1949-11-11

MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Winkler.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Monday, November 14, 1949, until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day, and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock p.m., there shall be an intermission every day from 1 to 3 o'clock p.m.
He said: The reason for presenting this motion at this time is my understanding that it is the hope of a large number of members of the house that it will be possible to complete the work of this session not later than December 3. Of course no one would wish to slight the consideration that still must be given to the matters that remain to be dealt with. By going on the eight-hour day schedule at this time we feel that it will be possible to give due consideration not only to the matters which are already indicated on the order paper, but to some which are yet to be introduced.
As you will see, Mr. Speaker, there are twenty-three items under government orders at the present time, and some of them have several subdivisions. For instance, there are the estimates, which will provide the occasion for the debate on external affairs which the Minister of Public Works announced it was our hope to initiate next Wednesday. There are the estimates of other departments in which the general item of administration has not yet been considered, and these will give rise to some debate.
In addition to those measures and such others as are on the order paper of the other place, it is the intention of the government to introduce a certain number of additional bills, of which I have a list here.
There will be a bill to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It is not a substantial amendment; it is designed to clarify and to make more readily workable certain of the provisions of the act. There will be a bill to fix
the duration of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and another to fix the duration of the Fisheries Prices Support Act. A bill will be introduced to amend the Customs Tariff Act, in certain minor particulars having to do with articles which under the tariff are now prohibited entry. There will be a bill to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act, to enlarge the proportion of the available funds that can be used in what are classified under the act as the larger loans. Certain minor amendments are required to the Dominion-Provincial Tax Rental Agreements Act to conform with the legislation and practices of certain of the provinces.
The Department of Trade and Commerce will have a bill to amend the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act, and also a bill to provide assistance in the production of coal in the maritime region of Canada. The Department of Transport will have a bill to increase the amount of stores that may be kept as a bank to supply the requirements of the services. The present act has a limitation that is found to be insufficient to allow the department to have a bank of stores necessary for convenient administration.
There is also to be a bill dealing with the encouragement of construction of Canadian vessels. That will be brought down at an early day.
In addition to these, there will come from the Senate, or at least it is hoped that there will, the consolidated national defence act, which is now under consideration in that house; a bill to amend the Customs Act, and a bill to amend the Surplus Crown Assets Act, clarifying the procedure for the disposal of surplus property of the various departments of government. These bills are being introduced in the Senate, probably at its next sitting.
Hon. members will recall that the speech from the throne refers to a bill to provide for the continuance of functions now vested in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. After careful consideration it is proposed to introduce, before the end of the session, legislation to provide for the redistribution of the functions of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply and the Department of Mines and Resources among three new departments, to come into effect upon proclamation. The departments are to be known respectively as the Department

Business of the House
of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of Resources and Development, and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration; under the latter will be placed the administration of Indian affairs. Though this is really one subject three bills will be required, and a consequential amendment to the Salaries Act.
Within the next few days the Minister of Finance expects to make in the house the statement which he promised to make before the end of the session, in regard to the government's policy as to crown property in the municipalities. Consequential upon that statement, which will require for its implementation legislation that it is intended to introduce not this session but early in the next session, some legislation may be required, probably in the form of an additional supplementary estimate, to bridge over the period until the permanent legislation is enacted.
I would not like hon. members to feel that we were definitely committing ourselves that there will be nothing else. Nothing else is now foreseen, but additional legislation may be required because of unforeseen developments between now and the end of the session. But hon. members will realize that this is still quite an important program, particularly when added to the program we have before us on the order paper. If it is felt that the public interest is being properly served by our proceeding at the pace we have adopted since the beginning of the session, there will be opportunity for full and serious consideration of all these matters. But it would not be possible, or certainly not as easy, to feel that satisfaction about it if we did not add these two additional hours to each day's sitting between Monday and the time at which it is hoped prorogation can take place.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: 
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I say that in the suggestion I made I was not indicating any preference as between Monday and Tuesday. What I was emphasizing was the desirability of having bills or resolutions calling for major debates taken up first on a particular day. Either day would be equally suitable.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the government will be happy to consider the suggestion that if possible the first order of business on a particular day be the initiation of the debate on any of these matters which appear to be likely to take some time. Hon. members may then know, for instance, that at eleven o'clock on Monday we propose to commence consideration of the bill dealing with housing. The debate may or may not require a considerable time. Perhaps it would make for greater certainty if we said right away that, whatever happens on Monday, at eleven o'clock on Tuesday we shall begin consideration of the Combines Investigation Act amendments.


An hon. Member:: No.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Did I understand the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to say he would be away on Tuesday?
Business of the House


Mr. Coldwell:: Tuesday and Wednesday some of us will be at Chalk River; and the leader of the opposition has said he has no preference.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The minister in charge of the bill with respect to housing is quite prepared to have consideration of the Combines Investigation Act amendment bill begun on Monday morning at eleven o'clock, and he would hope, if that debate is concluded in the course of the day, to proceed with housing; if it is not concluded, he would proceed with housing on Tuesday at eleven o'clock.
Hon. members have already been informed that the first order of business on Wednesday will be a motion to go into committee of supply for the purpose of initiating debate on external affairs. We will endeavour on the following day to fix as the first order of business some one of the measures which is apt to give rise to longer than average debate. We would hope that we would not be tied down too closely with respect to the matters taken up following a main debate, and that hon. members would be prepared to debate second readings of bills having to do with matters which are not regarded as likely to cause prolonged debate, and which may be taken most conveniently at an hour when a main debate comes to an end.
I am quite sure we can count on the good will of hon. members to see to it that in this way we may best use the eight hours of sitting each day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Combines Investigation Act will be discussed on Monday, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, arising out of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the other night that the period of limitation under that act would be two years.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I gave that as my opinion.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, based upon the legal authority of a case on which the right hon. gentleman had acted. The last alleged offence reported in the McGregor report was September 17, 1947. My question is this: Has any information been laid against any of the companies named in the McGregor report? If not, is it not a fact that by reason of withholding the report no action now lies?

Supply-National Defence


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that is a question which can be asked on the orders of the day.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly I might ask one question:	Have any proceedings been
instituted?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The answer is no.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH RESPECT TO PRICE FIXING AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Combines Investigation Act is to be discussed on Monday, may I draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to two notices of motions which I placed on Votes and Proceedings today? If when they are reached on Monday the information could be brought down, it would be appreciated.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, both these motions involve the compilation of a large number of documents, some of which have been gathered together. Others, however, are from other departments and will have to go through the Department of the Secretary of State. We will endeavour to have them ready for tabling on Monday, although in that connection I cannot make any promise.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE General services-
239. Grants to military associations, institutes and others, as detailed in the estimates, $227,150.


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will have it in mind that today is Remembrance day, the thirty-first anniversary of the armistice which ended the great war of 1914-18. Today we remember reverently the service and the sacrifice of the men and women who gave their lives in the defence of their country and their freedom. The Memorial chamber in the peace tower lists their names and tells the story beginning with this inscription on the walls:
Read how free men. throughout this land kept faith in the hour of trial and in the day of battle, remembering the traditions they had) been taught, counting life nothing without liberty.
Today we are reminded of the events that led up to the second world war, and of the effort in lives and money and materials that was needed before we could win the victory and continue free. We learned again that


eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Unfortunately the hope for peace and security with which we ended the second world war has not been fulfilled. The Soviet union has turned its back on the co-operation that helped to bring victory against the axis powers. Instead of world partnership for peace, in which all nations could work constructively to improve human relations and conditions, we have a limited partnership with the non-aggressive half of a divided world, and are forced to devote much of our energy to the negative but necessary task of preventing war.
While circumstances force us to take greater measures than we have ever taken before in peacetime in order to make our contribution toward the means of preventing an outbreak of war, we must remember that we have further objectives. We have no warlike intentions. Our objectives are peace and conditions of security in which we can work for the better life we know is possible, both for ourselves and for other nations. We seek the security of all, and of the good that this condition can bring. As a means to this end we must do our utmost to prevent war. Our defence activities are a means to prevent war. They are an essential means necessary to our preservation as a nation.
The ceremony that took place today and our thoughts at this time will strengthen us in the conviction that those we remember at this moment were right to "count life nothing without liberty", and that we are right in doing whatever is necessary to guard what they preserved.
To assist in understanding our defence needs, and to save the time of the house which an extended statement would take, I caused to be prepared and made available a statement on our national defence which I now table. This statement is intended to give:
(1)	An account of the present international situation;
(2)	An appreciation of the defence needs of Canada;
(3)	An analysis of the department's estimates, and
(4)	An account of the various aspects of the work of the department and services.
This should be read in conjunction with the annual report of the department for the year ended March 31, 1949. The annual report is in a new form, giving a much fuller account of activities. Usually it is made available only in February, at the commencement of each session, which means it is almost a year in arrears; but this year we tried to have it available at the commencement of this session, and it was tabled on October 19, some four months earlier than usual. This material is

