provide the cash to meet these possible expenditures in future years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is my very point.


Brooke Claxton: But parliament can say that we commit the authority of the government for a future year. That will have some value to the contractor, and I can assure my hon. friend that it also acts as a limiting factor on the department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point is that parliament actually cannot commit itself to these expenditures for next year, as the minister just said. We have no power to do that; the money has to be voted each year. That is why I cannot see any value in putting in these items, because they confuse the issue.


Mr. McLure:: I am not going to ask very many questions after the barrage that the minister has been up against in the last half hour. I should like to make a short observation. When the estimates were before the committee a week ago, I asked the minister a question about the armouries for Charlottetown and also a naval base. At that time he gave me fair consideration and stated that those would be built in the near future. The total estimates before us for this department amount to $369,985,500, and they are the only estimates out of the whole of the main estimates that have been brought down for which the minister does not ask for a blank cheque to be voted without giving any details. If the minister is willing to take a compliment from a humble member of the back benches, may I say that in this regard his estimates are much superior to the estimates presented for any other department.
It is true that in the estimates for this department there is an item for sundries amounting to $4,695,252, but if one looks
Supply-National Defence at the pages upon which details are given one finds details for all those amounts. The other ministers of the crown bring in estimates containing items amounting to $131 million for which they ask us to give them a blank cheque. I should like to compliment this minister and his department for bringing down estimates for which we do not have to give a blank cheque.


Mr. Caiherwood:: I should like to ask a question about the imperial war graves commission. I do not believe anyone would question the amount of money spent, but is this for the maintenance of world war I graves or world war II graves or both? In what countries in Europe does this commission work?


Brooke Claxton: This item looks after our contribution to the imperial war graves commission in respect of the great war of 1914-1918 as well as the second world war. The war graves provided for in the second world war are in Italy, France, Belgium, Holland and England. The arrangement under which it is worked out is between the countries of the commonwealth. It was worked out towards the end of the first world war and has been carried on ever since. We have agreed on a common treatment of the subject, so as to afford the maximum amount of respect and reverence for the graves of those who were killed from all the commonwealth countries. We agreed that the treatment should be the same, not only in respect of officers and men but also of those who gave their lives in the service of all the commonwealth countries.
Then, we agreed on a method of administration and of contribution. We have carried through our part in that arrangement. We believe it has worked well in the interests of the memory of those who gave their lives.


George Randolph Pearkes: What about the graves of the men who fell in Asia?


Brooke Claxton: I beg your pardon, they are also being looked after under the same arrangement.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Last fall, I came back on the boat with a chap who was a citizen of Ottawa. He had been looking for the grave of his son. I do not remember the name of the cemetery, but he had been there twice and was not able to find a single person who could give him directions. He told me that at the time there was a stick with his son's name on it, which they finally discovered. That was the second trip they had made to England to find their son's grave, and they found it in the same condition as it was the year before. If necessary, I can give the minister the name privately.

Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: I would be very glad if the hon. member did that because that case has certainly not been called to my attention. In the first world war we had some 66,000 killed and in this war 40,000. If there is such a case, it must be of someone like those who were members of an air crew buried outside of allied territory, and whose remains were in the process of removal to some other location. If the hon. gentleman will give me that name, I shall certainly be concerned in following up the case.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am writing the name now. This was in one of the largest cemeteries in England.


Brooke Claxton: In England?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, and I am writing his name now.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the discussion that has taken place and the obvious impatience of some of the members to dispose of these estimates in itself indicates how desirable it would have been if an orderly procedure before a committee could have been followed. This is only the third time these estimates have been before the house. They were up on November 11, November 18, and now today. Members of this house do not know today what the state of our defence forces is; they do not know their readiness or otherwise to fulfil the part which the Minister of National Defence says Canada has decided it should play in the joint responsibilities that we have assumed.
Hon. members of this house have been given the details as to the cost of certain items. They have been given percentages of training which, in themselves, mean very little unless we examine the details of the units that are involved; the standard and quantity of equipment now in the possession of those units; and the extent of the training in the various weapons they possess. The procedure before a committee makes the process of question and answer much more effective than it can be in this chamber, although I want to say that the minister has indicated his readiness to answer the questions which have been asked.
By the procedure which we are now following, we could not obtain the real facts about the national defence forces of this country in three weeks, let alone three sittings of this house. Three months would probably be the amount of time needed under the procedure which we must follow according to the rules of the house. For that reason, I propose to ask certain questions which indicate the nature of the information which it seems to me we must have if we are to have any idea whatever of the real state of the defence forces of this country.
[Air. Smith (Calgary West).]
It does not help greatly to know that an anti-aircraft gun with its equipment costs $600,000, unless you know how many antiaircraft guns we have; unless you know what their radar equipment is; their range finding equipment; their directional equipment; their sound range devices; and all the control equipment that goes with a modern aircraft battery, and the training of the men on each one of those instruments that is associated with an anti-aircraft gun.
Unless I am mistaken, I heard a remark in regard to Russia; and I assume that it meant that Russia would like to have this information. The time has come, Mr. Chairman, when we should recognize that the only people we are fooling are the people of Canada if we do not get all the facts with regard to our national defence. Our capacity to assume whatever role we undertake to assume within that great international partnership created by the North Atlantic security pact depends upon the equipment, the training and the suitability of the various units that we have established, having regard to the conditions which we face today.
The Minister of National Defence within a day or so leaves for Paris to take part in discussions there which will, we hope, divide the field of responsibility in a way that will make it possible to economize-and I underline the word economize-in expenditures on national defence so that every dollar spent may produce the maximum results. It is no more possible for the members of this committee to pass real judgment on the extremely large figure which is now before us, without knowing certain of these details, than it would be for the Calgary Stampeders to know whether their season had been well spent until they knew that they had certain players who were going to take their place in the line on Saturday, whether some of the members see the game or not.
After all, it is only an expansion of the same idea. A military organization is a team. In fact, in the United States during the war there came into use a term which seems remarkably appropriate for the whole defence picture. The forces had what they called "combat teams". These are defence teams. Our job is to know whether we have players for every position on that team, whether he has had the training he should have and whether he has the equipment which will carry him through the game.
First of all, let us take the land forces. Statements have been made as to the proportion of our population that is taking its share in the defence forces of Canada. When certain questions were asked, the answer given was that our reserve units had a total enlistment

which, in relation to our population, constitutes a higher percentage of the population as a whole in the non-active units than any other nation of the commonwealth. That statement, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely meaningless and it is misleading unless one examines what the situation is in other nations of the commonwealth. Let us take, for instance, the situation in the United Kingdom. Apart from what the views of any hon. member may be in regard to one method of dealing with defence requirements or otherwise, the fact is that the United Kingdom has compulsory military service. Consequently you must examine, in the light of that fact, any figures of proportion of the population taking part in defence; and also you must examine the figures in the light of the responsibilities that are being assumed by the active units in the United Kingdom.
Today the United Kingdom has six and a half divisions fully equipped, ready for service outside the United Kingdom in different parts of the world right from Burma to Hong Kong. She has other units in being, fully equipped. There is a provision that every man or woman having served with the active forces must, on retirement from the active forces, serve for four years with the territorials. These are things that it is essential to know in making any comparison or when we are deciding on what the allocation of our forces should be, and whether we should emphasize one branch of the service or the other.
One of the most important statements that have been made since these estimates were called on November 11, if not the most important one, was the statement by the hon. member for Nanaimo that there should be a drastic reorganization of our defence forces in Canada. He stated then that, while he was not presuming to adopt a precise figure, his estimate of the appropriate relationship between the air force and the land army was three to one. The Minister of National Defence obviously misunderstood what he had said, because he took that statement up and said that if you took the figure that is being expended on the land forces today, and multiplied that by three, you would reach a figure that would be out of the question.
The speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo was perfectly clear on that point. What he said was that there must be a drastic operation, a reorganization, a change in the composition of the units, and that there must be an emphasis on the air force in relation to the infantry, having regard to our possible position in the combined defence organization upon which the peace of the world rests In the years ahead.
Supply-National Defence
Without reducing any of this discussion to personalities, may I emphasize the fact that we are particularly fortunate in having in the membership of this committee some men who are in a position to speak to us with regard to national defence matters. When the agriculture estimates were before us, there were in every part of the committee highly .. qualified farmers who were able to ask the Minister of Agriculture various questions based upon their own highly skilled experience in that field. When matters relating to public health are before the house, we have in different parts of the house men whose own medical experience gives them special qualifications. Now that we are dealing with national defence estimates, we are in the position of having men here who are able to speak with a high degree of qualification. There is no other man in this committee with the background of experience of the hon. member for Nanaimo. There is no other member of this committee whose personal service has covered so wide a range of military experience. I do not want to make any comparisons but, after all, let us examine the background of this infantry officer, this permanent force soldier, who tells us that there should be a drastic reorganization and a reduction in the emphasis on infantry and an increase in the emphasis on the air force.
Here in this chamber are two men entitled to wear the highest decoration for valour in the world, the Victoria Cross. These are the hon. member for Nanaimo and the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Jean-François Pouliot: And there is Filip Konowal.


