1949-04-06

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Breithaupt.
First report of standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. MacLean.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I desire to table order in council P.C. 1454, dated April 1, 1949, entrusting the Newfoundland railway service to the Canadian National Railways, in accordance with subsection 2 of section 19 of the Canadian National Railways Act.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Have the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association, the Nova Scotia Apple Marketing Board, the Nova Scotia government, any department of the Nova Scotia government, any representative group or individuals made representations to the government, during the present year, for assistance in connection with the Nova Scotia apple industry?
2.	If so, did those making representations state that they were satisfied with the assistance given during the past several years?
3.	What assistance, if any, was given in the following periods (a) 1930 to 1935: (b) 1935 to 1940: (c) 1940 to 1945; (d) 1946; (e) 1947; (f) 1948?
4.	What are the names of organizations or individuals making representations during 1948 and 1949?
5.	Has the government, as yet, made a decision in this matter?
6.	If so, what is the decision?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The question was not discussed in connection with representations made respecting aid in marketing the 1949 crop, but the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association, at its annual meeting on December 14-16, 1948, expressed appreciation of aid given by the dominion government.
3.	(a) 1930 to 1935, none.
(b)	1935 to 1938, none; 1939, $2,360,660; 1940, $951,290.
(c)	1941, $1,403,061; 1942, $2,044,507; 1943, $1,785,445; 1944, $1,213,739; 1945, $92,173.
(d)	1946, $892,558.
(e)	1947, $3,292,059.
(f)	1948, incomplete.
4.	Nova Scotia Apple Marketing Board Limited, Kentville, N.S.; Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture, Halifax, N.S.; Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association, Kentville, N.S.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.



SHEET HARBOUR-SHERBROOKE, N.S., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. Low:: 1.	Has the mail contract between Sheet harbour and Sherbrooke, Nova Scotia, been up for tender recently?
2.	If so, how many tenders were submitted?
3.	What was the name of each tenderer and the amount in each case?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded?
5.	Who had the previous contract for this route and for what amount?


Mr. Berirand (Laurier):: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. Five tenders were received, as follows: Theodore L. Ogilvie, Sheet harbour, $3,300; R. H. MacKinlay, Sherbrooke, $3,755; John S. Cameron, Sheet harbour, $3,756; A. L. Fraser, Sherbrooke, $3,900; J. E. Fraser, Sherbrooke, $4,696.
4.	Contract awarded to Theodore L. Ogilvie.
5.	Previous contract was with J. Edwin Fraser for $3,939.99 per annum, plus a mail contract supplement of $1,260.01 per annum.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Merritt:: How many civilian committees for the support of each of the reserve forces have been set up, and in what areas are they located?


Mr. Baker:: There are numerous committees established in connection with units in the armed services.
The following are "civilian committees" to co-operate with regard to matters of recruiting, etc.: Naval reserves, none; air force
2380

Questions
reserves, none; army reserves, 67 located as follows:
Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, Prince Albert, Weyburn, Swift Current.
British Columbia: Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Courtenay, Cranbrook, Duncan, Kamloops, Kelowna, Kimberley, Nanaimo, Nelson, Alberni, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Revel-stoke, Salmon Arm, Trail, Vernon.
Alberta: Edmonton, Calgary, Banff, Bas-sano, Blackie, Brooks, Crowsnest Pass, Drum-heller, Gleichen, Grande Prairie, Innisfail, Lethbridge, Macleod, Medicine Hat, Olds, Pincher Creek, Ponoka, Redcliff, Red Deer, Stettler, Vegreville, Vermilion, Vulcan, Wetaskiwin.
Nova Scotia: Sydney, Kentville, Yarmouth.
Prince Edward Island: Charlottetown.
New Brunswick: Fredericton, Edmundston.
Ontario: St. Catharines, Toronto, Wingham, Walkerton, Listowel, Windsor, Sarnia, Chatham, Woodstock, Kitchener, Galt, Guelph, Stratford, Ingersoll, Tillsonbure, St. Mary's.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the total number of persons employed by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	Of these, how many are eligible to contribute to a supplementary pension?
3.	Apart from the 40,752 contributing to supplementary pensions, how many Canadian National Railways employees upon retirement will qualify, according to their present status, for noncontributory service pensions?
4.	Is the basic pension of $25 per month available to all employees, and if so, on what conditions?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	On Canadian lines at December 31, 1948, 102,163.
2.	All except temporary employees and those who commenced after age fifty-five and those who are now contributing to other railway pension funds, viz: 5,462 contributors to Intercolonial provident fund and 23 contributors to Grand Trunk Railway superannuation fund.
3. Service pensions	are payable to employees who entered the service before attaining age fifty who at December 31, 1934, had at least ten years allowable service and at age sixty-five have at least fifteen years allowable service. It is not possible to say how many employees will meet these requirements.
4.	Basic pensions are payable to (a) employees who entered the service before December 31, 1934, who had less than ten years allowable service at that date, and who have at least fifteen years allowable service at age sixty-five; (b) employees who entered the service after December 31, 1934,

at not over age forty-five, and who at age sixty-five have at least twenty years allowable service.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-&quot;TRANS-CANADA SUPPLEMENTARY&quot; STATION

Mr. Benidickson:: What are the general privileges of, and liabilities to, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of a radio station listed as "supplementary" on the map attached to the annual report of the C.B.C. for 1947-48?


Mr. McCann:: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation classifies supplementary stations on the trans-Canada network in two groups as follows: Group A: Unrestricted trans-Canada sustaining service available to these stations, which may also be added for commercial network programs upon request of the sponsor.
Group B: No sustaining service available to these stations but they may be added to trans-Canada commercial network programs upon request of the sponsor and for broadcasts of national importance.
Similar provisions apply to supplementary stations on the dominion network and French network.



ALVIN BUILDING, VANCOUVER, B.C.

Mr. Green:: 1.	Has the government purchased property in the city of Vancouver known as the Alvin building and situate on Robson street in that city.
2.	If so, from whom and at what price?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



FLOUR SUBSIDIES

Mr. Caouette:: 1.	What amount was paid as flour subsidies in each of the years, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948?
2.	To whom were such subsidies paid and what amount in each case?


Mr. Belzile:: Net Payments of Drawbacks 1-	to Flour Millers
Fiscal Years
August 1,	1942, to	Amounts
March 31, 1943	$ 1,908,844.72
"	31,	1944	
18,048,172.02"	31,	1945	
20,652,269.99"	31,	1946	
21,470,818.67"	31,	1947	
23,594,953.20"	31,	1948	
22,789,689.33
Rebate of drawbacks received under profit control from Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, August 1, 1943 to July 31, 1947, $9,393,164.87.

2.	Persons to whom drawbacks were paid are shown in public accounts on the following pages: 1943, page Y 26; 1944, pages CC 50-51; 1945, page F 53; 1946, page F 34; 1947, pages F 42-43; 1948, pages F 22-23.



SALES TAX

Mr. Shaw:: 1.	Under existing dominion-provincial tax agreements, are the provinces of Canada permitted to impose sales taxes?
2.	If so, how many provinces impose sales taxes?
3.	Which provinces impose the sales taxes and what is the rate of tax in each such province?
4.	What was the total amount collected by each province in sales taxes for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1948?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	The existing dominion-provincial tax agreements do not deal with sales taxes.
2.	Three provinces levy a retail sales tax.
3.	The province of Quebec levies a tax upon retail sales of movable property equal to 2 per cent of the purchase price.
The province of Saskatchewan levies a tax upon retail sales of tangible personal property equal to 2 per cent of the purchase price.
The province of British Columbia levies a tax upon retail sales of tangible personal property equal to 3 per cent of the purchase price.
4.	According to the public accounts of the provinces concerned net collections were:
Quebec, $24,333,524.99; Saskatchewan, $6,190,298.30; British Columbia, nil (tax not in operation until July 1, 1948).



POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. McGregor:: 1.	What is the established basis upon which service as a helper, or assistant postmaster is taken into consideration when reclassifications, or salary adjustments, are made in a post office?
2.	Is remuneration, for services for night work in a revenue post office, on the same basis as day services for comparable work?


Mr. Bertrand (Laurier):: 1.	When the approved scale of salaries for assistants in post offices paid from revenue was placed in effect, rates within the scale for individuals were determined basically upon what the employee had been paid prior to the change.
2.	Yes.



REVISION OF THE STATUTES

Mr. McKay:: 1.	Is revision of the index and tables of the Revised Statutes of Canada now being completed?
2.	If so, is consideration being given to indexing amendments as to chapter and section?
29087-151J
Questions


Mr. Garson:: 1.	The work on the revision of the statutes, which includes index and tables, commenced about February 15, 1949.
2.	The statute revision commission will revise and complete index schedules and tables in due course.



NATIONAL HEALTH


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare investigated the possibility of requiring that ipecac be compounded with barbiturates or sleeping pills, so as to lessen the danger in the taking of said barbiturates?
2.	If so, what is the result of such investigation?
3.	If not, will the matter be investigated?
4.	Can the compounding of ipecac with barbiturates be required by the making of regulations by Department of National Health and Welfare?