presented and made available to hon. members because of the importance of national defence.
The international situation makes defence a matter of major government policy. The estimate of $375 million, taken with the supplementary of $8 million, means that we are now spending on defence 16-4 per cent of the national budget, or $28.37 for each man, woman and child in Canada. At present exchange rates, this is considerably less per capita than is being spent in the United States or the United Kingdom, but it is more than is being spent by any other country in the British commonwealth except the United Kingdom, or by any party to the North Atlantic treaty except the United States, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands, all of which have world-wide or extensive colonial interests. The sum now sought represents what the government believes to be the right amount to be spent on defence by Canada in the present fiscal year.
The statement which has been issued deals at some length with the international situation, upon which our defence policy is based. This may be summarized as follows:
1.	The only possible aggressor is the Soviet union.
2.	Any war would be a world war involving all western peoples who would be fighting for their survival as nations and their freedom as men.
3.	The best way to prevent such a war is to confront the forces of communism with such strength as to deter them from attack.
4.	To provide such strength requires the co-operative efforts of the western nations, including the United States and Canada.
5.	Consequently Canada welcomed the North Atlantic treaty as supplementing the United Nations, and, pending the strengthening of the United Nations, as an organization for world-wide security.
6.	Since an attack on Canada could only be made by air or by sea, emphasis must be placed on defence forces; by air-radar stations and communications, backed by interceptors and a relatively small mobile brigade group; by sea-anti-submarine and anti-mine vessels for protection of shipping and coastal waters.
7.	The best place to defeat the enemy is as far away from Canada as possible, and our forces should also serve as the nucleus for the development of our maximum potential.
In the statement you will see an explanation of the considerations which must enter into the preparation of any defence budget. There is also an indication of the costs of some of the equipment used by modern defence forces. I think hon. members will be astonished at the cost of some of the
Supply-National Defence equipment which is mentioned on page 19 of the report. For instance, a Packet transport aircraft of the C-119 type would cost well over half a million dollars. A 5-25 anti-aircraft gun, equipped and installed, would cost in the neighbourhood of $600,000. An antisubmarine vessel of the type of which we have three now on order in Canada would cost $8 million. An airfield equipped with the necessary runways and construction to be used by interceptors would cost from $15 million to $20 million.
As the report emphasizes, the dollar spent on defence is just like every other dollar. It is not rubber; it cannot be stretched. If, as we can show, the amount of some $383 million is needed to meet the requirements of our defence forces this year, then it is perfectly obvious that we can only increase the size of the forces, the equipment or the amount of construction by taking more of the national budget. Planning defences in this country, as in every other country, becomes inevitably a question of assessment of risks and appraisal of priorities.
At the present time more than half of the defence appropriation is spent on personnel-officers, men and civilians-for pay, allowances, pensions, food, clothing, services, and other payments that vary directly with the size of the forces. This amount is as large as it is for two reasons. In the first place, we have tried to create conditions of service which would attract Canadians of ability and character as well as good physique. As to conditions of service, I am sure you will be glad to hear that Canada stands second only to the United States. There the new pay schedules are higher than ours, but other conditions, including pensions, clothing, food, and married quarters, are generally comparable to those in the United States.
The large proportion of the defence expenditure applicable to personnel reflects also the number of men in the armed forces. We have 45,000 in the active forces, another 45,000 in the reserve forces, and 24,000 civilians principally working in dockyards and shops at prevailing rates, making altogether a total of 114,000, of whom 69,000 are employed full time. This makes the department the largest in point of numbers in the government service, and it has, I am led to believe, the widest ramification and the greatest variety of problems.
In the statement and annual report there is a summary of recruiting results, giving figures of enlistments and discharges, and showing the net gain against the establishments fixed for each of the services. During the twelve months ending with September we have taken a total of 12,267 into the active forces, with 4,006 releases, making a
1664	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence net increase of 8,261, or 688 per month. At the present time the navy is up to strength in other ranks, and at the present rates it is estimated that the present ceilings for the army will be reached by September, 1950, and for the air force by December of the same year.
What is most satisfactory is that the rates of release are considerably less than estimated, and that on the termination of the first three years' engagement in the army more than ninety-seven per cent of men are reengaging, and the three per cent who are not re-engaged includes a number who are released as not considered suitable.
During the same period we have taken in 1,523 with the reserve navy, making a net increase of 610. The twenty-one naval reserve divisions have a total strength of 3,468, and the ten air force auxiliary squadrons have a strength of 3,086, which is regarded as making satisfactory progress. The army reserve has a total strength of 38,572, and I feel that a desirable immediate target would be another 10,000. In addition there are 936 in the university naval training division, 2,619 in the university corps of the Canadian officers' training corps, and 679 in the air force university plans, as well as 282 at the Canadian service colleges. We are continuing campaigns to maintain the flow of recruits.
During this period there has been continuous progress in training with active and reserve forces, with emphasis on the training of officers, noncommissioned officers and tradesmen. There are now four plans in effect for the training of officers, with over 5,000 young men taking qualifying courses, a larger number in proportion to population than I believe will be found training to such standards in any other part of the world. We are obtaining good results form the service colleges, university plans, and the local command contingent arrangements. Further developments and changes will be made to meet needs as they arise. Consideration is being given to changing arrangements for the training of executive officers for the navy.
One of the greatest shortages in meeting an emergency would be skilled tradesmen, large numbers of whom are required in modern forces. Fortunately the ordinary young Canadian, whether he be bred on the farm or in the towns or cities, has great aptitude for work of this type. However, we are adopting various means of increasing trades training in the active and reserve forces, and also have developed an interesting plan for training cadets from vocational schools. We have been discussing with representa-
[Mr. Claxton.l

tives of industry ways and means of adding to the numbers of men skilled in all essential trades.
The services today are large-scale educational institutions, running the gamut from post-graduate schools, such as the national defence college for senior officers and civilian officials, to nursery schools operated cooperatively by service personnel at isolated centres. The navy is operating specialist schools on both coasts in a total of twelve branches. The army has schools for each of the fourteen corps at nine different camps. The R.C.A.F. has eight schools at six different stations. We operate sixteen schools for over 2,000 children of service personnel at isolated centres. This year a total of over 1,200 senior officers are taking courses at command schools. Every active and reserve unit and camp has a number of classes.
In all this, as in everything else, there is close co-operation with the United States and with the United Kingdom. Indeed, our relations are closer than ever before-closer I believe than have ever existed between the forces of any other countries.
The figures before you will show that in X 948-49 a total of $145 million was spent on supplies, equipment, construction and the like, covered by over 65,000 contracts placed through Canadian Commercial Corporation. Major items of equipment purchased include aircraft, ships, electronic and electrical instruments, motor vehicles and construction. Let me say a word about each of these main items.
Aircraft: Good progress is being made with the development of the Canadian-designed XC-100 aircraft, which will be test-flown this year. The development of this aircraft was commenced in 1946, and in each of the last two years we have put in two years of work, which has enabled it to be brought to this stage of development several years sooner than is usually the case in the peacetime development of a new type. The aircraft was entirely designed in Canada to suit Canadian conditions, and if it flies according to its planned characteristics it will be a very useful jet aircraft. Under licence from the United States manufacturer we have placed an order for one hundred F-86 planes, to be manufactured by Canadair Limited. We are continuing to overhaul and modify other aircraft. During 1948-49 we spent $22 million on aircraft. This year I expect the figure will be $45 million.
Ships: The next largest single item in our planned program of development is ships for the navy, largely related to antisubmarine work. We have placed orders for a transport