George Alexander Drew: I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: I say there is Sergeant Filip Konowal, V.C., under this roof.


George Alexander Drew: I spoke of this chamber-and I think the hon. member will realize that I spoke of this chamber, and no matter how distinguished the service of anyone outside this chamber may be, unfortunately it does not entitle him to come here and speak on military matters.
We have here two members who have that qualification, which is something in itself. But I do wish to point out that the hon. member for Nanaimo, who began as a private in the infantry and who retired with the rank of major-general after having served in two world wars, has been decorated with the Victoria Cross, is a Commander of the Bath, and was awarded the Distinguished Service Order, the Military Cross and the Order of Merit of the United States. There is no other living infantry officer in the world today who is entitled to wear on his breast all those decorations for valour.

Supply-National Defence
I mention that because he comes to us as a member of the House of Commons with that combined experience and tells us, as an infantry officer with many years' experience, that the time has come for Canada to recognize the fact that the role which we must play is one which calls for emphasis upon the air service of this country. That does not mean for one moment that there is any need to lose all the great traditions associated with the different units throughout the country.
I would remind hon. members that drastic operations of a similar nature did take place in the years before the two world wars. The services were carrying forward very much as they ended the war in 1918; and then with a new emphasis on armoured units and larger quantities of artillery and the extension of the engineering services, and of the various technical services, units with long and great traditions in the infantry were changed to the new branches of the service. They retained their names and their association, and have carried that tradition forward through the years since then. The same can be done today.
Many infantry units in different parts of Canada can become reserve air units and carry out various services, not only as squadrons fitted with aircraft, but to carry out the many involved and indirect duties associated with the maintenance of any air force under modem conditions. I refer to radar units, communications units and the other services required to maintain an air force. This can be done.
What is essential is that in examining these enormous expenditures-and they are enormous expenditures-we make sure that there is an allocation of our forces in such a way that we gain the greatest possible value from the money being spent.
For that reason I would like to ask a question, which is the basis of any understanding of our problem in the field of our land forces. I would ask the Minister of National Defence: first of all, in the case of the army, what are the arms of that service today?


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, before the minister answers I have a word to say. I appreciate what the leader of the opposition has said about the hon. member for Nanaimo, and I have as much admiration for him as has his leader. I remember that during the session before last, when the deskmate of the hon. member was a Canadian-born member of parliament, I said of the hon. member that although he was not born in this country he was more of a Canadian than was his deskmate.
This is to depreciate no one, but only to give an opportunity to the leader of the opposition to understand that there are things about which we agree with him. We agree about the defence of Canada. But as every country will be exposed during the next war, if there is one-and everyone hopes there will not-I submit it is impossible for the Minister of National Defence to answer publicly any technical questions put to him by any member of the house. If the information can be given privately for the satisfaction of any hon. member, it is an altogether different matter.
Sitting here as the elected representatives of the Canadian people, we have a duty to perform, and must act to the best of our ability to represent our constituents. They must have confidence in us. They must understand that in these difficult matters members of parliament must be given a certain latitude. There are things they can tell privately but could not tell publicly and which if printed in the press would not serve the best interests of the country.
Let me give this illustration to the hon. member: If he were a banker would he publish in any newspaper the combination of his vault or safe? He is too much of a businessman to do anything like that. When it comes to matters of life and death, as applied to every citizen of this country and of the world, one must be very cautious about what is said.
I shall not embark upon any technicalities at this time, but I would remind the hon. member and my colleagues that during the war, although I have no military training and do not pose as a man with military experience -and never did-I suggested that the best possible defence for this country would be mobile units which could be brought as quickly as possible from any part of the country to repel any attack, and to defeat the enemy.
This is a simple thing and something which can be said in public, because any possible enemy would think twice before attacking a country defended by mobile units. That is one thing.
There is another thing that concerns me about which I should like to express my feelings. During the last war a large number of parliamentarians considered matters of defence in the light of the defence of the commonwealth as a whole. Since that time this country has signed the North Atlantic pact and a new solidarity exists, not only between the various parts of the commonwealth but between all the countries that

signed that pact. It is of the utmost importance that we should know the obligations of Canada under that pact. Again this is something that perhaps should not be mentioned in public, but I think any hon. member who desires information about the commitments of Canada under that pact should have it.
I support the minister and I have confidence in him. If there is a vote on this estimate I shall show my confidence by voting for him. But there should be reciprocity in confidence and I say to him that I am concerned about the commitments of Canada under that multilateral pact.
As I said the other day, and as I suggested many years ago, we should have a bilateral treaty of defence with the United States. At that time the then prime minister, who was also secretary of state for external affairs, said that that was not the time for such an agreement. An agreement was made between himself and the President of the United States, but it was never ratified' by congress.
When this country must share matters of defence with other countries I submit that we should retain our sovereignty with regard to the number of people from Canada who will serve for the defence of this or other countries. Many hon. gentlemen have referred to the defence of Canada but they have said nothing about the defence of those other countries which signed the pact.
Canada played a noble part in the last war in supporting the countries of the commonwealth and other countries of the world, but it is important to know what will be done in the future in connection with the defence of the countries who are signatories to the North Atlantic pact. How many men will we send? How much ammunition? What armaments? That information is essential.
I am not ashamed of being a supporter of the government and I am not afraid to speak freely in the House of Commons about these matters of vital importance. If we are to go to the defence of any other country we should have something in return. Canada is just reaching complete sovereignty and her great privilege is to retain that sovereignty in her relations with other countries of the world. We should retain our sovereignty and our independence and should decide ourselves what we are to do. The defence of Canada should not be decided by any other country, either by our friendly neighbour or by the United Kingdom or by the United Kingdom military experts. It should be decided right here by the members of the House of Commons and the Senate.
Supply-National Defence
The leader of the opposition has legal experience. He knows that when a case comes up in court having to do with a scientific or technical matter it is not expected that the judge shall have taken a course in technology or the particular science under review in order to be qualified to decide the case. He decides the case according to his legal experience, the law of the land and his own good judgment. He must be convinced that one of the parties is right in order to give judgment.
This is a somewhat similar case. There are military experts on the other side of the house and on this side of the house. I have the greatest respect for the hon. member for Nanaimo, but I have equal respect for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of National Defence. Though the Minister of National Defence fought through the war as an N.C.O., no shame should attach to him for that.
The first minister of national defence in the last world war was not even an N.C.O. in the previous war, he was just a private. He was wounded and disabled and was entitled to a pension. He was greatly respected by all. I want the committee to understand that I respect those hon. members who have been mentioned by the leader of the opposition just as much as he respects them, but he should not make a comparison between one of his supporters, who was an officer, and the Minister of National Defence, who was an N.C.O.
Without saying anything against the admirable record of the hon. member for Nanaimo I am not ashamed to say that I support the Minister of National Defence, who was an N.C.O. during the first world war, and I have confidence in him. There should not be conflict between those who have had military service and those who have not. We all have the duty of looking after the interests of the Canadian people as a whole. We should be ready to lay aside those prejudices that existed during the first and second world wars. I rejoiced to hear the hon. member for Nanaimo speak as a true Canadian when he spoke the other day. I congratulate him on what he has said, but he has too much experience to contend that he is infallible. Nobody in this world is infallible. We must make the best approach we can to this matter of common national concern. I will ask the leader of the opposition-and I do so on my own responsibility-whether, all things being said, he would be satisfied to have certain private information conveyed to him in a private way to satisfy his mind so that he will be in a position to tell the Canadian people

Supply-National Defence that he has all the information and is satisfied with it. Then there will be an end to a lengthy discussion. Perhaps, considering the subject matter, it has not been so long.
I want every one of my colleagues to have his mind satisfied as to problems of national importance, and I have enough confidence in them to say publicly that, supported as they are by the votes of their electors in each of the constituencies they represent in this House of Commons, they will never fail to represent their own people as they would be expected to.