Mr. Reid:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act prohibit the sale to the general public of barbiturates, except on individual prescription by a duly qualified physician or dentist. The compulsory addition of ipecac to barbiturates would constitute an interference with medical practice and should be left to the physician to prescribe where, in his opinion, it is safe and desirable to do so.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	No. Authority to prescribe a standard of quality for barbiturates would not include the compulsory addition of another drug and, with barbiturates sold only on medical prescription, the addition of ipecac could not be superimposed as a condition of sale.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Green:: 1.	What property in the city of Vancouver is rented to the government?
2.	From whom is such property rented?
3.	What are the rentals paid for such property?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Fraser:: For a copy of all correspondence entered into between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regarding an investigation carried on by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in respect to improper disposal and sale of materials belonging to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and their contractors on projects 14 and 15, St. Catharines.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Garson: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the uniform practice for many years, in connection with investigations and reports of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in matters of this sort, has been that the report made by the mounted police is privileged; and I think the same privilege should be accorded the communications with the mounted police on this occasion.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have been unable to get the information I desire from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I thought I should be able to get it from the police.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Winters:: A question bearing on this subject was placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Peterborough West some time ago, and my recollection is that on March 21 it was answered quite fully.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In that answer it was stated that the person in question could take the matter up with the mounted police at Niagara Falls. The person has taken it up with the mounted police, and that is the report I want, but I have not been able to get it.


Some hon. Members:: Dropped.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: It is against the rules to permit a debate on this motion. If the hon. member does not agree that the notice of motion should be dropped I shall be obliged to put the question to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Dropped.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


Mr. George Black (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw attention to the fact that on March 14 a motion for the production of papers was passed, concerning information which it should not have taken more than two days to prepare, because it is all available here in Ottawa. As yet, however, that return has not been brought down.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. Kidd (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in reference to

the veterans who are at present attending university, and the recommendations made by the national council of student veterans. When can the veterans at present attending university expect an announcement in regard to their application for assistance? This has further reference to a question I directed to the minister on March 17, which appears at page 1560 of Hansard.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question, and my statement will answer the question of today as well as the previous one to which he has referred.
Recently the executive of the national council of student veterans came to Ottawa and presented a brief which contained a number of recommendations. I have replied to this brief, and have attempted to cover all the points raised by the council, one of which was a suggestion that the government authorize an increase in the basic rate of the monthly training allowance. I have stated in my reply to the council that it is not the intention of the government to authorize any further increase at this time.



COMMUNISM

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimor-ency):: Following the filibuster against Bill No. 3, to amend the criminal code, which has prevented its being considered in committee,
I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Justice. Is it the intention of the government to present any legislative measures as a means of dealing effectively with communism?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Government policy in this regard will be announced in due course.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: In view of press reports concerning statements made in Toronto yesterday by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply with respect to further assistance for housing, will the minister indicate precisely what plans are in mind, and whether they will involve any change in the present legislation?


Robert Henry Winters: That is a matter of government policy, Mr. Speaker, and if and when such changes are made they will be announced.



FORECLOSURES IN CALGARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: On March 31 the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) asked a question in connection with the Bow River Construction Company: whether the cash payments which have been made will be returned to the persons concerned. The answer is that it is the intention of the joint mortgagees to refund the down payment made by any purchaser of an unfinished house on which foreclosure action is taken, if a refund is requested.

The house resumed from Tuesday, April 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply.



NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, at the time it was my privilege to move the adjournment of this debate last evening we had seen the discussion of a very important question, namely the matter of health insurance, turned into a political argument about what went on at the dominion-provincial conference of 1945-46. Again last night we heard the argument as to who broke up that conference and on whose shoulders rests responsibility for the failure of anything to come out of it. I want to say that I am convinced the people of this country are fed up with two things in particular. On the one hand they are fed up with the Progressive Conservatives-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The people of this country are fed up with the Tories blaming the government for the failure of the dominion-provincial conference, when most people think that the blame does rest upon the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. On the other hand the people of this country are fed up with the Liberals for using the failure of that conference as an excuse for not doing the things they proposed to the country in 1945. In fact the feeling is growing throughout Canada that the government was actually glad the Tories made that conference abortive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear Liberal approval of that statement; the truth will out. In the name of the people I say, "a plague on both your houses." Then last night we had the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) from his side of the house still talking about the constitutional problem and accepting that as a barrier to the kind of progress in matters of health my leader
National Health Insurance was asking for. On the other hand, too many Tory statements are still being made in public which cause the country to wonder just how enthusiastic the Progressive Conservatives are in regard to measures such as health insurance and over-all social security.
In this connection I hold in my hand a clipping from the Stratford Beacon-Herald of April 2, 1949, which was Saturday of last week. It seems that last Friday night, April 1, a banquet was held in Stratford in honour of one Mr. E. J. Smith, president of the Whyte Packing Company. Mr. J. S. McLean, president of Canada Packers Limited, was present and donated a gold watch to Mr. Smith. The speaker of the evening was none other than Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. In that distinguished company, where it was quite safe to attack the alleged evils of socialism, Mr. Meighen did just that. I wish to quote a few sentences from the newspaper report of the proceedings at that banquet:
Making a strong attack on the "evils of socialism," Mr. Meighen said the virus of social security had penetrated to a greater or less degree into all Canadian political parties and would lead to eventual destruction of the world as we know it. The speaker-
That is, Mr. Arthur Meighen-
-termed himself a champion of free enterprise,-
He is a real Tory.
-and a sworn foe of socialism.
I ask his fellow Tories to listen to this:
He said that the unfortunates of the world should be helped through charity, but should not be granted the legal right to assistance.


Mr. Sinclair:: A real Progressive Conservative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: These words were uttered not in 1849, but on April 1, 1949. The report continues:
The present measures for social security, he alleged, are eating into the vitals of society and tend to induce decay of morale.
Mr. Meighen drew what he called a parallel between the present cry for social security and the "bread and circuses" that preceded the decline and fall of the Roman empire.


John Ewen Sinclair: Another Tory government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, last night during the course of this debate the Minister of National Health and Welfare attempted to reply to the appeal that was made in the afternoon by the leader of this group for some forward steps in the matter of health insurance. I do not wish to detract by one iota from all that has been done by this government and the various provincial governments in seeking to advance the cause of public health. But after you have summed it all up and given it to the house and the country with the greatest amount of fanfare you can, even the Minister of National Health

National Health Insurance and Welfare, when he reflects upon it-as he likes to suggest to the rest of us-will admit that the amount of money spent is only a fleabite as compared with the needs of the country or with the amount of money the government spends on various public matters.
I point out also that in addition to the inadequacy of the amount of money now being spent on health, there is still nothing being done with respect to health insurance, or in other words with the problem of helping to pay for the medical expenses of our people. This was the question my leader raised yesterday when the motion was made for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair. I find, for example, that the estimates this year provide for only a minor increase in the amount for health insurance studies. Last year it was $43,987, and this year it is but $56,451. I find also that the total health grants last year were $29,885,000, and this year they amount to $30,790,000, which is really no increase at all. I submit that my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), was perfectly right in saying that, in effect, a retreat is taking place compared with the hope and enthusiasm with which this house and the country greeted the announcement of the Prime Minister in May of last year.
Lest the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the other members of the government think our criticism of the government for its delay is just the carping criticism of political opponents, may I call the attention of the government to an analysis of the situation recently made by Dr. Harry M. Cassidy, director of the school of social work at the university of Toronto. The minister will admit that Dr. Cassidy is an authority on this matter. Recently he contributed an article to the twenty-fifth anniversary edition of Canadian Welfare, entitled "Partnership Possibilities".
In this article Dr. Cassidy points out that there is a broad agreement in Canada that health insurance and an over-all social security program should be instituted. He admits that a difficulty arises out of the controversy between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec on the one hand and the dominion .government on the other, dating back to the dominion-provincial conference of 1945-46. There is no doubt as to the acuteness of that controversy; for it is still being carried on here on the floor of the house, and is still being used as the reason why progress is not being made. Dr. Cassidy says, however, that it begins to look as if the offer made in 1945 was in the nature of an appeal to the people of Canada that could be used as bait to try to persuade (a) the provinces to sign the required

tax agreements, and (b) the people of Canada to keep voting for the Liberal party.
This is what Dr. Cassidy says:
Moreover, it has been argued, the social security portion of the 1945 plan was attractive to the people of all Canada. It was, therefore, bait to lure the dissenting provinces to swallow the less popular tax provisions. Hence it would be politically unwise for the dominion to give up the bargaining powers implicit in its social security offer by proceeding to make it available to those provinces which did not accept the tax proposals as well as those which did.
Continuing from that point, Dr. Cassidy deals with the obstacles to which reference has been made in public discussions on this question of health insurance and an over-all social insurance program. In the main, he finds that there are four obstacles, and he deals with them briefly. I shall do likewise, pointing to the key sentences in each of Professor Cassidy's sections.
In the first place, he finds that health and other welfare services were originally regarded as provincial responsibilities, and that it is regarded by some as a new idea to have that cost transferred to federal shoulders. But Dr. Cassidy points out that this kind of shift has been taking place throughout the years; perhaps it has been imperceptible, but it is none the less real. He says, for example, that in 1913 the federal share of all the money being spent by the three levels of government on health and welfare was only 17-4 per cent. By 1940 it had risen to 36-2 per cent, and by 1947 to 76 per cent. This includes all the various forms of health and welfare expenditures in which the various governments are involved. Whatever the constitutional division may be, the fact is that the federal government is now paying the lion's share of the money that is being spent on health and welfare. Dr. Cassidy says that that trend should be pursued.
The next argument with which he deals is the argument we hear so often about the written constitution. He says, in effect, that the written constitution is much less of a barrier than is sometimes claimed. He puts it this way:
Everything else-
That is, everything else but actual contributory insurance.
-proposed by the council as appropriate for the dominion-
That is, the Canadian welfare council.
-as appropriate for the dominion could be done, quite legally, by means of grants-in-aid or other co-operative devices, with administration largely decentralized to the provinces.
He goes on:
Admittedly the barrier gainst the desirable social insurance legislation is very important. But this is one which might well be removed by constitutional