icebreaker, three new high speed antisubmarine vessels largely of Canadian design, four minesweepers, and a gate vessel, costing about $40 million.
Electronic and electrical equipment: All three services use large quantities of radar and other electronic and electrical equipment. We have a large scale program of production of the most modern and high-powered equipment by Canadian firms. The amount provided for electronic and communications equipment in this year's estimates is $19 million.
Motor vehicles: In the modern army there is one motor vehicle for every four men. The three services today have in use or in reserve in the neighbourhood of 20,000 personnel and load carrying vehicles. Many of these require replacement, and all require care and maintenance. For this purpose we are spending this year some $10 million.
Construction and maintenance of buildings: The largest single item on the material side of the activities of the services is for the construction and maintenance of buildings. Every building we have in good condition is being used, and we have under way a large-scale building program of married quarters. At the beginning of 1947 we had 1,100. When this year's construction program is completed we should have over 7,300, representing a very substantial contribution toward meeting the housing shortage. This year Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is constructing a large number of dwellings earmarked for the use of service personnel. Altogether this year there has been allocated for construction and maintenance of buildings for defence purposes in these estimates and by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation a total of $91 million, comparing with the peak figure on defence construction for 1942 of $219 million.
These figures are supplemented in the annual report and the statement, which have been made available. It occurred to me that in a brief enumeration I could best put before hon. members some of the other matters which may be of interest either by way of report or of program, and after doing this I shall be glad to answer any questions I can. By way of concise report, during the period under review I may mention that-
1.	The ration scale has been improved as to quantity and variety, and also provides for supplementary cash payments in certain cases, thus bringing our ration scale up to anything there is anywhere.
Supply-National Defence
2.	Clothing has been greatly improved, both as to quantity and quality, as far as possible on a uniform basis for all three services.
3.	We have made continued progress in the erection of married quarters, and commenced the construction of new barrack accommodation for single men.
4.	A shipbuilding program has been set under way with an Arctic icebreaker and development orders for three new design antisubmarine vessels, four minesweepers and a gate vessel.
5.	We have pressed on with continued progress on the all-weather fighter, the order for 100 F-86's, the modernization and overhaul of other planes; opened three new air force establishments, including interceptor squadrons at St. Hubert and Chatham, and the navigation school at Summerside.
6.	We have a large electronic program.
7.	We have reopened Royal Military College and established Royal Roads on a triservice basis.
8.	There has been an increased program of sea training for active and reserve naval forces, the first visit by Canadian naval vessels to Hudson bay, as well as the reactivation of H.M.C.S. Cornwallis for training new entries.
9.	The training of the army brigade group has been pressed on, with extra attention to airborne and Arctic fighting and further improvements in summer and winter training arrangements.
10.	The period under review has seen the continued development of co-operative arrangements with the United Kingdom and the United States, highlighted by the visits of the late Hon. James Forrestal and Hon. Louis Johnson, Secretary of Defence of the United States, Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, Secretary of State for Air of the United Kingdom, and numerous other distinguished visitors, and return visits by myself to Washington, with frequent exchanges of officers at every level.
11.	Major General F. F. Worthington was appointed co-ordinator of civil defence.
12.	The industrial defence board and the defence medical and dental advisory board have been set up.
13.	The department has assumed responsibility for inspection, formerly vested in the inspection board.
14.	Medical services were reorganized to take advantage of D.V.A. facilities.
15.	Fire fighter services were established, and fire and accident prevention campaigns carried out.
1666	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
16.	We have continued the campaign for support in recruiting, with the desired results in every respect except for the reserve army.
17.	The security arrangements have been strengthened.
18.	The services have assisted in meeting civilian needs in fire fighting and search and rescue operations.
19.	We have set up a system of tri-service communications across Canada.
These are some of the achievements. On the debit side we have:
1.	Two regrettable losses of planes of the R.C.A.F., both apparently due to bad weather.
2.	Regrettable losses of flyers and aircraft of H.M.C.S. Magnificent.
3.	Disciplinary troubles in the R.C.N., due in part to the difficulties of post-war adjustment.
4.	Adverse press reports on Exercise Eagle, which I believe were due principally to our failure to explain the nature, objects and possibilities of the exercise.
Looking toward the future, in addition to carrying on the program I have outlined I emphasize the need for-
1.	Improved arrangements for training in Canada for naval executive officers, and further improved arrangements for qualifying officers for the R.C.N. from the universities.
2.	Improved arrangements for in-service education and trades training.
3.	Continuous examination of establishments, military and civil, to promote economy and efficiency.
4.	Increased efforts to inform and enlist the support of the civilian community.
In these remarks I have necessarily only touched the highlights of a large scale combined operation. I say it is a combined operation, for I believe the officers and men of our three services are working loyally as a team in the service of their country. During the past two and a half years this has not been a particularly light task or an easy period. Though this particular job imposes heavy and exacting administrative responsibilities requiring continuous attention at headquarters, I have felt that it also required the knowledge and interest resulting from visits to the units across Canada, and I must say I have found these stimulating and inspiring. I have said before and repeat that there is nothing second-rate about the officers and men of our armed forces. It is a privilege I value highly to work with them.
The efforts of Canadians in two great wars have demonstrated our capacity to make a great contribution to the defence of our country and to the common cause of freedom. In proportion to population, no country contributed more to restore those peaceful conditions abroad on which our own prosperity
[Mr. Claxton.J

so largely depends at home. Our representatives earned respect for Canada as a nation standing for justice in international dealings, just as our soldiers, sailors and airmen earned respect for Canada by their competence, their courage and their conduct. Today and in the future Canada's defence organization must ensure the integrity of our territory and meet any obligation we may assume under the North Atlantic treaty.
Towards this end I shall welcome informed and constructive criticism and every kind of assistance, and I believe in this we shall have the support of all hon. members and of all the people from end to end of Canada.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that hon. members of this house will appreciate the statement which has been tabled this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence, and which explains in considerable detail, as he said, the policy governing the organization, training and operation of our defence forces. But I find it difficult to reconcile with that action the last statement he made. Just before he sat down he said he would welcome informed criticism of the policy of his department in order to build better defence forces for Canada. Every hon. member in this committee wants to see our defence forces-the navy, the army and the air force-the finest that this country can possibly produce. But I suggest that the tabling at this time of a statement outlining that policy is of no help whatsoever to this committee. We have not had an opportunity to study the contents of the statement; therefore we cannot give that type of informed criticism which the minister has expressed a desire to receive by way of assistance in the development of our armed forces. I do not know how long this debate will go on, but I hope that it will go on long enough, or that it will be adjourned at some time during the discussion of these estimates, and resumed later in order that we may have an opportunity to read the statement that the minister has today tabled.
The minister referred to the fact that today is Remembrance day. I cannot help feeling that it is a strange, sad, ironical circumstance that we should be discussing estimates for national defence within a few hours of the time when members of this house and hundreds of thousands of people all across Canada were standing in reverent memory of the sacrifices which had been made by Canadians in past wars. I feel sure that it was the fervent prayer of all those who attended these ceremonies that the sacrifices made by Canadians in the past would not have to be repeated.
The extent of the attendance at these memorial services can perhaps be emphasized