The Deputy Chairman:: I think it is time I should intervene. All hon. members will admit that the Chair has been extremely lenient in the course of this debate. The rules have been violated on both sides of the house. A few days ago we had a general discussion on the first item of the estimates of the Department of National Defence. The discussion we are having now is a repetition of the general discussion we had the other day, and at times it has even a greater scope than the discussion that took place on the first item. Therefore I ask the co-operation of all members of the committee in confining their remarks to the item under discussion, item 250.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite able to apprehend the exact meaning of the remarks because I am not aware of what earlier speaker offended against the rules. I may have been out when it happened. During the remarks that I have been making I have been discussing the subject that has been before the house, and I had just asked a question of the Minister of National Defence when the hon. member for Temiscouata made certain statements which I think I should comment on briefly. I find myself in agreement with a great deal that the hon. member for Temiscouata has said. I most certainly am in complete agreement with him when he says that the question of national defence should be decided by the members of the House of Commons and the Senate. That has been my contention since these estimates were called on November 11.
The remarks I have been making have been directed to the hope that we might have the information which would make it possible for members of the house and members of the Senate to reach a decision with some knowledge of the facts. I do not want to have any exchange with regard to the individuals who have been mentioned which would in any way divert the discussion from what is before the house, but I would point out that no reasonable interpretation of any

remark I made could under any circumstances be suggested as a comparison, favourable or otherwise, between the hon. member for Nanaimo and any other hon. member in his capacity as a member of the House of Commons. What I pointed out was that in this particular field of responsibility the member who advocated such a drastic change in emphasis in the organization of our defence forces is a man with very wide experience. He started his service as a private, went through every N.C.O. and officer rank, and as a result of that very process as a regular soldier has a wealth of experience which he is able to pass on to us.
No remark that I made was a reflection in any way upon the service of the Minister of National Defence who served most gallantly in the artillery in the first world war. May I say that it is a matter that demonstrates the quality of his service that in that war he was awarded a decoration which I think most members will regard as second only to the V.C. in its recognition of valour. No remark of mine was intended as an unfavourable comparison, and I hope no hon. member will suggest that.
I think, however, that when we are discussing agriculture perhaps a skilled farmer knows a little more about agriculture than somebody else, although we must all exercise what judgment we can when we hear the farmers tell us what the facts are. I also think when it comes to the subject of health, although we must all pass judgment in regard to what is appropriate in the provision of health measures, it is proper that we should have some regard to the experience of those doctors whose qualifications enable them to express an expert opinion. We all must pass judgment. I would make this comment as to a remark made by the hon. member for Temiscouata which it seems to me is the strongest supporting argument I have heard yet in favour of the whole problem being discussed by a committee. He said: If you were dealing with a question of electricity and you were putting it before a judge you would not expect the judge to be an expert electrical engineer. No, we do not; but we do not expect the judge to pass judgment without hearing experts. We do not expect any judge to pass judgment unless he has had the opportunity of having evidence placed before him by those who are able to express an expert opinion in regard to that peculiarly technical subject.
At the present time we are dealing with one of the most complex problems that have ever confronted men and women who are

called upon to exercise their judgment, because today the defence forces of this or any other country combine the skill of electrical engineers, metallurgical engineers and engineers of every type, of industrial experts and producers as well as military men in their military formations. Today the defence forces are a combination of every productive and physical capacity of the country. It is for that very reason that, of all the subjects with which we are called upon to deal, no subject so clearly demands expert information before those of us who are not experts are in a position to pass judgment in the high court of parliament.
Let us take a few of the examples. During the last war science brought all its strength, all its skill and all its energy to the production of new devices, and it has not stood still. Today, if we assume our responsibility, we will make sure that within whatever defined field of responsibility we accept the task of preparing defence forces, they will be efficiently equipped in the most economical way, and with the very finest type of arms and equipment that can be supplied. When I say that I would emphasize the fact that in the last war Canada demonstrated that there is no intricate mechanism of war or of peace which the skilled workmen of this country, associated with our technicians and our management experts, are not capable of producing. For that reason we do need expert advice, and that is why I still press my suggestion that a committee would be the appropriate place.
I have interjected these remarks in relation to what has been just said. I would return now to the question I asked before those remarks were made: in the case of the army, what are the arms of that service today?


Brooke Claxton: What does my hon. friend mean, what are the arms?


George Alexander Drew: Infantry, artillery, engineers, army service corps, reconnaissance units, and so on.


Brooke Claxton: There are fifteen arms of the army today:	armoured corps, artillery,
engineers, signals, infantry, army service corps, medical, ordnance, electrical and mechanical engineers, army pay corps, army dental corps, intelligence, chaplain, provost and postal.


George Alexander Drew: Then let us take the infantry first of all. What is the present weapon establishment of an infantry battalion on active service?


Brooke Claxton: That information certainly will not be given in this house at this time.
Supply-National Defence That is'the kind of information that will be made available to those engaged in training infantry battalions.


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Chairman, this merely illustrates the evasion in answers that is presenting a very serious problem. This information is all committed to print. It is available to the armed services, as well as to others. I return to a comparison which will be in the minds of a number of people, no matter what decision may be reached on a motion that is to be presented tomorrow. It is no easier to determine whether a football team is ready for the test it has to meet than to determine whether or not we are really training and equipping our service units, unless we know what weapons they are supposed to have and what weapons they actually have at the present time.


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. member has the information available to him I do not think he should delay the deliberations of this committee by asking for it, because certainly I do not have available, here and now, the establishment of arms, weapons and equipment or the training strengths of the armed forces of Canada. No one on earth could expect me to have that information, either, unless they were determined to hold up these estimates.
Now, sir, we have had some debate of a very general character over a period of three days, during which a number of hon. members have expressed various points of view. On November 18 the remarks of the leader of the opposition covered pages 1934 to 1943 of Hansard; he took over an hour of the time of this house to go through the white paper, without disagreeing with a single proposition in it. In his opening remarks this evening he said the minister had indicated his readiness to answer the questions that had been asked, and as far as I am aware up to this time no single question has been left unanswered. No single question has gone unanswered during the course of this whole debate, and I am prepared to answer all reasonable questions hon. members may put forward with respect to the defence forces of Canada. But if I am to be put through an interrogation respecting the arms manual and other things that are available to people at various levels, then I suggest we are wasting the time of this committee.
The leader of the opposition referred to the hon. member for Nanaimo. I can assure this committee that my respect, and I am sure the respect of all other hon. members, for the member for Nanaimo will not be reduced by anything the leader of the opposition said