amendment, just as was done in the case of unemployment insurance in 1940. There is good reason to believe that all of the provinces except Quebec would not object to such an amendment to the B.N.A. Act; and that perhaps Quebec, too, would agree if the issue were diplomatically posed. At the least, the provinces should be asked their views on such an amendment before hope of it is given up.
An authority such as Dr. Cassidy suggests that the provinces should be asked for their views on an amendment to the British North America Act for this purpose; yet when I asked the Prime Minister the same question the other day, his answer, as it appears at page 1302 of Hansard, was to the effect that the government was given a negative answer back in 1945-46 and was not going to put the question to those same provinces again. That is indeed a strange attitude to take.
The third point made by Dr. Cassidy is that something could be done to work out a complete pattern of health insurance and social security within the framework of the constitution, making it available to those provinces that wish to accept it. I quote from Dr. Cassidy's article as follows:
The dominion plan of 1945 called for no constitutional change whatsoever, although it was open to a variety of objections. But it is very probable that a better scheme than the federal plan of 1945 can be worked out within the limits of the present constitution.
I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to consider an authoritative judgment such as this. To continue:
For example, the dominion might pass contributory social insurance legislation to become effective only in those provinces which adopt enabling legislation-with provisions for complete dominion administration, for provincial administration, or for co-operative administration. In this case the legislation would become effective across the country as rapidly as the various provinces agreed to take advantage of it, as happened in the case of old age pensions. Much more ingenuity is needed at Ottawa to explore what can be done within the terms of the B.N.A. Act.
That is what the people of this country are asking for-not that the two old parties carry on a running battle in this house as to how little they can do within the constitution, but that they use a little ingenuity to see what can be done within the framework of that constitution to meet the needs of the people of this country.
I come now to the final argument.


Mr. Martin:: Would my hon. friend be interested in knowing that Dr. Cassidy, to whom he has made reference, was in continuous consultation, if I may say so, with me and the department on this very question? Only last week he and I discussed this and other matters in a friendly way. He and I are not far at variance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the Minister of National Health and Welfare and Dr. Cassidy are not
National Health Insurance far at variance, and since these are Dr. Cassidy's ideas that I am giving, he must agree with him in these arguments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your interpretation is different.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says he does not like my interpretation, but what I have been saying over the last ten or fifteen minutes has been largely by way of direct quotations from Dr. Cassidy's article.
I come now to the fourth and final barrier that Dr. Cassidy finds standing in the way of progress in the matter of health insurance and over-all social security. He says that the final barrier seems to be a political one, and points out that:
. . . the political arguments against unilateral action by the dominion on social security seem to the writer-
That is my hon. friend's friend, Dr. Cassidy. -to have been given far more weight in Ottawa circles than they deserve. One of them, that the dominion should not surrender a bargaining point to use against the province in connection with taxation issues, has been disregarded already by the decision to offer the health grants in 1948. The other main one, that the dominion cannot risk heavy commitments towards social security without certainty of tax revenues and provincial co-operation on anti-depression policy, is understandable, but surely open to question. For if depression strikes again, will the provinces not look to Ottawa for fiscal assistance and leadership, as they did in the nineteen-thirties?
Shades of those days!
And will they not generally welcome public investment and other anti-depression schemes which only the dominion can properly initiate and co-ordinate? Finally, why should the dominion not take some risk on social security finances, when there are many other elements of risk in the total financial policy which cannot possibly be avoided by present policies?
Dr. Cassidy goes on to say this-and here is the crux of the matter as we in this group see it and as many people in the country see it:
The conclusion emerges that the dominion-provincial relations controversy-
Even the controversy we have on the floor of this house.
-is far less of a barrier to national social security policy than is commonly supposed. The difficulty is fundamentally political rather than constitutional.


An hon. Member:: Does the minister agree with that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; the minister agrees that the difficulty is fundamentally political rather than constitutional.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But the constitutional difficulty is still there; and the reason it is still there is as a result of political factors.

National Health Insurance


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right. Now that the minister has agreed with that statement by Dr. Cassidy, that the fundamental problem is political rather than constitutional, there comes this next sentence-and I presume the minister will agree with it as well:
A dominion government which was firmly committed to prompt action on social security could almost certainly do much to achieve results.
Dr. Cassidy goes on to point out that in fact what the dominion government is doing is using its proposals for health insurance and social security as bait on two counts: trying on the one hand to lure the provinces into signing tax agreements, and trying on the other hand to lure the people of Canada to keep on voting Liberal. But the bait has not worked throughout the country with respect to the one point, and some of us doubt whether it will work with respect to the other either. Dr. Cassidy goes on to say:
it-
The government.
-could proceed immediately, for example, to build a national program of public assistance and public medical care and to deal with the transient problem by means of conditional grants-in-aid. It could explore carefully, as has not yet been done-
I have said that and complained about it, but this is Dr. Cassidy complaining about it.
It could explore carefully, as has not yet been done, the problem of constitutional amendment for contributory social insurance.
So he goes on; and having shown that the problem is fundamentally political rather than constitutional, his concluding paragraph is an appeal to the government to separate these matters one from the other and to deal with one thing at a time. He says that if you tie the whole field of social security into an argument over the fiscal responsibilities of the dominion and the provinces, and if you tie it in with the whole question of dominion-provincial relations, you will never get anywhere. All of us in this house or those looking upon this house know that to be a fact. We have had, ever since this session opened, constant warfare between the two old parties, mixing these things all together. Dr. Cassidy says that one should be taken at a time. A government or party firmly committed to prompt action could separate the question of health insurance and social security from dominion-provincial relations, from fiscal responsibility and these other legal matters, and thus give a lead to the people and get something done.
Last night the minister said something about not wanting to get ahead of the wishes and desires of the people. The people want over-all social security and health insurance; and they want, not the kind of government

that comes along thirty years behind, but a government that gives them a lead. I appeal to the government, in the terms of the treatise on this subject by Dr. Cassidy, that they lose no more time but give a lead and get something done about these important matters of health insurance and over-all social security.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Pensions and other benefits-
604. Militia Pension Act-government's contribution to the permanent forces pension fund-further amount required, $3,894,493.
Mr. Drew:: Is it not item 605?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Item 604 stood.


The Deputy Chairman:: Item 604 stood until we could get further information. We shall deal with it now.


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: When item 604 was previously under consideration the hon. member for Nanaimo asked how many men were discharged on pension after July 1, 1948. The answer is that under parts I to IV of the Militia Pension Act 83 were discharged, and under part V, 29, making a total of 112.
The hon. member for Regina City asked what is the total annual payment by government and number of personnel covered thereby. The answer is that in the main estimates for 1948-49 the payment by the government into the fund was $4,109,109, and the number of personnel covered by that amount was 39,165, all covered in part V.
The hon. member for York South asked a question which appears on page 2315 of Hansard, in which he said he suggested that there were large increases in civilian pay as compared with service pay. The services had approximately the same increases in pay as. civilians.
The hon. member also asked a question about the increase in personnel from January 1, 1948, to December 31, 1948. The number has already been given in an answer to a question in the house on March 30, 1949. I can repeat the figures if the hon. gentleman wants them here.
Strength as at March 31, 1948:
Officers	Other ranks	TotalNavy 	1,064	5,796	6,860Army 	2,299	13,586	15,885Air force 	2,076	9,941	12,017Total for the three services	5,439	29,323	34,762.
Strength as at February 28, 1949:
Officers	Other ranks	TotalNavy 	1,138	6,843	7,981Army 	2,521	16,002	18,523Air force 	2,698	11,609	14,307Total for the	three services	6,357	34,454	Grand total	40,811Increase from	March 31,	1948, to February	28, 1949:	Officers	Other ranks	TotalNavy 	74	1,047	1,121Army 	222	2,416	2,638Air force 	622	1,668	2,290Total increase for the three	services ....	918	5,131	Grand total	6,049


Mr. Cockeram:: Can the		minister	give us
the increase in the civilian employees in these three services?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. At March 31, 1948, the total of civilian employees was 20,171. At February 28,	1949, the total number of
civilian employees was 20,279, so that the increase was 108.
I should add that the civilian employees may be divided under headings: At February 28, 1949, of classified civil servants, which will be understood to include a good number of caretakers and others of that class, there were approximately 8,500. Of employees engaged at prevailing rates on the same basis as civilian industry, such as those in the dockyards or in the workshops, there were approximately 8,400. Of those engaged on construction, there were approximately 1,800, and of those engaged in covering military vacancies-that is doing work which might be done by a civilian, a sailor, a soldier, or an airman, approximately 1,500.


Mr. Pearkes:: In his answer the parliamentary assistant explained this item in these words: "This amount in item 604 is explained by the fact that the government used to pay one for one, and is now paying one and two-thirds as against one." I presume that means the proportion which the government is contributing toward this pension fund. Does that apply to pension paid under parts IV and V, or is there some change which has made it necessary to bring in this additional amount?