by recalling the fact of the differences in time throughout Canada. I look at the clock, and I realize that the parade in my own village on Vancouver island will just now be dispersing. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that, at every hour during the twenty-four, men in some part of the world, with their wives and children, will be standing in front of a cenotaph and praying that there may not be another repetition of the catastrophes of the past.
With vivid memories of the sacrifices that those men have made, I cannot but turn my thoughts back to the policies which have enabled Canada, during the past century and a half, to preserve herself and to help to maintain the freedom of this world.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century Canada was threatened by a series of international disturbances. It was then the settled policy of the United Kingdom government to station Jn Canada regular forces of the British army, equal in number to the regular forces then maintained by the only enemy which was anticipated at that moment, namely, the United States. Those British regular regiments were stationed in small garrisons at nodal points from the Atlantic to the great lakes. In some cases the garrisons were not strong, merely manning forts, but they were a deterrent or a stopgap which enabled the citizens of Canada, when the emergency developed, to rally behind those regular regiments and, after a period of training and equipping, to fight nobly in the defence of this country. The essential point I make here is that regular units were available in order to gain the time for the civilian soldiers to become ready.
As we pass over the years-we need not bother about the South African campaign, because we hardly took a great part in it- we find that in 1914, around those militia units which then existed, the citizens of Canada rallied, as they also did in 1939. In the winter of 1914 the units which had made the greatest progress in their development went over to England, and in the spring of 1915 they took part in some of the great battles of that campaign. But, remember, there had been other troops who had drawn to themselves the first onslaught of the enemy's attack. The British regular army should have been decimated and should have perished in gaining that time. That is immaterial, but it is a fact. Time was gained by their heroic withdrawal from Mons and the first battle of Ypres and so forth.
Then came 1939, and again around our nonpermanent and permanent force units the citizens of Canada rallied. Again, after a period of training, those who had made the
Supply-National Defence most progress in that respect were transported across to the United Kingdom, and there in the United Kingdom they underwent a further period of training, a further period of equipping. In the meantime other troops from other countries were holding off the enemy while that period of training went on. I remember very vividly how, in the spring of 1940, the first Canadian division moved out from Aldershot. It was a circus. It was a circus as we rattled our way with indentured vehicles up to Midlands, there to occupy another position. Our training went on, and as the battle of Britain was being fought after Dunkirk and the danger became greater in September, 1940, one year after the outbreak of war the first Canadian division was rehearsing at dawn day after day a counter-invasion role. As their commander I know that I stood up and said to battalion after battalion: "I know that you will fight gallantly but the cost will be heavy because you will not fight skilfully. You are not well trained".
We were fortunate that it was impossible for Hitler's armies to cross that small channel. The air force held them back. The air force attacked them while they were mustering in France in preparation for that invasion.
Again I want to emphasize the fact that while under the system which had held good and had proved itself worthy for the defence of Canada for a hundred and fifty years somebody else had gained the time before the militia of Canada were ready to carry out the magnificent role which brought the crowning victories in these campaigns. Are times changing now? Only a few days ago in this city a great statesman from the United Kingdom said that the card had been played for the last time. I refer to Mr. Bevin's statement in speaking to the Canadian Club here in Ottawa. The card had been played for the last time. What card? The card of gaining enough time to develop your forces for the outbreak of war.
General Crerar, who was in command of the Canadian army during the campaigns in this war, has repeatedly pointed out that if a country is not ready when war breaks out again it will never have a chance to save itself.
The policy which has just been enunciated by the minister, the policy which is described in the annual report of his department, and the policy, as far as I could gather which has been published in the statement that he has just tabled, indicates that this country is relying upon exactly the same policy which has stood this country in good stead for a hundred and fifty years, but which, according to men such as Mr. Bevin and General

Supply-National Defence Crerar, is now out of date. This is the policy as enunciated in the annual report for the Canadian navy:
To provide a well-trained nucleus equipped with ships of the classes needed for coastal defence and the protection of trade, to train reserves and to provide the administration and training personnel and equipment to permit whatever expansion may be necessary.
I now turn to the policy as defined for the Canadian army:
To have in active service a highly trained and mobile force, capable at the same time of defending our territory against any possible sudden attack and also of forming a compact framework around which reserve forces may quickly be built up in case of emergency.
So far as the air force is concerned the policy is as follows:
. . . the R.C.A.F. is to build up and maintain an air strength adequate to meet any immediate attack and to form a nucleus for the formation of larger forces if necessary.
Hon. members will see that at the present time the emphasis is being placed continually on the small compact units. They are relying upon there being a period of time in which the reserve forces of the army, navy and air force may be built up.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is much uncertainty, much consternation amongst the people of this country, particularly those people who have had service experience -and there is a very high percentage of our people who have had service experience. There is much uncertainty as to whether this course of relying upon the ability to build up reserve formations, the militia, call it by whatever name you like, when the emergency comes, and relying upon some other forces to gain that time, is a sound policy under present conditions.
In the last few days, or the last few months, an investigation has been carried out by three distinguished men. I refer to the commission set up under Admiral Mainguy to inquire into conditions in the navy. He stated quite frankly that his commission did not make an exhaustive inquiry into Canada's naval policy and the part our navy might be called upon to play in case this country were once again involved in war.
They would have had this annual report of the Department of National Defence before them; and he goes on to say that the knowledge they had did influence them in their inquiry and thought, and the recommendations they submitted. At page 52 of the report the commission states:
There Is a widespread feeling that the available manpower and material have been stretched too far and too thin to meet the requirements of a fighting, convoying and anti-submarine force.
[Mr. Pearkes.3
The report goes on to say that they recommend that the naval complement should be reviewed. In other words, they recommend that we should cut our coat according to the cloth we have, that we should review the whole of our naval policy with regard to the number of ships and men we can maintain and the roles we should carry out.
The report continues at page 42 to state that the comparatively heavy commitments of the navy have required constant operation and hurried change, with the result that training has not gone ahead as fast or as systematically as it should have. The present actual complement of officers and men was stated by several witnesses to be inadequate for the existing commitment.
There are other references to the same question of naval policy. The report drives home the fact that our resources are too thin and have been stretched too far to do all the tasks they are being called upon to do. I do venture to suggest that the same sort of thing applies in respect of the other services -that our resources are being stretched too far and they are too thin to be able to provide these mobile forces and to provide the nucleus for expansion which it is suggested will have to take place under certain circumstances.
I think the expansion which is so essential will be most acutely felt in so far as the Royal Canadian Air Force is concerned. Hon. members will recollect that in the early days of the battle of Britain, in the first years of the war, appalling casualties were suffered among fighter pilots. Replacements were very heavy for fighter pilots, aircraftmen, bomber pilots, bomber gunners-in fact anyone who was in the air. That was where the heaviest strain came. That was where there was almost a breaking point in the battle of Britain. Everyone there at the time has spoken of the glorious action of those R.A.F. and R.C.A.F. pilots who, worn out and exhausted, returned to the attack time and time again against the Germans who were endeavouring to bring the United Kingdom to heel through action of their bombers.
What is the condition regarding the strength of our reserve forces in so far as the R.C.A.F. is concerned? I ask that because it was to the auxiliary squadrons that Canada and the other nations had to look for their supply of pilots. In this connection I take my figures as they appear in table 3 at page 82 of the report of the Department of National Defence. At this point the reserve strength as at March 31 of this year for the reserve army is 36,311. The strength of air crews and ground crews of the reserve auxiliary air force is only 1,427. I heard the figures the minister gave today, which indicated an