Supply-National Defence this evening, because we hold the hon. gentleman in the highest regard. The hon. member for Nanaimo laid great emphasis on the air force, and I agree with him. That is the point; I agree with him. I just differ as to the practicability of providing an appropriation for the air force three times that of the army, at this time or in the immediate future.
In that connection I would point out, as I did before, that in the United States the proportion of expenditure as between the army, air force and navy, is 33'6 per cent for the army, 34 per cent for the air force and 32-4 per cent for the navy. In our estimates for this year, exclusive of defence research and provisions for pensions, our provisions on a comparable basis are for the army 36-4 per cent, for the air force 42-6 per cent and for the navy 21 per cent. In other words while in the United States they have made provision on an almost equal basis, in Canada we have recognized the position of the air force to the extent of giving it prior place by a very substantial margin. It is interesting to note that in the United Kingdom the defence pound is divided as between the army, air force and navy in the proportions of 43 per cent, 29 per cent and 28 per cent. There the air force is in the middle position. It is also interesting to note that in the second world war Canada's great contribution in men was roughly divided in this way: 600,000 to the army, 300,000 to the air force and 100,000 to the navy. So I submit that when the hon. member for Nanaimo, supported by the leader of the opposition, urges greater support for the air force, they are falling through an open door, because we are already doing what they ask and we are doing it to the full extent we believe possible within the limits of these estimates. In future appropriations I would hope, as I indicated when this matter came up on November 18, that this emphasis may be further increased.
This is indeed a complex problem, as the leader of the opposition has said. It has been found to be complex in every country, particularly at this time. We do not claim to know all the answers. We do not claim that anything we do may prove to be ultimately right, because we cannot look into the distant future. All we can try to do, with the help and support of this house and of the Canadian people, is to provide the funds which you and the people think desirable, and then allocate those funds among the three services as best we can. But I do submit that in our recognition of the very important place of the air force we have gone further than the other two countries with which we are so closely affiliated and associated in the most friendly fashion, and we are prepared to go even further.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, first of all may I point out that since we are dealing with an item involving $339 million, I have no apologies for spending an hour in discussing what it implies, nor should any other member. I do not want to say that the Minister of National Defence obviously forgot what I said, or has not read what Hansard records, when he states that I agreed with what is set out in the white paper. I said the white paper gives us no real information as to the state of our defence forces. It gives us a broad picture in general terms, but we do not know the details.
I have asked a simple question dealing only with the first primary unit of our armed forces, an infantry battalion. My question was concerned with the weapon establishment of an infantry battalion on active service. If the hon. members of this house are to know with what we are dealing when they examine these figures, they should have an answer to that question as well as an answer to similar questions about the artillery, reconnaissance units, tank units, armoured units and each of the fifteen branches of the service incorporated in our land forces.
Then, we should know what percentage of weapons they have in relation to that establishment. Without that information we do not know what we are getting for our money, but above all we do not know what we are getting for the defence of Canada. It is a complete mystery, hidden by the answer that it is not in the public interest to give that information. Hon. members of this house have a right and a duty to know that, before they pass judgment. If this is not the place to get the information, then that is all the more reason why we should have a committee where, if it is desirable, any secret matter can be dealt with behind closed doors, following the minister's own suggestion that small committees are desirable in dealing with technical matters.
The minister has said he is not prepared to give that answer. He has not at his disposal the weapon establishment of all the units. I am satisfied that the weapon establishment is in the records that his officials have in front of him now. I would be surprised if they came here without that information. If we are to be confronted with this answer about the infantry, there is no use in pursuing the question further in regard to the other branches of the service. It is about time, however, that the members of this house recognized that they have a responsibility to know what we really have in the way of defence.
Here is a recruiting advertisement that appeared in the press of this country yesterday. It shows an anti-aircraft gun, and at the

top are the words, "Science turned their backs on the target." The meaning of those words is that science has made it possible for the men serving an anti-aircraft gun to fire at a target with their backs towards that target. This manoeuvre involves the intricate mechanisms which science has now made available for the control of anti-aircraft guns. No hon. member of this house is in a position to know how effective our expenditure on anti-aircraft guns is unless he knows how many anti-aircraft batteries there are in Canada, fully equipped with the latest short wave radar, equipped with electrical control devices, sound range devices, directional devices, and all the other intricate mechanisms by which these guns are fired. Nor are we in a position to know how effective those weapons are unless we know how many of the shells available for those weapons are fused with proximity fuses.
In order to ascertain the extent to which information is available, I am asking the Minister of National Defence how many shells there are in Canada fused with a proximity fuse?


Brooke Claxton: Not one.


George Alexander Drew: Then, we have an answer which suggests that our artillery is totally unequipped to cope with-


Mr. Howe:: Then let us pass this item and get on with it.


George Alexander Drew: The Pooh-Bah of the cabinet has returned. He is not satisfied with taking the place of the Minister of Justice, he is now taking the place of the Minister of National Defence.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I do not believe the term used in referring to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is a proper one.


Mr. Warren:: Take it back.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not believe the hon. member meant to say anything disrespectful of the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let it go; I love that sort of thing.


George Alexander Drew: It is a most flattering term. The Pooh-Bah was everything but the lord high executioner.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You are winning the next election for us.


George Alexander Drew: It is good to hear that small voice raised again, and in the presence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The members of the house have heard the Minister of National Defence answer, quite
Supply-National Defence correctly, that in this country today there is not a single round of artillery ammunition fused with a proximity fuse.


Brooke Claxton: What countries have?


George Alexander Drew: The United States, Great Britain and the nation in which we are so greatly interested at the moment.


Brooke Claxton: How many in each country, I would be interested in knowing?


George Alexander Drew: I am not a member of the House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I am not a member of the House of Commons of Great Britain, nor am I a member of the congress of the United States. So that there will be more laughter by those who wanted to find something to laugh about, I shall repeat that I am not a member of the House of Commons of Great Britain, nor of the congress of the United States. The members of those two illustrious bodies are in a position to secure the information which we are being denied.
The members of the congress of the United States, which the Minister of National Defence before he became minister thought afforded us an excellent example, are able to secure the most minute details of the organization of their forces, except in regard to those things that are still on the secret list. Proximity fuses are no longer on the secret list. In the closing days of the war proximity fuses were not only an essential requirement for effective anti-aircraft fire; they became an essential requirement of effective land artillery as well. Taken by itself, that indicates the extent to which we are absolutely unprepared in certain branches of the services to meet the tests of modern war.
Since we are not going to get the information about the weapon establishment of those units, I should like to refer to a speech made by the Minister of National Defence on May 2. An effort had been made earlier to obtain a statement about the decision as to the future equipment of our armed forces, but it was not forthcoming. I have heard no statement in the house during the consideration of these estimates which amplifies a statement that was made by the minister in Detroit on May 2. He said that Canada has decided to abandon the rim cartridge [DOT] 303 calibre rifle, machine guns of the same calibre, and to adopt weapons of United States standards as well as their communications organization and other details of organization. I am not questioning whether that is wise or unwise. Certainly since that statement was made in Detroit on May 2, I believe we should have

Supply-National Defence information as to the policy of the government in this respect, and when we propose to depart from our present weapon standards and adopt those of the United States.


Brooke Claxton: With regard to the last question, I think I pointed out on another occasion that the question of standardization was dealt with by me on two different occasions in this house, in which I indicated our desire to standardize our equipment with that of the United States and the United Kingdom. I thought that made sense. There has been no change in that policy, there has been no criticism of it and, so far as I know, it has been generally approved. It is, however, difficult of implementation. With regard to the rimless cartridge and the calibre, we have to wait on the determination, by those with whom we work, of their idea of the right kind of calibre. But we are prepared to co-operate with them just as, I am sure, are the armed forces of the United Kingdom and of the other ten countries in the North Atlantic security pact. We believe in standardization. As regards Canadian-United States co-operation, we believe that it is important to work to common industrial standards and common arms standards, and we are working in that direction. There has been no secret about that. It was announced during the war. It was worked on during the war and it has been continued ever since.
As the hon. leader of the opposition said, I referred to this matter in a speech on May 2; and I am sure that substantially he agrees with the general line.