Brooke Claxton: This is a change brought about this year; it results from a review from the actuarial point of view of the actuarial basis of the pension fund. The
Supply-National Defence item of $3,894,493 is divided into two items, the additional amount to meet estimated actuarial requirements-that is, two-thirds of the amount of $4,109,109 as provided in the main estimates for 1948-49, based on 5,647 officers and 28,366 other ranks, a total concerned of 34,013. But a further amount is required, arising from increased strength, increased pay and allowances and adjustments of arrears, of $1,555,087, making up the total of $3,894,493 to which I have just referred, and which is sought in this supplementary estimate; with the amount provided for in the main estimates of $4,109,109, it makes a total payment of $8,003,602 by the government to the fund in respect of the year 1948-49.
I should add that with this ratio of payment under which, instead of paying one for one to officers and men the government pays one and two-thirds, it means that there is a ratio of five to three. That is, the pension fund, roughly speaking, is made up of a six per cent contribution from the pay of officers and men and a ten per cent contribution by the government out of the consolidated revenue fund, or out of this vote. I should add that I do not know of any pension plan which is more generous than this.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could the minister give the date on which that change was made?


Brooke Claxton: The change was made by P.C. 72-1931, dated April 30, 1948.


Mr. Hackett:: When did it become effective?


Brooke Claxton: The amounts due have been accumulated, that is, entered from then to this date. But it will require the vote which we seek under this supplementary to supply the fund with this additional sum of money.


John Thomas Hackett: But have the funds been paid out? That is the question.


Brooke Claxton: This is an insurance fund, in exactly the same way as employees under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, or the employees under any pension plan, or, indeed the insured under any plan of pension insurance, including endowment and the like, pay into a fund so that the fund will be able to meet future contingencies. That contingency potentially exists in respect of the 39,165 officers and men who were contributing to the fund as at February 28, 1949, under part V of the Militia Pension Act.


John Thomas Hackett: May I have an answer to my question? I am aware of the fund and of the method followed. Have these additional amounts been paid into that fund?

Supply-National Defence Mr. Claxlon: No; they cannot be paid until the money is voted by parliament. That is why we are asking for this item.


John Thomas Hackett: But the unusual aspect of these estimates is that to a great extent they represent moneys which have already been paid, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance. I am trying to ascertain whether in the instance under discussion the moneys have been paid into the fund or pool.


Brooke Claxton: These funds have not been paid to the pensioners.


Mr.   Hackeil@: Of course not; they have not been paid to the pensioners. But have they been paid into the pool or fund?


William Henry Golding: Order. There are two members talking at once.


Brooke Claxton: I think I have answered that once or twice before by saying no, they have not been. Otherwise we would not come to parliament to seek that payment.


Mr. Probe:: Is a considerable portion of this $3,800,000 odd of a non-recurring nature to bring the fund into balance with the order in council? Further, do I understand that the rate at which pension deductions are made to the fund from service pay is six per cent?


Brooke Claxton: Not in all cases, but it can be taken at six per cent as the general rate. This would be a recurring expenditure.


Alan Cockeram: The minister referred to an increase of 108 in civilian personnel of the three services in the last financial year; is that correct?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Alan Cockeram: I had pointed out that during the year there was an increase of $12,682,477 in civilian pay. It does not seem that the minister has given the correct figure.


Brooke Claxton: There has been a considerable increase in the pay and allowances of service personnel, which increased by over 6,000 during the year.


Alan Cockeram: I am not speaking about service personnel. I was referring to civilian personnel.


Brooke Claxton: That increase is due to the additional 108 personnel.


Alan Cockeram: This $12 million?


Brooke Claxton: Also by the very considerable increase in civil salaries for which provision was made from October 1, 1948.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
605. To provide for additional expenditures against the authorized commitment program in connection
[Stage Direction]

with the orderly establishment and organization oi the defence forces of the navy, army and air services on a peacetime basis, and to authorize furthei commitments for future years of $11,708,000-furthei amount required, $19,622,583.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, when this item was before the house the day before yesterday the discussion was directed to certain aircraft which are part of the equipment of the Royal Canadian Air Force. It will be recalled by hon. members who were present at the time, or who have read the Hansard record of it, that reference was made to the North Star transport aircraft which are in the possession of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Discussing that subject I pointed out that of the twenty odd North Stars which are in the possession of the Royal Canadian Air Force, about half are not being used in military service. I referred to the fact that these were not merely being held out of service by way of reserve; and following my earlier comments I used these words, which I quote from Hansard:
They are being stored in a partly dismantled state with no suggestion at all, from the condition in which they now are, that there is any intention of using them.
Those are the things that members of the house should know. Millions of dollars of public funds are tied up in these North Star transports which are immobilized, partly dismantled, and with every appearance that the intention is to inhibit them, to use the technical term employed by the air force, and that the intention is not to use them for actual service. After all, these machines are part of the equipment which has been supplied, and about which this house has a right to know a good deal in detail, first as to why they are in storage now, secondly as to why they are partly dismantled, and thirdly as to what the future intentions are as to these stored machines, if any.
The Minister of National Defence, referring to my remarks with some measure of indignation, left the impression that I had conveyed an inaccurate picture of what the situation is. He used these words in reference to the statement I had made just before: The hon. member said something about the aircraft situation in Canada and suggested that North Stars were being inhibited, stored and dismantled. Perhaps I have not the order of his words correct, but I have the three words he used. I can assure him that not one of those three words is accurate in any sense whatever.
May I emphasize the significance of that last sentence of the Minister of National Defence referring to the words inhibited, stored and dismantled. I had used the phrase "partly dismantled", but nevertheless in referring to those words he said:
I can assure him that not one of those three words is accurate in any sense whatever.
Very clearly that means one thing and one thing only. It means that none of these North Star aircraft belonging to the Royal Canadian Air Force are stored; none are partly dis-

mantled; and none are in the process of being inhibited.
I had pointed out, in the remarks to which I have referred, that under our system of responsible government the house is entitled to have accurate statements from every minister, and except where there is an obvious mistake or a simple explanation that can be given, a minister who has misled the house owes the house and the people of Canada his resignation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: What about yours?


George Alexander Drew: I do not propose, Mr. Chairman-


William Henry Golding: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I do not propose to deal seriously with those who regard the defence of Canada as a laughing matter; nor do I propose to deal seriously with those who regard the integrity of the words of a minister of the crown as a laughing matter. There is a particular reason why the Minister of National Defence owes a special obligation to be accurate in the statements he makes to the house, and through the house to the people of Canada. The reason is that he has invoked this specious screen of secrecy behind the doctrine that the making public of information regarding details of national defence is contrary to the public interest. Behind that screen of secrecy he seeks to hide the information, and he says to the house, and to the people of Canada, "You must take my word; no other information will be given".
There is no minister in the house, including the Prime Minister, who has imposed upon himself so high a demand for absolute accuracy in the statements which he makes. He has told the house that the North Star aircraft are not being inhibited, and are not in the process of being inhibited, that they are not being stored, and that they are not partly dismantled. Those were his words. On page 3 of the Toronto Globe and Mail, today's issue-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Henry Golding: Order.


George Alexander Drew: On page 3 of the Toronto Globe and Mail of today's issue, there are photographs which show North Star aircraft belonging to the Royal Canadian Air Force now in storage in a hangar about ten miles from the centre of Toronto. That is only one place that North Star aircraft, which are not being used for military purposes, are now to be found, but in relation to the minister's emphatic statement it is sufficient to refer to these photographs. In conjunction with the
Supply-National Defence remarks that I am now making, I propose to table for the records of the house this copy of the Globe and Mail so that hon. members who wish to know what the truth is may see the condition in which these aircraft are. These photographs show North Star aircraft of the R.C.A.F. with propellers off, with wing edges off, with tail pieces off, with fins off. They show the aircraft in a very advanced stage of dismantlement and disassembly.


An hon. Member:: They are being repaired.


George Alexander Drew: I heard the remark interjected that they are being repaired. No, they are not. On the propellers of the engines of some of these aircraft there are signs hanging which have on them these words: "Do not turn propeller, engine inhibited." Those are the exact words on the signs that hang on some of these engines at this particular hangar, and I am only referring to the one. There are four of these substantially dismantled aircraft inside and one outside which have been standing there for some considerable time.
Every one of these four aircraft has its tail fin removed, and every one of them has the rudder taken off. In addition to that, most of their vital equipment has been removed, including such items as the automatic pilot, magnetos, oxygen equipment, and things of that kind. They have not been removed just to be stored there. Most of the equipment on these aircraft has been removed and has been shipped away. That is the condition in which these particular North Star transports are today. They are not small pieces of military equipment that can easily be overlooked. One can well understand a minister of national defence making ar inaccurate statement as to the number ot machine guns, the number of trench mortars, rifles, or small equipment.


An hon. Member:: Bren guns.


George Alexander Drew: One might even understand his not knowing where the Bren guns were which they tried to hand over as a profit-making venture to their own friends before the last war.


An hon. Member:: They helped us win the war. We needed them.


George Alexander Drew: One can easily understand those things being overlooked. But these aircraft, with the reconditioning which has been done on them, have cost the people of this country well in excess of three-quarters of a million dollars each. These are not small, casual pieces of military equipment which may be lost in the sawdust or behind some doors. These are aircraft of a size and of a nature

Supply-National Defence which would certainly bring them to the attention of the minister, and in fact they have been so much in the mind of the minister that over and over again he has emphasized to the people of Canada that these North Star transports are the finest transports of their kind in the world.


An hon. Member:: Sure they are.