increase from that number. I would point out that that increase consists of recruits, because on March 31 they were not there.
I turn next to the training section in the annual report, and at section 18 on page 10 I find that in the Canadian universities there is a enrolment of 2,040 cadet officers training with the officers training corps. In section 20 we see the number of university students training as cadet officers in the R.C.A.F. These would be the personnel who would be first called upon to replace casualties suffered in an air war. What do we find? As against 2,040 army officer cadets there are 366 students in the R.C.A.F. auxiliary.
Surely we are not putting the emphasis in the right place in providing reserves and the expansion which is so essential. Surely we must be realistic. As the minister said, if there is an attack against this country it must come by air or by water. If it comes by air or by water the policy he enunciated, that it must be met as far away from Canada as possible, is the correct policy. To do that we must have a strong air force. We must be able to bring to bear not a small active force supported merely by some 300 students now in training. I suggest that if we are again to rely upon the expansion of essential forces we have to place emphasis where it is most needed in order to carry out the policy announced by the minister of meeting the enemy as far away from Canada as possible. That is not what is being done under the present policy.
Looking at the estimates for this year I find that the details on page 198 show that $8,939,000 is being provided for army reserves. Then when I turn to see what is being provided for the auxiliary of the Royal Canadian Air Force I find that only $3,600,000 is in the estimates, a little more than one-third and less than one-half of the previous amount. The next junior branch is the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, those keen youngsters who are seen occasionally in the high schools across the country. They are allotted $363,000 as compared with $1,002,000 for the army cadets. Again I say that if we are relying upon the expansion of the essential arm, we are not giving encouragement where it should be given. The annual report shows that of the money allocated last year for the R.C.A.F. squadrons and training plan and R.C.A.F. reserves, only $1,067,000 was expended.
I do not want to labour that point any longer. In the light of the statements which have been made by Mr. Bevin, by General Crerar, in the Mainguy report and by many other government officials, I think that there is cause for anxiety and criticism as to whether the policy which has stood us so
Supply-National Defence well over the last 150 years is the correct policy under the very changed conditions which exist in the world today.
I am not in position to say how that can be corrected.
The minister has suggested that he would like the co-operation of every hon. member in this house. We in this party have suggested from time to time a way in which we think he could get that co-operation. We have suggested that if a committee was set up to deal with questions of defence we would be better informed and therefore would be able to give him the advice which he has asked us today to supply. Whether that is the right course, whether that is the course the government is prepared to follow, only the minister can say. But he has asked us for co-operation and that is our suggestion.
I am quite certain that every hon. member shares his pride in the forces of Canada, particularly at seeing these young men come and stand around the cenotaph side by side with the veterans of two past wars. So many of these services remind me of the wonderful poem by Colonel McCrae, the theme of which was that with failing hands they passed on the torch to future generations. I do not believe that it was the meaning of Colonel McCrae, nor is it the interpretation placed upon that poem by the people of Canada, that they were passing on a fiery cross to call the clansmen on some foray. I think he meant that they were passing on a beacon which it was hoped would light the way to better conditions in the world of the future.
As we all know, and as the minister has said, the high hopes of San Francisco, where the United Nations was formed, have not been fulfilled in their entirety. However, I have confidence in the peoples of this world and I believe that ultimately we shall be able to find some other means of settling international difficulties. The time has not yet come when we do not have to maintain strong and adequate armed forces. We want to be able to grasp that torch with strong and firm hands, not with weak and faltering hands.
I believe the people of Canada are prepared to advance these immense sums of money in the hope that the armed forces of Canada will be able to prevent a third world war, in the hope that the armed forces of Canada will be designed to prevent a third world war rather than to win the victory during the later stages of that war, should it come. The people of Canada are making great sacrifices. I admire the minister for not mincing matters when he spoke about the

Supply-National Defence amount of money he was asking the people of Canada to contribute for the maintenance of these forces.
The people of Canada want to know that that money is being spent in the right direction; that the policy the department is following will achieve the ends desired and that we are not merely providing this money to maintain old traditions; that we are not pouring that money into the Department of National Defence only to find that what is to be provided is a useless, futile type of defence if we are ever called upon to fight again. I have grave doubts as to whether the policy being followed by this government is going to achieve the results that Canada expects.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, it is rather significant that on Armistice day we are discussing the estimates for the Department of National Defence. We look back over the last thirty-one years and realize that on November 11, 1918, a sigh of relief went up from everyone in Canada, and indeed across the world, because one great war had ended; we look back and realize that now we have seen a second and even greater world war; and yet today we are forced by circumstances to discuss defence once again, and the possibilities of entering another world-wide struggle. I do not think any member of the house can do other than support the defence estimates that have been presented to us. Of course the tragedy is that after two great wars we are forced to consider anew methods of defence.
Let us not forget that defence lies not only in the strength of our armed forces and the instruments of war that we may build, but also in the condition of our people and the conditions of people all over the world. A short time ago we listened to a very great man speaking in this chamber, Prime Minister Nehru of India. If we followed his address closely we saw that the lesson to be gained from it was that, not in armed strength but in the removal of evil social and economic conditions, the peace of the world really lies. Until we have removed the economic and social conditions that cause unrest and make for war, we have to consider ways and means of national defence in another field. In the ultimate, the manner in which we can best serve our generation, and generations to come, the manner in which we can best bring universal peace to the world, is to seek the security of all mankind economically and socially as well as in every other way.
I hope we have learned another lesson since the last war ended. It is that we must press forward to bring about understanding among the nations of the world in order to prevent


war. From what I have heard said by some of the greatest scientists engaged in the production of atomic energy and the atomic bomb, and from what I have read in their articles and those of military men as well, there is really no adequate defence against modern instruments of war. If we allow war to come upon the world again then the civilization that we know will fall in ruins.
It is not often I agree with spokesmen for the Soviet union at the United Nations or elsewhere, but I read a short time ago that, in the celebration of their national holiday commemorating the revolution of 1917, their national spokesman on that occasion predicted that if war came to the world, as he put it, the capitalist society would be destroyed utterly. I would go further than that and say that civilization of every sort, whether it be capitalist, socialist or communist, will be destroyed utterly in the event of another world war. There is really no defence against modern instruments of war, but of course some reliance can be placed, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat implied, upon negotiation among the nations based upon strength. Consequently if other nations are engaged in strengthening their defensive machinery, lacking collective security we also have to participate in a similar policy.
I am glad that the Minister of National Defence saw fit yesterday to place in the hands of at least some of the members of the house the document I have before me, "Canada's Defence Program". I am sorry that it was received rather late last evening, because I should like to have given closer study to it. As a matter of fact, except for the short time I was in the house last night, I spent the evening reading it, and a very interesting document it is. It indicates the tremendous amount of money that we are going to spend this year on the various projects the minister has enumerated this afternoon. There is the figure of $375 million in the main estimates plus $8 million in the supplementary estimates, a total of $383 million. If you add another $150 million to that you come pretty close to the amount of our total national budget for all purposes prior to the last war. As I say, if you add $150 million to the $383 million, you come close to the total national expenditure of Canada in 1939 and prior years. Sixteen per cent of our country's revenue, $38 per head of our population-


Brooke Claxton: 


Major James William Coldwell: I thought you said $38.


Brooke Claxton: 


Major James William Coldwell: Twenty-eight dollars per head of our population is an enormous

expenditure in a country such as Canada which has so many resources awaiting development. In the autumn of 1946 I had the privilege of being one of the Canadian delegation at the United Nations. Our delegation, through the mouth of the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the present Prime Minister, placed that point of view forcibly before the general assembly of the United Nations. He urged the necessity of carrying out the parts of the United Nations charter having to do with collective security of the nations in order, as he put it, that we might proceed in a country like Canada to raise the standards of life of the people. Today we have to face an expenditure of $28 per head of population, not for the development of our great resources, not for the raising of our standards of living and the improvement of the lot of our people, but for preparations for defence.
We supported the North Atlantic pact because we believe it is essential under the conditions that exist today, but let me point out that the North Atlantic agreement is a second best only, and that if we are going to have real world-wide security then we must have it on the basis of the United Nations. Consequently we believe that at this time the manner in which we co-operate with others will mitigate to some extent the obligation we have to assume for defence. The minister said in the course of his remarks that the best way to deter the forces of communism was to face them with overwhelming strength. Again may I say, as I said of the Atlantic treaty, in my opinion that is indeed a second best. Perhaps it is the alternative we must accept today, but in my opinion the best way to defeat communism, or what we call communism, is to raise the standards of living of people everywhere, and to see to it that nations are engaged in promoting social justice everywhere. That is the only real and effective weapon against communism; there is no other. Indeed, that was the lesson brought to us in this chamber a few short weeks ago by Nehru.
But since there is not social justice across the world, since there is grave danger of conflict among the nations, then we must guard our own country well; and that means we must consider proposals such as those which have been placed before us this afternoon. The minister told us Canada's forces were merely a nucleus in the event of war, a nucleus of army, a nucleus of navy and a nucleus of air force. While that was criticized by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), perhaps after all that is about as far as we can go if we are to maintain our national economy, and indeed it is as far as most other countries are going at the
Supply-National Defence present time. That is so in the United States, though their forces are many times the size of ours and their expenditures much greater. In the United Kingdom, where they are closer to that part of the world where conflict might arise, the same policy is being followed. Because side by side with the arming of our forces and the organization of navies, armies and air forces, we must maintain our industrial and economic strength; for in the final analysis it is upon our industrial and economic strength that victory or defeat will depend.
And let me say in considering the arming of our forces, whether they be naval, military or air force, I believe that this should be done, as I have so often said in the house, without profit to any group or individual in this land. We of this movement have always stood for the nationalization of the main munition industry. It may be argued that many industries not recognized today as munition industries are of importance in wartime and that therefore a policy such as I have suggested could not be carried out. But there are certain vital industries manufacturing the equipment of war that should be in the hands of the Canadian people through public ownership. I regretted very much the sale of Canadair two or three years ago, because I foresaw that in the event of a program such as the minister has laid before us today this industry would be vital in the realm of national defence; and so it is proving to be. And if I may say so, while I believe the company is operating efficiently, I was disturbed to see that it was sold to the Electric Boat Company. Anyone who knows the story of that company between the two wars I think will agree with me; or anyone who has read the book on the munition industry, entitled "The Private Manufacture of Armaments", written a few years ago by a gentleman who was here within the last two or three weeks, Right Hon. Noel-Baker, will recall that in this book the exposure of the anti-social operations of that company is quite complete. So I say we believe that the main armament industry of the country should not be a matter of private profit for any corporation or any individual, but should be a national project under complete national ownership. During the last war we saw in our own country how great, nation-wide industries were strengthened and enabled to attain an even more monopolistic position in our society than they had previously: Aluminium Limited, Canadian Industries Limited, and now Canadair. That is one feature of the defence program with which we disagree, the manner in which the instruments of war are being provided for our army, navy and air force. We believe that