George Alexander Drew: I think all hon. members will agree with the desirable features of standardization; but we still do not know just what the plans are other than that they will fit in with the modern adjustment of our forces. The Minister of National Defence is going to Paris to discuss the problem of the part that each of the member nations of the North Atlantic security pact will take in that combined effort. When we meet in the next session there will doubtless be a clearer understanding of the particular task which Canada has decided to undertake.
As to these present estimates, I have already pointed out that near the end of November we are not going to change greatly one way or another the expenditures that are made in 1949 or for the balance of the fiscal year because either the expenditures have been made or the commitments have already been made for the balance of the period. But what has been demonstrated here beyond any question is that when we deal with the estimates in the next session and are really examining them before they

are spent, we shall not have the necessary information unless we have a standing committee on the defence services of Canada.
I am not pressing the point further, because the minister has said that he will not answer the question in regard to the weapon establishment of our units. But I say that we definitely have a right to that information, and that when we know more of the general allocation of our forces, certainly the members of this committee should have full knowledge of the weapon establishment of each unit, how far we have gone or how far we expect to go in meeting those requirements of such units as we actually maintain.
As to these figures, we have indicated from the outset that we were not going to oppose them because the commitments have been made. But in voting for these estimates now, we do so recognizing that we have not the knowledge that we should have, that we have been denied information which every member needs if he is really going to pass judgment, and that when we meet in the next session we will insist then upon the establishment of a committee that will give us the information which will make it possible for us to fulfil our responsibilities as members of this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
251. Defence research and development, subject to allocation by the treasury board, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $24,439,660, including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $21,679,660 and commitments for future years of $2,760,000 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditure in 1949-50 will not exceed $21,179,660.
George Randolph Pearkes: This item deals with defence research and development and covers an expenditure of $21,179,660 to be made this year. I realize that in the matter of defence research and development undoubtedly a high degree of security will be necessary and therefore if there is one item in which the minister may be rather loath to disclose the details it would be this one. That fact is borne out because no details of this expenditure are given in subsequent pages of the book of estimates. The $21 million to be spent this year, however, of which the greater part has already been spent, is a fairly sizeable blank cheque. It is undoubtedly an item in which a great many members are sincerely interested. I would therefore ask the minister to go as far as he feels he can go in giving us a breakdown of this item, without giving away any military secrets.


Brooke Claxton: Thank you very much. I can give some details, certainly. The defence

research board is providing for central scientific and administrative organization-I can give it in round figures, in hundreds of thousands-$5,294,000; Canadian armament research and development establishment, $2,121,000; experimental station, Suffield, $2,301,000; defence research chemical laboratories, $459,000; Kingston laboratory $99,000; Grosse Isle experimental station, $50,000; radio propagation laboratories $686,000; naval research establishment, $563,000; defence research specific naval laboratory, $156,000; defence research northern laboratory, $315,000; a total of $12 million. Then for naval development, $447,000; for army development, $2,258,000; for air force development $6,952,000; a total of $21,179,000.
If I might say a word or two in general, defence research in Canada has been integrated with the work of the armed forces. The chairman of the defence research board is a member of the chiefs of staff committee; and the chiefs of staff are members of the defence research board; also on the defence research board are representatives of the national research council, the universities and industry. We believe there is a very complete integration of activities so as to eliminate duplication. We do not aim to cover the whole field of defence research in Canada. We could not do it with even $21 million. But in co-operation with the United States and the United Kingdom particularly, we are working on the things which are particularly suited to Canadian research either by reason of the personnel we have available or by reason of the industrial development of the country.
If I might refer to some of them briefly, I would mention the Canadian armament research and development establishment at Valcartier, which was especially developed during the war and further extended since, related particularly to the research in armaments, ballistics, propellants and the like, and their work is being carried on. The experimental station at Suffield, as hon. members know, is of course related to bacteriological and chemical warfare. At Suffield we have a great tract of almost a thousand square miles where we have opportunities and facilities for extensive trials.
Then, we are continuing to conduct research with regard to naval activities as they are particularly related to anti-submarine warfare, and we are extending our activities in the more applied field with regard to aircraft and aerodynamics. We provide a number of grants to Canadian universities to promote research. These are carefully worked out in conjunction with the national research council, and are designed to promote both fundamental and more applied research.
Supply-National Defence
With regard to our development program, by far the largest item is that of nearly $7 million for air force development. That is the money being applied to the development largely of the XC-100 at the A. V. Roe establishment at Malton. In each of the last two years we have put a two-year program into one, and that has enabled us to bring the plane to the stage where we hope it may be test-flown in the next few weeks-and test-flown successfully.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not wish to press unduly, but could the minister tell us something about radar development? He referred to it but did not give much by way of detail. Is all the experimental radar development being conducted by Canadian Arsenals Limited or is the department dealing with other firms connected with radar?


Brooke Claxton: A large number of our contracts for radar equipment have been placed through Canadian Arsenals Limited, but sublet by that organization to other Canadian suppliers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: We will now take up the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding to these estimates, I wonder if I might have the permission of the committee to place on Hansard a message I received from the Secretary of Defence at Washington. This is addressed to me as Minister of National Defence at Ottawa from Louis Johnson, Secretary of Defence at Washington, and states:
Permit me to express our profound gratitude to the men of the Canadian armed forces whose tireless effort in behalf of their fellow Americans has climaxed one of the most brilliant air-sea rescue operations in peacetime history.
The destroyer Haida's rescue of eighteen United States airmen symbolizes the highest tradition of mutual co-operation and helpfulness between our services and makes us more than ever proud of the many endeavours in which we have been associated.
Please convey to all concerned as well as Commander Madgwick and his officers and men of the Haida, this expression of heartfelt thanks and appreciation for outstanding performance of duty.



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
401. Departmental administration, $150,820.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Chairman, may I first of all congratulate the Secretary of State upon his elevation to that high office.
My complaint with respect to this item is one I have made concerning many others, namely that we have to vote such large sums of money without knowing the purposes for which they are used. While the minister

Supply-Secretary of State
may be following in the footsteps of his predecessors, that is no reason why we should not have a statement concerning the money we are asked to vote.
Here is a department asking for a total sum of $1,913,982. Of this amount there is the sum of $586,290, or about 31 per cent of the total, concerning which we have no details whatsoever. It is not fair to the committee to ask for this blank cheque. Anyone examining the details will find that the items for which blank cheques are asked are in some cases two or three times greater than those for which details are given.
Surely as a committee we should have details of these expenditures. While the Secretary of State may not be able to give us complete information, he could go back to last year's records and tell us where these moneys asked for in blank form have gone.


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: Mr. Chairman, I believe the details at page 253 of the estimates are fairly complete.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Then we shall refer to it. Let us take the first item dealing with departmental administration. The) details set out the salaries of all those who are working, giving a total of $83,945. The next item is a blank cheque for an amount of more than 50 per cent of the sum I have mentioned, and concerning which we have no details.
Then, turning to the item concerning the citizenship registration branch, we find that the salaries for all who are working there total $53,385; and then we are asked for a blank cheque for a sum 175 per cent greater than the sum I have mentioned. The amount given here is $92,385. These are not full details in any sense of the term. We could go on to deal with other items, but I believe what I have stated is sufficient to merit an answer from the Secretary of State.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The first amount of $83,945 deals with permanent employees, and the item for temporary assistance is exactly for that purpose-the temporary assistance we have to get from time to time in the various branches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that very point-and this is where some of us came in before-may I support the point made by the hon. member for Queens, and say to the Secretary of State that if he cannot answer my point tonight I hope he will try to be ready to answer it when we reach the item dealing with the civil service commission. If I am correct, the Secretary of State answers on the floor of this house for the civil service commission. I do not think the Secretary of State covered the whole story when he said that this large

item was for temporary assistance that has to be hired from time to time because I think many of these people are fairly permanent. I should like to know what the percentage is of permanent civil servants, temporary civil servants, temporary-permanent civil servants and any other classification there may be.
It is not so much a problem of the way it is set out in the estimates, although I do support the hon. member for Queens; it is more a matter of the policy of the civil service commission. When we reach that item I think the minister should be in position to give me the information I have asked for and also state whether any progress has been made toward providing for a greater percentage of permanent employees in the civil service. There are many facets of this problem which are of great concern to civil servants, and rightly so. I do not press for an answer tonight, but I think this is a good opportunity to draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State so that he can deal with it later.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I can give the hon. member the number of permanent and temporary employees in the department, but as regards the civil service commission and its policies I presume we can deal with that when we reach that item.