George Alexander Drew: Those particular transports are substantially dismantled. They are not merely partly dismantled but are well advanced to the stage of being wholly inhibited. The engines, without which no aircraft can move, are inhibited, and are so described by the signs placed there by those who have military supervision over them. They are very definitely stored. In case anyone may think these are not aircraft belonging to the Royal Canadian Air Force, I may say that each of these aircraft has on it the insignia of the Royal Canadian Air Force.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


George Alexander Drew: I am asked how I know. I have seen them. I have seen the air force roundel on them, with the maple leaf. I have seen the Royal Canadian Air Force insignia on the machines, which indicates that they are part of the Royal Canadian Air Force. These are aircraft which were referred to the other night, and which the minister was referring to as well. I am going to repeat his words, at page 2324 of Hansard for April 4:
The hon. member said something about the aircraft situation in Canada and suggested that North Stars were being inhibited, stored and dismantled. Perhaps I have not the order of his words correct, but I have the three words he used. X can assure him that not one of those three words is accurate in any sense whatever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: We are dealing not merely with national defence; we are dealing with the expenditure by this department of over $390 million. This is the minister who insists that we take his unsupported word for the condition in which these aircraft are today. On his own statement, combined with the situation disclosed by these photographs which were taken yesterday, according to the account which accompanies them, the minister has given the best possible reason why a committee should be set up to inquire into our defence situation, with particular reference to the present state of the air force and the aircraft it possesses.
But we go one step further. It is interesting indeed to find the casual, light-hearted and careless attitude of some hon. members of this house when it has been disclosed that the Minister of National Defence has sought to mislead the house in regard to something with which he is particularly acquainted. 
The Minister of National Defence is responsible for the statements made in regard to these aircraft. Unless there is an explanation, such as that he was grossly misinformed by his own department-and that could be the only explanation-then if the minister still respects our parliamentary system, he owes this house his resignation now.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I am a bit surprised, after having been in public life for some eight years, that anyone in this house, on any side, should suggest that I would seek to mislead the house. I have not had that reputation in public or in private life. On the other hand, if I make a mistake I will be the first to admit it. In this connection I must say, in all honesty and fairness, that the truth of this matter lies somewhere between what the leader of the opposition says today as to the situation concerning these planes, and the perhaps too emphatic denial of what he said the other night; and I will be the first to tell the house about it as soon as I get the facts.
Today I verified the information I had, and found that even though these planes are as important as the hon. member has said-the North Stars are an important weapon-they represent something like twenty-two planes out of a total of more than a thousand, and it is not always possible to remain exactly up to date with regard to each item of equipment. Had this discussion taken place on the main estimates, as hon. members know, we would have had available the information which would have permitted a detailed reply. What I did was to reply to the remark of the leader of the opposition at page 2319 of Hansard, where he said:
They are not being stored in reserve for emergency use; they are being stored in a partly dismantled state with no suggestion at all, from the condition in which they now are, that there is any intention of using them.
Well, sir, why would we have planes of any kind, North Stars in particular, which, if they were not flying, were not flying because they were being modified, or being kept in reserve; but always, of course, in reserve for emergency use? Then the hon. member referred to the planes being stored in a partly dismantled state with no suggestion at all, from the condition in which they were, that there was any intention of using them. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, who on earth would have a number of North Stars for any purpose other than to use them when their use was necessary in accordance with service requirements?
The situation concerning these planes is very simple. We always have in reserve a number of planes of each category. That is the invariable practice of every air force, as far as I know; and, as far as they are able to do it, of every commercial air line. They

cannot have all their planes flying all the time. From time to time one is lost and is replaced by another. From time to time it is necessary to make a complete overhaul, and that aircraft is replaced in service by another. Then, as hon. members know, planes of all types are subject to modification from time to time. The chief of the air staff informs me that he considered it desirable that about twenty-five per cent of the North Stars should be kept in reserve. The five to which the leader of the opposition has referred are included in those planes kept in reserve. In order to put them into hangars at Downsview, near Toronto, it is essential to make economic use of the space, so we take off the ends of the tail and the wings.
With regard to the question of the removal of instruments, some trouble has been found with some of the instruments on the North Stars. We are in the process of replacing some of the flying instruments with other instruments or with suitable modifications of them. Work to that end is being done by Canadair, by the air force and the national research council. As soon as the necessary modifications are completed the instruments will be replaced. In the meantime, naturally, the planes are-I will admit the word though it is not the sense in which I usually use it or have usually heard it used-inhibited, meaning some moving parts are covered with grease, strips of paper, and the like. Other materials are put over some of the parts that might suffer damage through lack of use. What I have said applies to four of the planes.
As to the fifth, the one in the open, information received this morning indicates that it has not been in any sense put into storage but is waiting to be flown to Cartierville as soon as arrangements can be made for further modifications to be made at that point. That is the information I have about these five planes. In view of the fact that the situation lies between what the leader of the opposition said on April 4 at page 2319 of Hansard and what I said on page 2324, I was wrong in my final words when I said:
I can assure him that not one of those three words is accurate in any sense whatever.
I find that the phrase "in any sense whatever" is wrong in the light of the facts as I have subsequently ascertained them. My recollection of the facts as they were, I think, was correct, but the situation had changed. I came here prepared to hear something about this and very ready indeed to tell the house, as I always will be, what the facts are about any situation so long as it does not give information to a possible enemy.
To complete the information relating to these North Stars, may I say that one is at
Supply-National Defence the contractor's being modified. There is one other plane in reserve; two are on loan to the Canadian Pacific Air Lines and two are on loan to the Trans-Canada Air Lines. I believe that accounts for all of them. If it does not, I shall be told that by my officers as soon as they read Hansard, and I will bring the additional information to this house so as to give the house all the facts on every occasion, subject to the one qualification I have already given.
I hope, sir, that I have dealt with the observations of the leader of the opposition, but lest there be any misunderstanding about it or any feeling that I am regarding myself as infallible, I say that in a department as large as this it is impossible to have all the facts at one's finger tips when a debate develops such as that which developed in the house on the 4th of April. My erring was in perhaps responding with some vehemence to the vehemence expressed by the leader of the opposition.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Chairman, it seems
strange to me that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat should consider that these estimates should be dealt with in a perfunctory way. He has suggested that, had the item which he was discussing come up on the main estimates, he would have been prepared to deal with it with greater certainty.
I noticed in looking through the record of the debate that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew), and I believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), both had intimated that they were not in a position to answer questions but would be able to give that information when the main estimates are considered. I fail to follow this line of argument. It seems to me that "further supplementary estimates" is almost a misnomer. I am inclined to consider them as expenditures which have been made without authorization. For that reason, I believe they should be scrutinized with even greater care than the ordinary estimates. If a government goes beyond parliament and spends moneys which have not been authorized, it seems to me it can do so only under most extraordinary circumstances of which a complete explanation should be made.
A few days ago the leader of the opposition suggested, when this item was first brought up, that these estimates be submitted to a committee. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) speaking at that time made it quite clear that no committee would be set up. He also made it clear that parliament was not to be taken into the confidence of the government. I draw to the attention of the committee that this is a. continuation of the

Supply-National Defence government's attitude, which has been in evidence for ten years now, in its lack of confidence in parliament. The results have been sad. Just a few moments ago I was looking at a speech which I made in the house only a short time before the budget over the air, in which I asked the Minister of Finance to take the house into his confidence that he might have the benefit of the wisdom of the house, and of the guidance and assistance of those who knew something of the problems confronting him.


William Henry Golding: Order. I think I should ask the hon. member to deal specifically with this item. Information may be asked for, but I hope the hon. member will not wander beyond the item under consideration.


John Thomas Hackett: I am merely attempting to point out to the minister-and I think he has had a rather sad experience today-


Mr. Harti:: Do you want to make it sadder?


John Thomas Hackett: -the difficulties which arise when the government takes everything into its own hands, relies upon its own infallibility, and refuses to share with parliament any of the responsibilities that weigh upon it. This, I say, resulted-and when I say "this" I mean the failure of the Minister of Finance to take parliament into his confidence-


William Henry Golding: Order. The item now before the committee has to do with national defence, demobilization and reconversion. I hope the hon. member will not discuss other matters. There is a tendency to stray from the item. The committee will make much more progress if it discusses the items in accordance with the rules. As hon. members know, according to the rules of the house in committee, speeches must be strictly relevant to the item under discussion.


John Thomas Hackett: I was endeavouring to point out that it is because of a departure from parliamentary procedure-


Maurice Hartt: Why do you not follow it?


John Thomas Hackett: -that great hardship has been visited upon the Canadian people in the realm of finance, and it stems from the same source, arbitrary measures.


William Henry Golding: Order. I must ask the hon. member to be good enough to deal with this item, and I hope he will do so; I would ask all other members to do likewise.


John Thomas Hackett: With great deference, Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with this particular item. I am pointing out that failure to take parliament into its confidence is leading the government astray in most important matters.

I am pointing out furthermore that this is but a renewed expression of the dictatorial methods which have been so prejudicial to Canada during the past ten years. I submit with great deference that so long as I can trace the dangers which are now confronting the country to a malady that has wrought harm elsewhere, I am entitled so to do.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Henry Golding: Order. I must insist that the hon. member deal with the item that is before the committee, which is demobilization and reconversion.


John Thomas Hackett: The item before the committee has to do with just one-quarter of one hundred million dollars which apparently have been spent


Brooke Claxton: Not a cent has been spent.