Supply-National Defence should be undertaken as some of these projects were undertaken during the war with efficiency. We can point with great pride in this country, I think, to some of the industries which operated under the Department of Munitions and Supply as crown companies owned by this nation.
Then we agree that the conditions affecting the personnel of the armed forces should be the very best. I have read the naval report to which reference was made this afternoon, and one of the criticisms it expresses is the distance which was maintained between the officers and men. I think the authors of that report were quite correct when they said the average young man entering the Canadian navy was somewhat different to the average young man entering the British navy. In the past at least the officers of the British navy have been drawn from a different class than the men serving in the lower ranks. That is not the case in our own country, where officers and men have obtained their education often from the same schools, and have come from the same sort of homes with the same environment. Consequently the sort of discipline one finds in the British and some other navies should not be applied in the Canadian navy. So I congratulate the minister on having said, as he did, that steps would be taken to more particularly Canadianize our navy. That does not mean merely painting maple leaves on the funnels of the ships. It means much more than that: the organization of a navy based on Canadian conceptions and Canadian conditions, with a Canadian atmosphere among officers and men. Discipline there must be; but I have always believed, both in my own lifework and generally, that the best kind of discipline is one of confidence, rather than a discipline of remoteness or fear. So I am glad indeed to hear that the minister is proceeding with the Canadian-ization of our navy.
He said, too, that it was essential to attract men of good physique. Well, that is essential, but first of all we must raise the men of good physique, and in order to get them we must have a well-fed, well-housed and healthy population. I sat in this house on another November day in 1941 when the then Minister of National War Services, Hon. J. T. Thorson, speaking from a place not far from where the minister is sitting now, read a report of the experience during the first year of recruiting, 1939-40. The house was shocked to learn that some 46 per cent of the young men who had offered themselves for enlistment for overseas service were turned down because of physical defects of one sort or another.


That, it seems to me, was a commentary upon the conditions which had existed for a number of years and which were particularly acute between 1930 and 1939. If we are going to have defence and are going to rely on men and women for that defence, we must see to it that the children of this nation are well housed, well clothed, well fed and-if I may add one other requirement-well educated as well. I therefore say that our defence expenditures should be matched by expenditures for social services and for the wellbeing of the nation generally.
A moment ago I mentioned the fact that education was also an arm of defence, and that statement was never truer than it is today. During the last war we learned the importance of the scientist, the educated technologist and others who possessed above average educational attainments and abilities. Indeed, in spite of those terrible years-and in a way perhaps because of them

in the early days of the war Canada provided the Royal Air Force with a high percentage of pilots and navigators. This was possible because in this country we had a group of young men who had received a high-school education or better. Consequently, when we discuss defence, we cannot forget that it means more than the placing of men in uniform and the building of the machines of war. It means education, especially scientific education, preparation for research and technical activities.
A few moments ago I mentioned the Canadianization of the Canadian navy. In this document I was glad to see that attempts are being made to educate our young men along democratic lines so that in the days to come they may take their places in more responsible positions. One other thing I noticed was the large number of civilians now employed in armed forces activities; they are civilians who are skilled in various lines of endeavour, such as artisans and so on. Let me emphasize once again that just as we need skilled men in the armed services, so we need skilled men and women in industry. I think that most hon. members in this chamber-at least those who were here at the time-will recollect that we had great difficulty, in the first two years of the last war, in equipping the men who were in the armed forces; that we had great difficulty in getting the necessary plans and blueprints for the building of the necessary equipment; and that we had considerable difficulty in getting the necessary skilled labour to make the equipment according to the plans and specifications which we had secured. We should therefore be thinking not only in terms of army, navy and air force, but in terms of building up in our own country a civilian corps of men and women consisting of arti-

sans, technologists as well as scientists, who are so skilled that, in the event of new machines of war being needed if war comes again, which God forbid, they will be able to provide us with those machines in a short time.
To some extent, of course, that objective is being accomplished through the re-education of our veterans, through our technical schools and the scientific research organizations in our universities, and through such projects as the one at Chalk River which some of us are looking forward to seeing next week.
If we look at a list of the scientific advances and changes that have been made since the last war ended, we realize that in a discussion of this sort we cannot think of a future war in terms of the last war or the war before. When we faced the last crisis in the world and in this country, one of the difficulties was that most of us had been thinking in terms of the war of 1914-18, when all of sudden we were faced with an entirely new set of circumstances. Then army, navy, air force and parliament had to unlearn much of what they had learned, between the two wars, out of the lessons of the first one. Because of these new instruments of war that the minister listed, the cost of national defence today is comparatively fabulous. When the minister was speaking, he mentioned "construction" in the estimates amounting to $91 million. That is something that is necessary, and I am not criticizing it; but I did a rough calculation. For the $91 million we could have built
18.000	houses at $5,000 each if we could have been relieved of expenditures of this description. As I say, I am not criticizing that expenditure of $91 million. But when the words "construction for the armed forces" were used, the thought flashed through my mind that if we had been able to use that $91 million for construction for domestic needs, this year we could have constructed
18.000	additional houses with a value of $5,000 each.
Once again I want to say that while we support the measures that the government consider necessary-and after all, the government must make this decision; they have information that we do not possess-and while we support these defence proposals, we believe that every effort must be made by our Department of External Affairs, supported by the people of this country, to endeavour to bring about international understanding so that such expenditures will be unnecessary in the days to come, and so that we may have real collective security through international organization. When we get that we, in common with other nations, shall be 45781-1064
Supply-National Defence able to embark upon a program of international and national disarmament and shall be able to use the vast amounts of money nations now expend in this way for the benefit of the people of all countries.
The minister paid a tribute, as did the hon. member for Nanaimo, to the young men and women who served in the last war. Distinctly I remember really believing thirty-one years ago, as I did for some years, that the world had had a blood bath that it would not forget, and that the little children growing up in our homes in 1918, as my own son was, would not be called upon to face another such war. Well, they were called upon to face that war. It seems to me that one of the obligations that parliaments have, that the Department of External Affairs has and men and women of good will everywhere have, is to do our level best to see that the world is so organized, the standards of living are so raised and the causes of discontent so removed that the generation of little boys and girls growing up in our homes today, and in some instances our grandchildren, will not be called upon to do what our sons and daughters were called upon to do.
I admired the young men and women in the Canadian armed forces when I had the privilege of going overseas in 1941 and again in 1944. The hon. member for Cape Breton South, the hon. member for Melfort and I were privileged in September 1944 to visit our armed forces in Belgium, which had just been occupied. Anyone who met Belgian citizens at that time and heard the tributes that were paid to the young Canadians who had occupied that country will never forget it. They were well liked because of their courtesy and of their general behaviour. We felt very proud of these young men and women, but I hope that we may never have to send overseas contingents of young men and women to do the same kind of job that they did.
While we have that hope we cannot neglect to do all we can to promote the defence of our own country, lest some calamity befall this nation and the world. Therefore, what I want to say is that while we support these defence expenditures made necessary by the uncertain international situation, we want to say to the house that we believe the best way to defeat subversive elements, communism, if you wish to call it that, in our own country and throughout the world, is to do everything in our power, both in our own country and in co-operation with all nations, to raise the standards of living and to remove the causes of poverty, misery and want, out of which future wars are likely to arise. With these words I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that we must support the estimates presented by the government.