Mr. Blackmore:: I am not so sure that it is best to ask under this item the question I have in mind, but I should like to know why the cost of issuing passports has been increasing at such an exorbitant rate? Two or three years ago you could get a passport for $3, but now a man must pay $5, another $5 for his wife and $5 for each child over 16 years of age. It should be remembered that there are many poor people in the country who are in need of passports and I consider this to be an absolutely unjustifiable charge.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I think that is a matter for the Department of External Affairs.


John Horne Blackmore: That department had
better be ready.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: As I understand it, this temporary assistance, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, covers a number of employees who are rather permanent but who are not recognized as such. This was the case in Newfoundland when many people were taken into the service during the war but who have not been recognized as permanents. This question arises in every department but I am directing my query to the minister because his department is smaller than the others. The

civil servants must be greatly concerned about this, especially as to whether they are pensionable.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Obviously a temporary civil servant is not pensionable. Perhaps this had better be discussed under the item for the civil service commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
402. Citizenship registration branch, $181,770.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Secretary of State tell us how many citizenship certificates have been issued since the legislation was enacted?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I can give the figures for the period April 1, 1948 to March 31, 1949, which
are as follows:
Aliens	 11,455
British subjects	 148
Alien minors whose responsible parents have been granted certificates under
the act	 283
Doubtful	 41
Minors, aliens, who have applied for
their own certificates	 255
Persons naturalized in Canada prior to
the naturalization act	of 1914	 1,944
Canadian citizens by birth, naturalization, marriage, residence	 9,611
23,735


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has not the cumulative totals?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No.


Mr. White (Hastings-Peterborough):: Would
the Secretary of State explain the difference between the citizenship registration branch and the citizenship branch, item 407?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The citizenship registration branch has to do with the technical matters connected with citizenship, while the other portion of the branch deals with individual immigrants who come here, whom we propose to make citizens of at the proper time, and who naturally need a certain amount of training and education in Canadian citizenship.


George Stanley White: An
immigrant coming into the country would come first to the citizenship registration branch?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: He would deal with the immigration branch first.


George Stanley White: But
with whom in your department would he deal first?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: He would deal with the citizenship branch which would endeavour to train him in Canadian citizenship in so far as they can.


George Stanley White: Do I
understand that all technical work is done by the citizenship branch?
Supply-Secretary of State


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No, the citizenship registration branch.


George Stanley White: What does the citizenship branch do?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It provides facilities for the teaching of Canadian citizenship to immigrants in so far as it is possible to do it and the immigrant is prepared to absorb the information.


George Stanley White: How
would you teach an immigrant to become a Canadian citizen?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I am afraid I am a poor teacher. We provide certain literature, films and other material for the carrying on of night courses and so on. Most of this is done with the co-operation of the provinces. What happens in a school of citizenship in any particular province I am afraid I am not capable of saying.


George Stanley White: If you
examine the items on page 253 and so on you will see it is practically all for staff, printing, salaries, and things of that type. If it is an educational feature, there is not very much set out in the details showing that is the main duty of the branch.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
405. Bureau for translations, $646,445.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would mind letting item 405 stand for a few minutes. I confess the reason is that one of my colleagues is anxious to say something on it, and he went upstairs to get some of his material. Here he is now.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about the item mentioned by my colleague dealing with the bureau for translations. I want to ask the Secretary of State how many translators are used, and of those translators how many are used by the customs and excise branch to translate books which are submitted at customs offices for admission to this country? I am interested to know how many translators are capable of translating languages other than French. I take it most of them referred to here are employed for the purpose of translating from one official language of the country to the other. If we may have an answer to this question perhaps we can proceed from there.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Obviously it is mainly translating from English to French, but the other languages covered will be found in the report of the department. They include German, Russian, Spanish and Italian.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Those then are the languages which these translators are capable of handling. I think there was another part of

Supply-Secretary of State my question that the minister did not answer. How many of these translators are used from time to time by the customs and excise branch for the purpose of examining books in foreign languages for which admission is sought to Canada?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I am afraid the hon. member will have to ask the customs and excise branch that question.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The item is not carried. It is not in the estimates of the customs and excise branch. It is in the estimates of the Secretary of State. I think my question is a reasonable one.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, do I have to stand up all the time to ensure that my question will be answered? I am waiting for my answer. When I get it I shall proceed to stand up again.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Is the hon. member asking about translation or the reading of documents in different departments? All translation is done by this department. If translators or persons familiar with various languages are used in other departments for the purpose of reading documents, or something of that kind, I do not know anything about it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I know something about it, but I want to find out more. Let me make my meaning perfectly clear. How much of the time of certain of these gentlemen or ladies is employed in the capacity of translators from a foreign language into a language which can be scrutinized by the official readers of the customs and excise branch so that they may pass judgment in the matter whether or not the material so translated is fit to be admitted to this country? I hope I have made that clear.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I do not know that I can answer the question. I wonder if the hon. member is referring to other languages than those which I have mentioned, and for which purpose at times I believe outside translators are used on a temporary basis.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: During the war I think there were three translators who were used for the purpose I have mentioned. These three linguists were able to cover twenty-five languages. They were men who did translating for purposes of censorship during the war years. At the end of the war they were taken over by the Department of National Revenue to do this domestic reading. I have never been able to discover the truth of the matter either by questioning the

Minister of National Revenue or so far tonight. I have not been able to get specific information as to the point. I ask the Secretary of State whether since the war we have replaced these men, who were good linguists and top men in their profession, by anyone else who is capable of scrutinizing such material.
We have had a great deal of talk lately in this house and in the country generally about censorship. Much has been said about the admission to Canada of crime comics and books. I am not taking the position that I am advocating censorship. I do not want to be misunderstood about that, but I am interested in the general subject of books. We can do with a lot more books in this country. If we are going to have censorship, if we are going to exclude from Canada foreign language books which are excluded simply through the ignorance of the people who are handling the matter, then I am opposed to that method of doing business. You will excuse me if I am a little heated about this particular subject, but I have been fighting against a stone wall for two or three years, and this is one of those hidden recesses of government which I have not been able to penetrate up to the present time. That is the reason why I thought I would bring the matter up tonight. I notice that the Minister of National Revenue is flattering me by rather earnest attention, and I hope when his turn comes he will be able to give me an answer.


James Joseph McCann: I can give you the answer now.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I realize that the Secretary of State is new to his position. I do not think anyone will hold it against him if he is not schooled in this particular matter, but it is a subject into which I have been making investigations. So far as I am concerned, I believe that the examination of foreign language books has been quite haphazard. I think a great many of them are worthy of being admitted. A great many of them which are worthy of being admitted are kept out simply because there are not people learned enough in these languages to examine them properly. I also believe the converse is true. We are admitting a lot of stuff we should not be admitting for the same reason. I know for a fact that books which are being denied entry at one customs port are being admitted at others. The whole situation is confused. If you do not believe it, look at the bookstands. I have known of cases when customs officers were simply flabbergasted. An officer is confronted with a foreign book about which he knows nothing.