John Thomas Hackett: -and parliament is now asked to ratify it as one unexplained item. The hon. gentleman, when asked to give an explanation, merely said: Well, it is not in the public interest. Why does the hon. gentleman fear parliament? He and his party will control any committee that is set up for the purpose-


William Henry Golding: Order. The question of setting up a committee does not come in here at all. I think I should now read to the hon. member the rules as they appear in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, at page 178, citation 480:
480. The only motion allowed, when a resolution is under consideration in committee of supply, is that the amount be reduced or that the chairman leave the chair (either without making a report or to report progress on certain resolutions). (Can. Deb., 1916, Vol. Ill, p. 2772.)
Each resolution can only be dealt with by being agreed to, reduced, negatived, superseded, or, by leave, withdrawn, and the withdrawal can be made although the decision of the committee has been taken upon amendments proposed to the resolution. Here, the power of the committee ceases. M. 531. It is not allowable to attach a condition of an expression of opinion to a vote or to change the destination of a grant. B. 428.
I must ask the hon. member to be good enough to deal with the item that is before the committee.


John Thomas Hackett: The passage that you have read, Mr. Chairman, might be invoked had I introduced an amendment upon which you had to rule. But certainly I am not to be denied the right of reasoning with hon. gentlemen opposite as intelligent persons who may be swayed by argument, and who may, by the sad experience that they have had this afternoon, wish to benefit by the experience and the wisdom of parliament and wish to see themselves assisted by a special committee.


Mr. Bradeite:: Filibuster!


William Henry Golding: The hon. member s a parliamentarian of long standing. He mows just as well as I do that it is the duty nd responsibility of the Chair to try to direct lebate; and he knows that speeches in committee must be directly relevant to the item mder consideration. I hope he will confine dmself to the item before the committee.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On the point of order you ;ave raised, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that E the hon. member for Stanstead had wanted o speak as he is trying to speak now he hould have done so before the Speaker left he chair.


William Henry Golding: Yes.


Donald MacInnis: Such a discussion would ave been in order before the Speaker left he chair.


William Henry Golding: Yes.


Donald MacInnis: There is another time when ; would be in order, and that is when we re discussing the administration item in the stimates of the Department of National icfcnce. But once we have passed the dministration item, we must take each item m order. We shall never get anywhere if re are to insist on discussing administration flairs on the other particular items.


John Thomas Hackett: I am sure that the government : very grateful for this timely aid.


Donald MacInnis: Aid which you should be ble to give them, because you have been ere long enough.


William Henry Golding: Order.


John Thomas Hackett: I draw your attention, Mr. hairman, to the fact that we are dealing *ith an item of national defence.


William Henry Golding: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: We are endeavouring to get )me information concerning this item, and re are met with the very bland answer, pparently satisfactory to some hon. mem-ers, that we are not entitled to it because is not in the public interest to give it. I m asking hon. gentlemen to consider that, no iter than Monday of this week, Canada itered into a treaty which depends-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Henry Golding: Order. Surely the an. gentleman is not going to branch off into iat line of discussion. I wish that the hon. iember, with all his parliamentary experi-ice, would read the British Hansard and see hat happens there on the items that are 2ing considered in committee. If he did so 2 would not be rambling all over as he is ying to do now.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.
Supply-National Defence


John Thomas Hackett: I ask the Chairman if he would be kind enough to take communication of item 605 which is now being debated. It reads:
605. To provide for additional expenditures against the authorized commitment program in connection with the orderly establishment and organization of the defence forces of the navy, army and air services on a peacetime basis and to authorize further commitments for future years of $11,708,000-further amount required, $19,622,583.
My submission is that the committee is not proceeding with this item on the orderly basis which is called for by the item, and that it behooves the minister to give the information which is asked for and not to seek shelter behind these statements, that it is not in the public interest.


Mr. Langlois:: Now read it backwards.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member is quite in order in that respect.


John Thomas Hackett: I am glad to perceive that rays of sunshine and wisdom are finally penetrating the chamber.


George Alexander Drew: May I interrupt for a moment. I believe there have been appropriate discussions on points of order, but there is another type of order that should be under consideration, and that the kind of noise which has been proceeding from the other side of the house this afternoon should be stopped if respect for this house is to be preserved.


William Henry Golding: I agree wholeheartedly with the leader of the official opposition. I do try my best to keep order while I am in the chair, and that is as it should be. I should like to read the rule in regard to debate, which is rule 312:
Whilst a member is addressing the house, no one has a right to interrupt him by putting a question to him, or by making or demanding an explanation. A member will at times allow such interruptions through a sense of courtesy to another, but it is entirely at the option of the member in possession of the floor to give way or not to an immediate explanation.
I hope that all hon. members will remember that.


John Ewen Sinclair: May I speak on the point of order. To be consistent, the leader of the opposition should first reprimand the hon. member for Simcoe North and the hon. member for Eglinton for their disgraceful performances last night.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, a most unparliamentary reference has just been made by the hon. member for Vancouver North which has no basis of fact in it. It is a most improper and most unparliamentary reference, Mr. Chairman, and I ask that you direct the hon. member to withdraw it at once. The expression he
2394	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence used, namely, "disgraceful performance" is quite unparliamentary, and has been so ruled more than once. The hon. member knows that, and I ask you to direct him to withdraw it.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Eglinton may have his own ideas about unparliamentary language, but in this particular instance I will not ask the hon. member for Vancouver North to withdraw.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, you have been asked to rule that the words "disgraceful performance" are unparliamentary. If you look up Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms you will see that there is ample authority for the proposition that that expression is quite unparliamentary, and that no hon. member in this house is entitled to use such language in the house. I ask you, sir, to do your duty and direct the hon. member to withdraw the remark.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member for Eglinton is offended I ask the hon. member for Vancouver North to withdraw the remark, but I would also ask the hon. member for Eglinton to try to observe the rules himself from now on.


John Ewen Sinclair: In deference to you, sir, I withdraw the word "disgraceful" and substitute the word "childish."


An hon. Member:: Consult the provinces.


John Thomas Hackett: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is impossible for this committee to express any opinion on the orderly method of this establishment until it has certain details, and until it is treated otherwise than in the highhanded way which denies it all information on the ground that it is not in the public interest to impart it.
The minister well knows that if necessary a secret session could be held. He well knows that he is in control of the situation, but the arbitrary and-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Thomas Hackett: -completely egotistical way in which parliament is brushed aside when it asks for information concerning a matter of the utmost importance is something to which hon. members must object. This item does not merely affect the fortunes of individuals; it affects the life of the country itself. Throughout the land there is a great deal of unrest.


Loran Ellis Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member for Stanstead would ask the question and we shall see if we can answer it. We have not been asked a question yet. The minister said that the only questions he would not answer


were those dealing with matters of security which it was not in the public interest t< answer. The others will be answered if w< can answer them. If we cannot answer then we shall say so.


John Thomas Hackett: The hon. gentleman will se< that when asked for information of this typ< the minister said-


Brooke Claxton: What type?


John Thomas Hackett: The answer will be found a page 2323 of Hansard, and reads:
Accordingly it is not in the public interest to givi this or similar information in reply to this and th. next question. However, I shall be glad to give th< hon. member the information for his own privati use, if he wants it.
A little further on a question is asked whj this information could not be given to ; special committee, and the minister's answe: is:
It was not in the public interest.
The question is: What is the purpose? Wh; were these $19 million spent, for what pur pose and in what proportion among the ser vices. Those are among the questions whicl relatively-


Brooke Claxton: That question has not ye been put to me. I shall be very glad indeec to answer it if I am given the opportunity If that is the hon. member's question I shal be very glad to answer it.


An hon. Member:: Answer it.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, so that thi record may be straight, I have just looke< through the proceedings of the committee a recorded in Hansard when the committee las sat on this estimate and, so far as I know during the sitting of that committee I wa not asked any question that has not bee: answered. If I am wrong in that I shall b very glad to have the fact drawn to m; attention. The one objection I made ti answering any question was made to a ques tion put on the order paper which ha< already been dealt with by the house, submit that further discussion of that is ou of order.
In answer to my hon. friend's question a to how this money has been spent, I will sa; that not a cent of it has been spent. I repea that not a cent of it has been spent. We ar coming here to get authority to make th expenditure. We seek that authority for th following main items, divided among the dif ferent services: to the imperial war grave commission, for the care and maintenance c graves of the second world war, additions payment of $127,583; for the navy, for wag and salary increases to civil servants am hourly rate increases of rate paid to the corp

of commissionaires, as well as recent increases in pay and allowances for service personnel, $1,995,000; in the army, provision for increased rates of pay for civilian and service personnel, and to cover further provision of cash for completion of married quarters units over our current commitment that was provided, $14,500,000; for the air force, overhauling aircraft, $3,000,000; making a total of $19,622,583.


John Thomas Hackett: I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that in dealing with a similar item the Minister of Finance said that the amount of the original vote apparently was not quite sufficient to enable the work to be completed. Then he said: Treasury board indicated that it should be carried on and that this supplementary vote would be requested; but this not being my own department I am not in a position to answer the specific question asked by my hon. friend.
I would draw to the attention of the committee the fact that, according to the Minister of Finance, that amount appeared to have been already spent, the approval of parliament to be secured later.