Supply-National Defence


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Up to
the present time the debate has been enlightening and in the main enjoyable. The hon. member who has just taken his seat has voiced the sentiments of almost everyone in this chamber as regards the ideals we are working for. With his expression of ideals I have no quarrel at all. To them I say, Amen. But when it comes to means whereby these ideals may be achieved then I take sharp issue with his proposals.
All during world war II it was declared by government spokesmen everywhere that what is physically possible shall be made financially possible. In the main during the war that promise was honoured. With the coming of the peace the same principle ought to have been applied in an effort to win the peace. I find myself completely amazed to discover that not one single spokesman for the government, or anyone from the opposition, has insisted that we should make what is physically possible financially possible in our endeavours to win the peace. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if these particular people whom I have mentioned had been as industrious, as determined, to make what is physically possible financially possible in their endeavours to win the peace, we should not now be in such necessity to prepare for the greatest war of all times. They apparently forgot the principle that what is physically possible can be made financially possible as regards the peace not only within the nation but among the nations.
Little attention indeed is given to Canada's physical possibilities by the members of the government's side of the house, and I fear by even the members of the Progressive Conservative party. Little attention is given Canada's physical possibilities when we confront problems such as the housing problem of Canada, the transportation problem of Canada, both as regards freight rates and the construction of highways, the price control problem of Canada, including the cost of living; old age pensions, and war veterans' allowances. It never seems to dawn on anyone in these august bodies that what we can do for old age pensioners depends in the last analysis on the food, clothing and shelter we can produce in Canada.
Today the minister has declared in effect that if we Canadians cannot financially afford a safely adequate program of defence, then we cannot have that adequate program of defence, regardless of what may or may not be Canada's physical possibilities. I suppose it will not dawn on the minister and his colleagues that what is physically possible can be made financially possible in preparation for war until we are again in war, when it is
[Mr. Coldwell.i

too late to make what we all would hope might have been a really adequate preparation.
The coming war, Mr. Chairman, will be characterized by lightning speed, transcendent military strategy, designed to paralyse us immediately, unscrupulous surprise, equal to that of Pearl Harbor, and dismaying fifth-column activities, co-operating with the foe.
Bearing this in mind, there are four questions that the minister ought to answer. I do not care whether he does it on the floor of the house or not. But he ought to answer them when he gets back in conference with the able assistants of his department and with his colleagues in cabinet. First: Could Canada fight successfully if the United States were paralysed by strikes or internal disorders? I do not know that I have heard this question even entertained. Second: Is our military industry decentralized appropriately? Third: Have we regional organization for the production and distribution of food, clothing and shelter in Canada in respect of both storing and producing, with respect to providing hospitalization, government, defence, aggression? Have we provision for guerrilla warfare?
I was over in Britain in 1941 with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I was a member of the delegation of the empire parliamentary association in that tragic year of Britain's history. I was impressed with the fact that they had organized Britain into twelve distinct regions. The general idea was that each of those regions was provided with all the equipment such as I have referred to that would enable it to carry on a successful fight against the foe alone. So that if eleven of the twelve regions of Britain were overrun, the twelfth could still shout defiance at the foe, and make good its defiance. I should think it would be the barest fundamental of wisdom in Canada for us to have at least several regions comparable with those in Britain. I doubt very much however that we have any such organization, although it would seem to me necessary.
I am afraid that if by successful manoeuvring a foe could gain control of certain parts of Ontario and Quebec, you could roll down the curtains on Canada. That would be something to be very sorry about, but something for which the Liberal government in Canada would have to assume responsibility, by reason of its policy of centralizing industry during the long years of its regime in Canada.
Fourth: Have we a nucleus and skeleton organization, in respect of personnel, buildings and equipment, for a British commonwealth air training scheme? I am a bit surprised we have not heard about such an air training scheme, especially in the light of

the fact that this scheme played so potent a part in the ultimate victory of our arms in world war II.
Having said this much about the general situation, may I turn to the document called "Canada's Defence Program" which was distributed by the minister among the leaders of the parties, and from which document he quoted rather generously this afternoon. I am sorry it did not reach my hands until 11.15 last night, and that I have not been able to give it as much attention as I should like to have given to so important a document. Nevertheless, under the circumstances, we shall do what we can.
I turn to the second division of it which deals with the international situation, and should like to read into Hansard certain excerpts from that part of the document, commenting upon certain of them. In paragraph 5 on page 6 I find this:
We appreciated that the road to peace was a long and arduous one and that with other members we should have to assume continuous responsibilities for the building and maintenance of peace.
"The building and maintenance of peace" -very well said; but not much done about it. Then, following that-
The people of Canada, through their representatives in parliament, clearly indicated that they were prepared to accept these responsibilities.
They did; no blame on the people of Canada. And from the same paragraph:
No substantial progress has so far been made through the institutions of the United Nations.
And the question ought to be asked, in capital letters of red, and underlined: Why? Everyone will blame the wrong person, just as nearly everyone blamed the wrong person for the outbreak of world war II.
Then I should like to quote from paragraph 7-and I shall not comment at great length, but shall reserve my comments for later. It states-
By the terms of the treaty- and the reference is to the Atlantic pact-
-the parties undertake "to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means," and "to contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions."
As I recall it, the United States signed that document and thus committed herself to the treaty. I should like to ask any citizen of the United States who by chance happened to come in contact with this speech, and I would ask any other person in Canada the same question: What would United States reaction be if the European nations asked for the privilege of introducing the imperial preference system in accordance with their opinion as to how far those preferences would
Supply-National Defence help? I wonder if there would be on the part of the United States a willingness to confer with others in an effort to grant European nations their request? I go on:
-to "encourage economic collaboration"-
I wonder what has been done to encourage economic collaboration, in the realistic sense. We are discussing the international situation. I quote again from paragraph 7:
"The parties separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack."
I wonder if they have gone as far as mutually helping to raise each other's standard of living, or if they all have fallen back into cutthroat competition-which everyone knows is commercial warfare and leads inevitably to military warfare. It continues:
The parties agree to "consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened."
I wonder if Canada and the United States have really got right down to grass roots in the endeavour to find out how to raise their respective standards of living so as to prevent the inroads of communism from becoming greater? If they have not, it will not do much good for the minister to get up here and use unctuous phrases in Canada about peace.
Then turn to paragraph 8:
The purpose of the North Atlantic treaty is to establish the joint strength of the democratic countries and, by making aggression clearly unprofitable, give the western nations the opportunity to combat communism, not in the field of war, but in the field of ideas, of practical living and of peace.
I should like to ask, for the benefit of the minister and his colleagues, and especially the Prime Minister, what greater opportunity Canada and the United States could possibly have than they have had given them in order to accomplish this laudable objective.
But we see no results from it. Vast numbers of the people of Canada are living right on the verge of poverty. When the announcement was made that rents would rise it was a calamity to most of them. They do not have much of a margin to go on, and to keep them away from communism, or cushion them against the wily arguments of communists, do they?
Then, turning to paragraph 12 on page 8:
By pooling resources, the effect of the pact should be to reduce the total expenditures which each of the twelve countries would have found necessary for their security had there been no pact. However, that result is some distance off and in the meantime, Canada will have to make such modifications of her plans as may be found necessary to meet the situation.
1676	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
I wonder if Canada is making modifications in her plans so as to meet her internal economic and financial situation? I have my doubts.
And then at paragraph 16 on page 9, quoting General Bradley:
"The more I work on our plans lor defence, the more I am convinced that war is not inevitable-
I agree with the gentleman.
-and that our defence plans can be part of a strategy for a lasting peace."
And then on the following page:
War is not impossible . . . but I believe it is unlikely. I believe it can be made increasingly unlikely by our own behaviour-
I agree with that-"our own" behaviour. -if only the American people can adhere to a wise and steadfast course of conduct through the years.
Change "American" to "Canadian" and I would agree with him there also.
There is no absolute security in the world today. But there is relative security, and a way to make that relative security stronger.
Especially in Canada and the United States.
Once we have established reasonable defensive forces, in combination with our friends of the Atlantic pact, the likelihood of an attack against us will be slight.
It surely will be.
X mean (by reasonable defensive forces) forces of such strength that any potential enemy must recognize (a) that it would be foolhardy for him to start a war against us, and (b) that it would be foolhardy for us to start a war against him. I believe that such an equilibrium of forces can be established, and held stable through the years until more civilized long-range solutions can be found.
Those words of General Bradley contain some jewels of wisdom, but I am afraid he did not have in mind the kind of thing that really needs to be done by both nations.
Are Canada and the United States really doing all they can to contribute to and encourage amicable collaboration? I immediately recall the United States' unconditional most-favoured-nations clause that forced Japan into world war II, and probably forced Germany to declare war in the beginning. What about the non-discrimination principle that has practically throttled every nation on the earth today? What about the convertibility of currency fallacy, that ghastly misconception brought about by the Bretton Woods agreement? What about the coerced reduction of imperial preferences which made the lot of Great Britain and the British commonwealth so much more difficult than it otherwise would have been? Those were all embodied or implied in the Bretton Woods agreement and the Minister of National Defence, along with all his colleagues, supported that agreement. I suppose he still
(Mr. Blackmore.]