He may take it to a Greek restaurateur and ask, "Is this book all right?" The Greek gentleman says it is all right, and that is the basis on which censorship is carried out in this country, the basis on which books are either accepted or rejected. It is time that situation was brought to an end. It is time the importation of suitable books into this country was encouraged. It is time we had men at the head of this censorship branch who are qualified by their background, their training, their education and by some elementary knowledge of literature to say what is good and what is bad; and I am not speaking in the moral sense, but rather in the literary sense. If the Secretary of State has no further information for me, however, I suppose we will have to leave it at that.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The only information I can give the hon. member is that we do what translations are done. If any department of the government needs someone to read something in a foreign language, we do not know anything about that. We do the translation and provide them with it. That goes from our department; but I know nothing about anything else.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: To simplify my first question I shall ask this. Do the translators at present in the minister's department do any work as translators for other departments of government, notably for the customs and excise branch of the Department of National Revenue?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The answer is yes.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: To follow that up, then, has the minister any idea to what extent or for what periods of time they are so employed? Is it part of their regular duties? Is it done spasmodically? Are they loaned to the Department of National Revenue on occasions when their services are needed? Surely these things should be a matter of simple record.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member for Saskatoon has conveyed an entirely wrong impression both to the house and to the public in reference to the censorship of books that pass through the customs and excise branch. We have within the department people who are capable of making translations, though not in all languages. What the hon. member has referred to had to do particularly with the time we had censorship under the Department of National War Services, of which I was minister for the last year of the war. It was not necessary nor was it economical to retain those people in the service of that department any longer, or to transfer them
Supply-Secretary of State to the Department of National Revenue, because there was not sufficient work to keep them employed full time.
When the hon. member speaks of a customs officer at a port having to take a book to a Greek restaurant proprietor in order to get a translation, that statement is entirely incorrect. It may be done, but not under the instructions of the department. Any books entering at any port of entry today, as to which there is any suspicion that they break the law because of the fact that they are immoral or obscene, are sent to headquarters in Ottawa. If they are in a foreign language they are translated here, either by translators within our own department or by translators who come under the Secretary of State. So it is not done by any haphazard method. The work is done thoroughly; and if these books break the law by reason of the fact that they are immoral or obscene, they are denied entry.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Would I be correct in assuming that ninety per cent of these foreign language books are not examined at all?


James Joseph McCann: You would be entirely
incorrect.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am glad to hear that. Tonight, for the first time in four years, I am getting some information.


James Joseph McCann: Why did you not bring it up under the right department?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have brought it up under the hon. gentleman's estimates with very little success. I do know some books*-


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I
believe the discussion is taking place on the wrong item. The Minister of National Revenue just stated that the censorship of these books is in his department, and there should be some item in his estimates under which the hon. gentleman can discuss this question. The Secretary of State has said that his department does translations for other departments but that he does not know anything about censorship. So I really think the hon. gentleman should discuss this question on another occasion.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I want to make just one last point, as a matter of information rather than a question. The Secretary of State did not have the information, but I can give him the figures for one particular period. At one time in the bureau of translations there were 210 translators, of whom 207 were for French and English, which left a total of three for all the other languages in the world. I do not know whether that is considered a sufficient number to examine the books that are presented for admission, but those are the facts

Supply-Secretary of State that were given to me. The only way I can find out whether or not those facts are true is to ask the minister concerned, and for having done that I offer no apology.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I do not want the Secretary of State to think I am going after him on these estimates, because I know he is new to the department and is only following the procedure that has been laid down. My idea is to warn him that next session we will expect more details in reference to these matters. For instance, in reference to the bureau of translations, at page 255 we see that the salaries amount to $377,970. Directly below that is an item amounting to about seventy per cent of the one I have mentioned, or $251,475, as to which we have no information at all. We are simply asked to vote a blank cheque in this amount. In fairness to this committee I believe that on another occasion, in another year, we should have some explanation of this. We know this item is a wonderful vote catcher for elections, and I notice that this year it is a little larger than usual. However, we shall let that pass for the time being, though in future we shall expect to see more details given, so that we may not be asked to vote blank cheques.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
407. Citizenship branch, $175,855.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the Secretary of State could now give a little more information in reply to some of the questions which were asked a few moments ago. What kind of persons are employed to do this citizenship work? By that I mean what are their qualifications, and in what fields are they qualified? I think we all feel that this is a pretty important phase of governmental activity, but we would like to know what it is all about. I imagine there is a pretty good story here, if the minister could just tell it to us.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is mainly liaison work between the new citizens or immigrants and the provincial authorities, particularly in matters having to do with the subject of education. A great deal of the work is carried on by a voluntary organization known as the citizenship council, which as a matter of fact gets a vote of some $10,000 a year from this parliament. I cannot give much in the way of detail about it other than I have already given.


Mr. Thatcher:: Will the minister state the reason for the heavy increase in this particular item over last year? I believe most of it was caused by printing, stationery and office equipment. Why would it be so much greater this year than the previous year? The item shows an increase from $8,000 to $88,000.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: There is an increase of
approximately $80,000 for printing, stationery and office equipment. That is due to the cost of printing new pamphlets, the preparation of film scripts which are essential for the work of this branch, and so on. Then there was an increase in the number of radio broadcasts which accounts for the balance of the increase.


Frank Exton Lennard: How much for radio
broadcasts.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Five thousand dollars.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Is the minister saying that there was $80,000 more printing this year than there was last year? It seems like a fantastic increase.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That is for printing, stationery and office equipment.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Which is going to be the normal figure in the future, $8,000 or $88,000?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I am afraid I cannot look far into the future, Mr. Chairman. This is a growing country.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: This item has increased ten times in one year. If it is going to increase ten times next year, I suppose it will be $880,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe the minister has his officials before him, and he should be able to give us some more concrete information in reply to the questions.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Why would the printing cost increase ten times in one year? I think that is a reasonable question.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I would draw to the attention of the hon. member that there were
150,000	booklets issued this year, for instance.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: What booklets would be issued this year that were not needed last year?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I am not able to tell the hon. member at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the end of that answer?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That is the end.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I come back to the question I asked a moment ago. It seems to me the house is entitled to know the qualifications of the people who are doing this citizenship work. I am not asking for any names. I do not think it is fair to pull the names of civil servants out on the floor of the house, unnecessarily at any rate. In this branch, there is a director who receives $5,400; an assistant director at $4,980; a citizenship officer, grade IV at $3,600; a citizenship

officer grade II at $2,940; and a citizenship officer grade I at $2,400. What are these people-lawyers, musicians, printers or what?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I do not think there are many expert musicians among them, Mr. Chairman. In so far as I have had association with them, I would judge them to be good citizens, well educated and with a considerable ability for organization. I do not think they do any actual teaching, so I would not regard them as teachers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What do they do?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: They organize.


William Joseph Browne: Is the minister in a position to say whether anything has been done with regard to applicants for citizenship from Newfoundland? As the minister is aware, there are a number of Chinese nationals who have been living there for the past ten years and who have not been able to apply for naturalization. It is necessary for them to apply under the Canadian Citizenship Act now. Some of them are not very familiar with the English language. This particular vote provides the minister with funds to help them obtain citizenship by giving instruction in the responsibility and privileges of Canadian citizenship. I suppose nothing has been done in Newfoundland about that?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: If they have lived in Canada for twenty years they can get their citizenship papers without being able to speak the language adequately. I do not know whether or not the hon. member is referring to that.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I believe I asked a reasonable question of the minister. Why was it necessary this year to spend eleven times more than last year for printing, stationery and office equipment? He may have answered the question, but I did not understand his answer. Was it because Newfoundland came into confederation? Was it because more immigrants came this year? Why did you have to spend eleven times more money?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The hon. gentleman has asked a question which I cannot answer with the meticulous accuracy that he seems to demand, but I shall do the best I can. As I have said, there was an increase of $80,000, $70,000 of which was for printing booklets, some of which may have reached hon. members. One was called "Our Land"; another was "Our History" and still another, "Our Geography", and so on. Those were distributed in large quantities. As a matter of actual fact, I know there was a substantial 45781-141
Supply-Secretary of State quantity sent to Newfoundland and no doubt some of them went to the riding of the member for St. John's West.
An amount of $10,000 was expended for the purpose of educational film scripts. I think that accounts for the $80,000.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Would you explain the purpose of those pamphlets?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: To educate those people who were coming here to be good Canadian citizens. They are newcomers to the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have found out that the people about whom I am asking are organizers, but I should like to know what they organize. I used to be an organizer myself, but I did not get a salary like this. Of course, I was a C.C.F. organizer. I want to know what kind of organizers these fellows are who receive $3,600 and $4,980.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: They are officials of the department who are charged with the duty of endeavouring to teach newcomers to this country how to become good Canadians. One may say they are liaison officers between the immigrants and the officials, particularly the educational officials of the various provinces into which those immigrants might go. These officers try to get the two parties together. They provide educational material of various kinds for them. Those are the duties, and I believe these officials are doing a fine job.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: This is the last time I shall ask the minister about this item. It seems to me that last year there were more immigrants than this year, so why would you need $80,000 more this year.