Brooke Claxton: Nothing has been spent.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, there are a few questions I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence regarding this vote. I understand that in the main estimates of last year there was a sum of $251 million for purposes of national defence, and that in addition to that there was $37,238,378, which was a sort of floating reserve to be spent during this year. For future years we voted the sum of $59,938,028.
The Minister of National Defence now comes to us asking for a further supplementary estimate of $19,622,583. The first question I would ask is this: Is this amount part of the additional moneys voted for future years? Will there be a reduction from that $59 million, or is this amount to be added on?
I would ask further whether the $37 million odd which was voted has already been spent. I had intended to ask in more detail as to how this $19 million was going to be divided. The headings which were given in the main estimates at the last session divided the sums into expenditures for the navy, expenditures for the army, expenditures for the air force, Northwest Territories and Yukon radio system, northwest highway system, northwest staging route, and research.
Can the minister allocate the division he proposes to make of this $19 million under those various main estimates? I know he did give some information a few moments ago; but he gave it so rapidly that I was unable to follow the actual distribution.
Supply-National Defence Reference was made to war graves, and other minor points. I feel that this is definite and concrete information to which we have a right. We have the right to examine as to how this money is being spent. There is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that there is a good deal of uncertainty in the country concerning the efficiency of the services.
Surely information as to the method in which this $19 million is going to be expended would go some distance toward easing that uncertainty, if we could have frankness on the part of the government. Having due regard to security measures, they should give us as much information as it is possible to give.
I believe the minister would admit that a smoke screen has been thrown across in the form of these so-called measures for security, measures which might assist the enemy in planning a diversionary raid. We have been told who the only possible enemy is, and it is one which would have to come some 3,000 miles to reach our shores. Should we not ask ourselves whether the formations we now have, and whether those various armed services which this supplementary vote is to augment and improve, are designed so that they can be effective to meet the contingencies the minister has outlined as being those for which our armed forces are designed? If the armed forces are not designed so that they can meet the particular emergencies which the minister has envisaged, then this additional $19 million is just being poured down the drain. It is no good spending $19 million on an inefficient organization. It is because we are anxious to know whether our armed forces are efficient, and whether they are the type of armed forces to meet the particular emergency which exists, that we feel we have a right to ask for certain information.
In the past the minister has not been backward about giving information on the composition of the armed forces. When discussing the main estimates last year, he outlined in detail at page 5785 of Hansard the number of aircraft which we had at that time. He said that the aircraft which he had at that time consisted of eighty-five Vampires, thirty Mustangs, twenty-three North Stars, twenty Fireflies, and so on. I need not give the whole list. Then he went on to say:
. . . bringing the total number of planes of all types to something well over 1,000.
If an enemy were planning to launch a raid against this country, is that not the type of information that he might well desire to have?

Supply-National Defence Then in discussing the army the minister referred to the units about which information was asked a few days ago. He said:
The active army, in the first place, is to include a brigade group or later such additional force as may be considered necessary, trained and equipped to deal with any diversionary attack.
In other places he has given the composition of that brigade group. Later on in the same debate he described its strength. He said that 20 per cent of the total active force of the army was serving in that particular brigade group. All that is being asked now is how many men have received a certain type of training. I do not think that the minister has ever said that the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry is a parachute battalion. He has always referred to it as an airborne battalion. We have read in all kinds of service magazines what an airborne battalion is. It may not be known to the general public, but its establishment is certainly known to a trained intelligence officer of any country.
An airborne battalion would normally consist of a certain number of men who had been trained as parachutists, perhaps as many as 100. The rest would be carried by glider or other aircraft, and would be able to exploit the initial advantage which might have been gained by the men of the battalion who had originally been dropped by parachute. There is nothing secret about that. I do not know how many of the men of my old regiment have trained as parachutists but, according to the general principle, the number is something under 100. There is nothing very mysterious about that.
We ask ourselves whether that type of force is suitable to deal with the particular kind of diversionary attack on this country which might be expected. When discussing the main estimates last year I said I considered that our forces were impotent to meet any sudden attack which might be expected. Similar words were used by the late chief of the air staff, who referred to the R.C.A.F. as being impotent to meet any sudden attack. I say now that, on the basis of the information which the minister gave in the main estimates last year, and on the basis of such information as has been published in the papers, and in statements released by his department, our armed forces cannot effectively meet the type of diversionary raid which might be launched against this country.
The minister stated in his remarks on the main estimates last year that the brigade which had been designed to meet such an attack had never been trained together as a brigade. He said that last summer for the first time two of the units would train as 
units in Petawawa camp. I doubt very much whether the commander of the brigade has been designated, and whether he has had his staff assembled. I am quite certain that no opportunity has been provided him to train his troops, and as for our airborne battalion it should be realized that it has not carried out a single airborne exercise. The training that they have received up to date has been elementary, individual training. Therefore I contend, and I repeat, that we are incompetent to meet the type of raid which any enemy, having to come a distance of 3,000 miles, might be expected to launch against this country. You cannot conjure up in your mind any target which might justify the general staff of a hostile country launching a diversionary raid against Canada which this force, in its present condition, could deal with effectively. I shall not enumerate all the possible targets. Possible targets exist on our west coast and on our east coast. Perhaps they might launch such a raid from submarines. Our forces consist very largely of recruits scattered across the country, who could not deal with any such contingency. If they considered launching a raid entirely by air, there are of course attractive targets. It is not impossible to think of a hostile airborne force coming across our Arctic wastes and landing airborne troops at unprotected airfields at such places as Whitehorse.
Now on the east coast we have the unprotected airfields we recently took over when Newfoundland joined our dominion. We do not want in future to see such names as Whitehorse or Goose or Gander become synonymous with the activities usually associated with the name of Pearl Harbor. So I suggest that if we are to have a force adequate to meet the very first objective laid down by the minister, that is to deal with a diversionary raid, then we must have a force accustomed to working together; and the sooner that force is brought together, trained together and given more advanced training, the sooner it will be in a position to deal with an operation of that type. If the $19 million is to be spent to improve the efficiency of that force, then I do not believe the people of Canada will have very much objection to it; but it is only fair and right that we should have clear and definite information from the minister.
In the last few months, I suggest, we have had rather unfortunate illustrations of the difficulties experienced when men who have not served together for any length of time are sent on some operation. We have seen the unfortunate incidents-I do not think they were serious-which occurred on three of the ships of the Royal Canadian Navy. As far as I can gather from press reports, these arose

mainly from the fact that the crews of these ships had been permitted to fall short in numbers, and that before the ships were sent on their missions the crews were brought up to strength by transfers from other establishments and perhaps by bringing in some Royal Canadian Naval Reserve personnel. As a result the crews were not accustomed to working together, and when minor difficulties and hardships came along little frictions were bound to arise. So if you were attempting to send a force to meet any diversionary raid that might be made you would find the same little causes of friction unless the units had been working together under their own commanders. If therefore this money is to be spent in improving the efficiency of our forces I do not think any objection will be taken to it. But if it is going to be frittered away, perhaps by visits of senior officers to Ruritania, for example, and by military missions sent all over the world, that is a different matter. We want to be told clearly how this money is going to be expended.
I have made some reference to the air force. I have mentioned the various types of aircraft the minister told us were available.
I have referred to a statement by a senior officer who recently left the department, who considered that in its present form of organization and the degree to which it has received its training it was not in a position to deal effectively with any raid which might be made against this country. I suggest, too, that the mere organization of a force to deal with a diversionary raid is not our only military obligation. Within the last few days we have signed the North Atlantic security pact, which is designed to preserve the peace of the world and to which no doubt we shall have to contribute certain armed forces if that peace is to be preserved. Those forces will not be confined solely to troops held in Canada in order to deal with a diversionary raid. As the second objective, the minister spoke of the organization and training of reserve forces, so they might be capable of rapid expansion if necessary. In view of the fact that we have signed the North Atlantic pact, I feel the minister should tell us whether any of this money is to be used for the purpose of increasing those forces which may be required to supplement plans drawn up under that pact, and whether any scheme will be devised for the rapid expansion of those forces if necessary.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot have schemes for speeding up the expansion of the forces and for getting them into the field at an early date-and this may be the crux of the whole matter-if we are going to adhere to the old, traditional organi-
Supply-National Defence zation, which may have stood the test in 1812 and 1900 and 1914 but which is out of date now. We have to consider what steps we are going to take to meet the need for expansion, the need to implement our obligations under the North Atlantic pact in 1949 or 1950. It is not a question of harking back and being satisfied with the organization that existed previously. We now have far more definite commitments than ever before. So I ask the minister to explain definitely whether this $19 million is to come out of the amount allocated and voted by this house last year, and whether the $59 million voted at that time will be reduced to this extent. Then I ask him to explain in a little more detail how the division of that money is going to take place, how he proposes to utilize it, under these main headings to which I have referred.


Mr. Church:: Having asked the minister certain questions, I want to call attention to some of the statements that have been made.
I do not wish to criticize the present minister, far from it; but I know I raised these matters in the house in 1938 and again on May 18, 1939. I saw the war coming, and I think I was the only member on this side of the house to bring up these questions. In 1938, I think on or about March 21, I moved the adjournment of the house to call attention to the grave danger as to Hitler; and in May 1939, four months before the second war, I asked about our defences and predicted what actually came to pass; and I was told we had no commitments, parliament would decide. You can look at Hansard of the 18th of May, 1939, shortly before war began, and when I moved the adjournment of the house in March, 1938. I saw that war coming. In view of conditions as they are, and in view of the minister's statement, I think I have the right to ask the government what Canada's defence position is after we sign this Atlantic pact. Does the signing of it give us security in case of a third war? In this debate I have the right to ask the government to give the house and the country an assurance that all proper means will be taken to see that our armed forces are prepared, on land, on sea and in the air, with effective measures for the defence of our country. This should include the re-establishment of the air training plan here in Canada.
In addressing a meeting of my constituents last December I urged that, in view of what the United States had done, it was only proper that the Prime Minister should have a conference with the leaders of that great land to the south of us. I urged something along the lines of the Atlantic pact and the re-establishment of the air training plan in

Supply-National Defence Canada, which was so well handled during the war by the former minister for air, Mr. Power.
I also proposed that we should enter into an arrangement with the government of the land to the south of us. I should like to ask this question. Is the house and is the country satisfied that at the present time Canada has security? In my opinion, the answer to that question is no. We cannot go on pretending any longer that the forces we have today make for real security. I referred to this before. Experience should have taught us that nothing is more dangerous than to underestimate one's military opponent either in the lessons of history, in the field of international diplomacy, economic strength or military support in case of war.
Since the end of the war the western democracies have been unable to ascertain what is happening in Russia. The opposition of the soviets to permitting the world to know one iota of what is happening inside Russia or inside the iron curtain makes it difficult to ascertain what they intend to do. I believe that such a picture would show that Russia has recovered all her losses of the second war and has been able to produce the largest amount of war material in all history. I believe Russia can count on the resources of her European satellites.
The house is entitled to know these things, because no one can foretell what the future has in store for the world. The battle of the east against the west represents the battle of two different ideologies. Appeasement is not the best way of handling this matter. I hope that in the signing of this pact nothing will be done which will strengthen our enemies and perplex our friends who have stood by us in two wars.
So far as this country is concerned, for the last three years Russia has no doubt been conducting a weaponless war. The world is now faced with two kinds of warfare. The atomic bomb has been perfected by the United States, but the soviet union has developed a more powerful instrument-the cold, brazen, weaponless war. By this method of warfare many countries have been scuttled behind the iron curtain. It has amounted almost to aggression, and the entire world has been kept in constant fear of destruction. This is a struggle for survival and our armed forces should be kept in a constant state of preparedness to meet this challenge.
Mr. Churchill made a speech at Fulton in 1947; and right up until 1948, in spite of his warning, the western democracies did nothing to arouse the countries of the world to the real situation. However, last fall those democracies became more alert to the grave 


the subs were at Riviere du Loup when I was there in 1947. The submarine got away up the river as far as Riviere du Loup. What are we going to do if soviet submarines come to the St. Lawrence?-and Russia has lots of them. The United States invited Russia to come into the Pacific. She never was in the Pacific at all before. About two weeks before Japan fell she was invited by the United States. What did she do? Because Japan was defeated by whom? By the United States army and by the British forces. But Russia was invited to come over there although Japan was about ready to collapse. What did they do? I gave the details the other night, and I will not repeat them. You have seen the result of it, where they are our main enemy in the north now. I admit the government has done something about radar up there, but what are we going to do if the Russian subs come up the St. Lawrence, when you have no real security at all.
As to the armed might of America, the Marshall plan and the unity of western Europe are vital to our way of life. But these plans, and all our ideals, are of little value unless we have the means of preserving peace. Now they are getting it. Isolation in America is dead. Now they want the President to let them go on and have an end to it, once and for all, with the security they are going to get from attack on this continent from the air and by submarines. They are certainly unanimous that military forces should not be designed for aggression, but they are certainly going to see to it that they have those forces.
I can only say this about these questions. If our great ally to the south lets the people know the facts, and lets congress know, and does everything in public and prints reports for distribution, why should not this country with eleven and one-half or twelve million people do the same thing? I believe it is right that Canada should be armed before it is too late. We in Canada should not forget the motto of Oliver Cromwell: Put your trust in God and keep your powder dry, and feature it as it applies at this time in world affairs which are so dark. Empty Ottawa platitudes will amount to nothing, as will depending on the UNO at Lake Success as our defence cornerstone.
I do not think very much can be gained at the present time by pretending to have security. I do not believe in pretending. As I said before, I believe that the two Victoria Cross holders we have in this house have given good advice to the house, not from a political standpoint but from a military standpoint, of the grave danger the world is in at the present time, and the grave danger that faces us from invasion. There is no use

in our pretending that we have security when we have none at all. Never has the House of Commons been faced with graver issues than now. At the present time we face the most serious economic disaster and a very great military threat, as we go on pretending we have security. We also err, as does the United States, in taking Britain's supremacy of the seas for granted. There is only one path to take, and our Ottawa government will not follow it, namely empire consolidation which stood us well in two long wars. Stalin's Russia is as dangerous to the peace of the world as was Hitler's Germany; and Russia, by 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 when only fifteen miles away. The next year Carthage was destroyed. What we have now is similar.
Now we should provide for our own defence. Without the aid of the dominions and the empire we have no defence. All our defences are based on the fact that in two long wars Britain had the supremacy of the seas. That was the real Monroe doctrine.
In conclusion, I would call your attention to one fact that in two long wars we have been dependent upon Britain and her dominions for defence. In the olden days the policy of George Washington, Jefferson, Madison and all those great men was not to have any foreign entanglements unless they were attacked. The first war taught them a lesson, and they learned another lesson in the second world war. Back in 1815 you had what was called the Holy Alliance between our very same enemies, Russia, Prussia and Austria. Russia is still a grave danger. I am afraid that the people of Europe have to face two things. They are afraid of Germany and they are also afraid of Russia. Russia, Prussia and Austria were our enemies in their Holy Alliance in 1815 and they are today. What was the Holy Alliance? The Holy Alliance was started by holy people; it was an alliance of nations of Russia, Prussia and Austria and it lead to the first Monroe doctrine. It lasted from 1815 until 1823. It led Britain to adopt a new policy as far as the world went. The Monroe doctrine was Britain's supremacy of the seas. It saved us in the days of Philip of Spain, Louis XIV, and Napoleon, and twice in our own generation. That was the real Monroe doctrine. The Monroe doctrine was spread out by the late President Roosevelt in the second war when he decided that the whole Atlantic on both sides should be included, with the bases they had in the Azores, Iceland, Portugal and many other
Supply-National Defence countries, and it also extended into the Mediterranean, which was an arm of his Atlantic new Monroe doctrine. That was their preservation and was the second Monroe doctrine.
I do not want to take up the time of the house any further, but I do ask the minister to think well as to whether we are secure and whether we have any real security or not on land, sea or in the air. As far as I know, we have little or none.


Mr. Skey:: I should like to return this discussion to the point at which we started this afternoon. We were discussing the air side of the picture.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster!


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Chairman, I would say first to the minister that there was no necessity for his having to endure the difficult experience he has gone through this afternoon-no necessity to have said yesterday that the leader of the opposition had made a vague and challenging charge, and then this afternoon to have the roof fall in on him. Because from the very first day of this session members of the official opposition have pleaded with and asked the minister to set up this committee for the discussion, in private if necessary and in public if possible, of the defence policies of this country.
He is the only man in Canada who holds power by fear. I fear his power because he holds in his hand to a certain extent the fate of the people of this nation. The Minister of National Revenue, who sits directly behind him, has his hands in our pockets; but the Minister of National Defence holds our fate in his.
The proper emphasis upon and balance of our defence forces is essential in order that any potential enemy may be warned that aggressive action will meet with rapid defence on our part. It was back in 1947, just after the minister took over his portfolio, that I wrote to him. I know it is not recommended practice to read in the house letters which one has written. But when one writes in a certain way to a minister of the government, and receives in reply a letter from his private secretary in these words-
I assure you I will bring this to Mr. Claxton's attention as soon as he returns, and further would like to tell you that I am certain he will be most interested in reading the two articleswhich I had sent him-


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member will agree that, following that, we had a session together in private, discussing matters, which lasted over an hour.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: This letter was written on August 5, 1947. It will be recalled that the house
2402	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence was then adjourned. I was not honoured by a reply from the minister. Then, when the next session of parliament was called in 1948,
I sought a private interview with him, upon which occasion I asked him if he would permit me to express to him some ideas I had concerning the defence of Canada. He was kind enough to grant me that interview, but it was at my request and over six months later.


Brooke Claxton: On August 5, 1947, I was on the way to represent this country at a conference in Canberra, Australia. I could not reply personally, and naturally my secretary replied. But my practice is to reply personally to members of parliament.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I do not wish to make a point of whether this is or is not a good answer. But even when he did get home he did not bother to reply. Here is what I wrote.


Mr. Grant:: A cheap thing to bring out.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: We now know that disarmament invites aggression so I am being impertinent enough to suggest that we must be prepared to pay our share of a defence force capable of dissuading would-be aggressors by their very presence.
I made some further statements in the letter, which I could not express better now than I did then. It is because of incidents such as we witnessed yesterday and early this afternoon that hon. members who know anything about the subject of the defence of our country are convinced that the policies now being followed are not proper policies.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we have as a witness one of their own experts who recently wrote an article in Maclean's magazine entitled "We do not Stand on Guard". He concludes his article in this way:
From the published and visible evidence it seems unlikely that we are organized to face the problem, much less to solve it.
This was an article by Colonel Goforth, who until a few months ago was one of the government's own experts, advising them in an important branch of the service. With

their own experts as witnesses against them, can any person in this country say that our plea that the minister's defence forces and policy should be examined in an unbiased way is not an honest, sincere and necessary one?
May I call it six o'clock?
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald MacInnis: What is the business for tomorrow?


Mr. Abbott:: We will hope for the best.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Tomorrow we will continue with the supplementary estimates. If they are disposed of, we will then proceed with the second reading of the marketing act bill, now on the order paper. If that is disposed of we will revert to the debate on the budget.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is not proposed to go ahead with the motion in the name of the Minister of National Revenue setting up the radio committee?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, there is no desire not to proceed with that. But there is a very keen desire to dispose of these supplementary estimates-and the progress that has been reported to Mr. Speaker hardly indicates that there will be much time tomorrow to do anything else.


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

[Stage Direction]
Pensions and other benefits-Militia Pension Act-604. Government's contribution to the permanent forces pension fund-further amount required, $3,894,493.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 7, 1949