An hon. Member:: We are teaching them more.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Because we have been asked for more of these educational booklets and we are doing more work.


Mr. Applewhaite:: It would appear from the questions that have been asked during the last few minutes that there is some criticism of the increase in this item. I would suggest that the only criticism which should be made is that, instead of increasing ten times it should have increased twenty or thirty. Hon. members should know that for many years such organizations as the Daughters of the Empire have been urging that we put on something in the nature of a program of citizenship education. Now, economy is all right in its way, but I submit there is little economy in cheeseparing on the education of our new citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say I agree one hundred per cent with what the member has

Supply-Secretary of State said. I hope that, in turn, he will agree with me that we are entitled to have this citizenship program described to us. That is all we are asking for.


Clarence Gillis: I am far from satisfied with the answers that were received from the Secretary of State.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What answers?


Clarence Gillis: On this particular item. The hon. member over on the other side may think that this terrific increase in that particular item is justified. He may know something about it; but the statement he has just made certainly does not give us any more information. It is no trouble to agree with him that an educational program is necessary. But why that terrific jump in one item? The minister stated that three booklets were put out last year: "Our Land," "Our History" and "Our Geography". As a member of this house I have never seen one of them.


Alphonse Fournier: You are a good citizen. You do not need them.


Clarence Gillis: We should like to have a look at them. It may have been propaganda. There was an election last year. I know that when the Department of National Defence, the immigration department or any other department puts out any kind of publication, the members of the house are supplied with it. I know I have never seen one of these particular books. I should like to know why the department was hiding them or sending them out to a select group.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I will send one over to the hon. member.


Clarence Gillis: I should be glad to get one. This is a terrific increase. We are not objecting to it if the minister can justify it; but he has certainly not justified it to date. I know that he is not supposed to have the answers. I do not expect him to have them. But I expect his officials who are in front of him to have the answers. In 1946, 1947 and 1948 we were bringing in to this country about the same number of immigrants as we brought in last year. I think the quota stands at about 120,000 a year. If each year up to 1949 the expenditure of that department was $8,000, why the jump to $88,000 in 1949? The minister also states that there is an item of $5,000 for radio broadcasting. I think that is quite high for that department, which is a fairly small one. An expenditure of ihat kind, without any details given, is in my opinion certainly not in order. The officials of that department should have the answers. How many of these books were sent out? I am not satisfied. I am absolutely unsatisfied
[Mr. Knowles.1
with that answer. There is something the matter with somebody when you cannot get more details than that.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I can say this: 150,000 of these booklets were sent out and there were nine broadcasts of a half hour each across Canada.


Clarence Gillis: What was the subject of those broadcasts?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: All on citizenship.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent and copyright office-
409. Patent division, $488,805.
Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Will the minister tell us what the reason is for the big increase in this department? There is an increase of $99,000. Will he explain the reason for that?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That is the cost of printing patents.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: What does	the minister
mean?	Does he	mean	that it	costs	$99,000
more this year than last year for that?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: How	many	more	patents
were issued?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister going te answer the question?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I did not get the question. What is it?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: How	many	more	patents
were issued? You say this amount is for printing patents.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is not the number of patents that were issued. We have started printing these patents, and that was the cost of this printing.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Formerly you did not print them?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: They were not printed before.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If this large increase of $100,000, in round figures, is attributable to the printing of patents-something that was recommended two years ago by the committee on banking and commerce-there must be some offsetting revenue. I presume there will be some small revenue from the printing of these patents; it may not be all outlay.
While we are speaking of this subject of the patent and copyright office, I think the minister ought to give the committee some statement with regard to the progress the office is making in reduction of the backlog. As hon. members will recall, this has been a standing reproach for some time; it is not attributable to the present staff or to the

commissioner but to the lack of adequate personnel in times past and, up until this past year, lack of adequate accommodation. I think this committee would receive with a great deal of interest a statement from the minister indicating, now that more suitable and adequate accommodation has been provided and we hope some adequate increase in the personnel available for examination of patent applications, that some really substantial progress is being made in the reduction of that big backlog of patent applications.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Every endeavour is being made to improve conditions. But it must be remembered that the patent office has been labouring under considerable difficulties. In the first place, the war took a good deal of the staff. In the second place, it takes some time to train staff for the patent office, particularly in the department of the examiners. Then we have to get in additional machinery to handle the ever-increasing volume of applications that are coming in to the department. We are doing the best we can. I imagine that in the near future the costs of the department are going to increase and that the revenues will increase also. Did someone ask the revenue for last year, and if there was any offset? The answer is yes, $625,450.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What the minister has said is rather old stuff to those who were in the last house. I think the minister ought to be in a position to give us some figures about the reduction of the backlog. Surely he has some figures of the number of patent applications outstanding, we will say, two years ago, one year ago and now, which he could give to the committee, so that it will have some opportunity of satisfying itself as to whether some reduction is being made in that large backlog.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the minister answer the question? I asked the minister a question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I know; but before he answers, I have a question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I understand the minister will now give an answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Eglinton.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: There is a substantial backlog. The difficulty in catching up with that backlog is that, though we are getting ahead faster, we have more to handle because the number of applications is increasing con-45781-141*
Supply-Secretary of State tinually. As a matter of fact, we have to put in more linotype machines over there, and it is going to take some time for us to catch up with the backlog. But there is an ever-rolling stream coming in; that is the difficulty.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister the figures?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I cannot say that I have, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eleven o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not until we get those figures.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow at eleven o'clock we will continue the discussion of Bill No. 144, to amend the Combines Investigation Act. We hope to conclude that in the early hours, and then take up the following bills:
Bill No. 145, respecting the acquisition of the Temiscouata railway; Bill No. 146, to authorize the granting of a subsidy to the government of the province of British Columbia in aid of the construction of an extension to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway; then another, Bill No. 12, to establish the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation; and another small bill, of only one section, Bill No. 174, to amend the Pension Fund Societies Act.
When these bills have been concluded or passed we shall take up estimates, continuing with the Department of the Secretary of State, and then proceeding to mines and resources, justice and labour.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: All in one day?


Alphonse Fournier: I think so.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Demobilization and reconversion-
250. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $547,497,388, including authority, notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $401,942,006, and commitments for future years of $145,555,382, against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1949-50 will not exceed $339,442,006.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Defence
251. Defence research and development, subject to allocation by the treasury board, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $24,439,660, including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $21,679,660 and commitments for future years of $2,760,000 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditure in 1949-50 will not exceed $21,179,660.
Pensions and other benefits-
827.	To authorize the governor in council to increase the pension granted to Captain Joseph McNaught MacCallum under the Militia Pension Act effective August 2, 1947, by including for purposes of calculation of his pension the amount of dependents allowance that would have been paid to his wife had she not been a member of the Canadian Women's Army Corps during the period June 30. 1944, to December 6, 1945, $1.
828.	To authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British Commonwealth air training plan who were killed, payment to their dependents of amounts equal to the amounts such dependents would have received under the Pension Act as amended had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of
Canada, less than the value of any benefits received by such dependents under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organizations, $6,690.
Demobilization and reconversion-
829.	To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services, and to authorize total additional commitments for this purpose of $14,991,500, including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act to make commitments for the current year of $6,661,500 and commitments for future years of $8,330,000 against which additional commitments it is estimated that actual additional expenditures in 1949-50 will not exceed a further amount of $4,778,000.
830.	Defence research and development, subject to allocation by the treasury board-further amount required, $3,133,900.
831.	To authorize, notwithstanding the provisions of the Army Benevolent Fund Act, and the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, release of $16,415.13 held by the president of the regimental funds board, on behalf of certain non-permanent active militia and reserve units which were not placed on active service during world war II, to the governor in council for such distribution as he may determine, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Friday. November 25, 1949