supports it. That was one of the most pernicious documents ever perpetrated on earth by man. The Geneva and Havana trade agreements were built around the same fallacious principles, and those principles have never been disavowed. I maintain that until those principles are disavowed there is no hope for peace in the world.
May I refer to some of the things that are going on in the world and especially in our neighbouring nation where people are getting up and uttering high-sounding phrases just like those the minister has used. I do not want to be unkind to the minister because I know he is in the hands of a certain group of people who are working toward certain objectives. But he has been one of the leaders in that group, judging by his remarks in this house in times past.
We read in the Christian Science Monitor of November 7 that the government of the United States is limiting the production of many products at the very time when a billion people in the world lack the very things of which she is going to limit the production. Can we speak of that as being a measure designed to produce peace in the world? They are suggesting a reduction in the production of corn, wheat, cotton, rice, potatoes, peanuts, tobacco, citrus fruits and milk in some cities. That is being done at a time when there are tens of thousands of people in the United States not receiving the nourishment they ought to receive.
On November 2 the Christian Science Monitor speaks about the proposed reduction in the production of corn and says that the acreage will be reduced in 1950 to the lowest figure since 1892, that next year perhaps 10,000,000 acres less will be in production than in 1949. That brings up the question: How many commodities in Canada is the government limiting the production of? Not a few! In doing that I contend that their policy is directly contrary to all the high-sounding and pious phrases that appear in the Atlantic pact.
On November 3 Philip Noel-Baker, speaking before the Canadian Club in Quebec, said that one billion people in the world suffer from hunger but that with modern methods world food production could be doubled. Why is not the world doubling it? Until the modern world does that, particularly the United States and Canada, how can we stand here and say that Canada and the United States are doing all they can to prevent the coming of another war? If we cannot be honest, we should at least refrain from talking.
On the financial page of the Christian Science Monitor of October 24, 1949, there

is reference to the Hirsch report. These are specialists in grain; they state that the world need for United States wheat is still vast.
Let us bear in mind something which is vital to this matter we are now discussing. In 1947 the United States sold $11 billion to $12 billion more goods to the world than she bought from the world, and a large proportion of those goods were rather forced on the world. That unbalance was just as great in 1948.
Can anyone maintain that the United States, which is refusing to distribute goods within her own borders so that her own people can buy them, which is refusing to distribute purchasing power, can anyone for a moment argue or even pretend that that nation-this applies equally to Canada-is endeavouring to remove the cause of a coming war? I have been arguing this kind of thing for a long time; hon. members cannot say that they have not been warned about this.
I do not want to be hard on hon. members but I can start and go in any direction and point out that all hon. members except Social Crediters almost broke their silly necks in a scramble to accept the Bretton Woods agreement. Apparently they thought that by accepting that pernicious thing all the evils of the world would be solved and the millennium introduced immediately. With the brilliant men that were in parliament in those days, one would think that they could have seen through the thing. The Social Crediters could.
In 1945 I stood here during the Bretton Woods debate and strove with all the force I had to get the Liberal party to realize the awful step they were taking. At that time a body of about 60 men who sat right over there kept up a noise like a stampede of bulls so that it was impossible for anyone to hear what I said. I hope the Liberal party has reformed since that time, because the day will come when those who took part in that booing, those who in those days were called "little Chicago", will bow their heads in shame. They just did not know; they just did not have sense enough to let themselves be told. There is no use talking any other way. If you are ever going to begin to remove the causes of war you must start at the causes of war.
On March 23, 1945, we were discussing the San Francisco conference in this house. I took part in that debate and I am reported on page 155 of Hansard of that day as saying:
I have mentioned three conditions under which Social Crediters favour an international organization. Fourth, each member undertakes to prohibit its nationals from owning or controlling any property or economic undertaking in another sovereign country.
Supply-*National Defence
That is a rather new way to approach this problem, is it not? Believe me, if we are going to approach this problem on a realistic basis we shall have to start right there. I went on further to say:
The significance of that measure for avoiding war will not be appreciated without a considerable amount of study and thought; but that is one of the most important measures, and if that stipulation is not embodied in the arrangements we make, all our attempts at attaining international peace will be futile.
Have my predictions been justified and warranted by what has occurred? Only too well; only too forcibly.
Fifth: Each nation undertakes not to export goods to any other nation, except in payment for imports from that nation, without the consent of that nation's government. That sounds as though it were going to touch somebody's pocket; consequently that stipulation will not be very acceptable. But the embodiment of the last two undertakings will go further towards producing a peaceful condition in this world than all the achievements of several San Francisco conferences.
Finally:	Each state undertakes to receive payment in goods and services for any debt owing to its nationals.
What a difference there would be in the world today if the United States would agree to that.
Do you need a Dumbarton Oaks, with an international police force, to enforce these regulations? All you need is good neighbourly sincere faith and honesty in approaching facts as they are in the world.
I said something more on that same page which I am going to quote if I have time. I am deeply concerned, along with all other members of the house, with removing the causes of war; but removing the causes of war does not have anything to do with building up a great international organization with a big police force to jam adverse policies down the throats of the nations and make them take it and like it. That is not finding a solution to their troubles.
I should like to turn to the document in question and consider it a little further. I shall refer to the section dealing with defence objectives of Canada, part III, and read from paragraph 18:
The attitude of the communists has simplified for all countries the problem of adjusting national interests to international needs.
If the communists have done that I wonder why we do not see more evidence of it in Canada. We can still pass rent regulations that paralyse people from coast to coast and make them wonder if there is anyone in Canada they can trust. If that is not preparing fruitful ground for communist seeds, tell me how you would do it any better, after

Supply-National Defence having made specific promises that such would not be done. In paragraph 19 I find these words:
The right way to preserve peace or to achieve victory is to work with others.
That is perfectly right. How skilful are these members of the government in telling us things which everybody knows are true, but how defective they are when it comes to proposing policies which will put into operation the general principles implied. I should like to turn now to part IV, page 15, paragraph 49, reading in part as follows:
Again in proportion to population the present strength of our navy reserve divisions, reserve army units and air force auxiliary squadrons are larger than the corresponding forces in Britain.
What does that mean? Here we are in Canada with the goods, resources human and material, to outdo, I imagine, ten to one what the British can do, and we are saying that we feel we have achieved something really big when our expenditure, in proportion to our population, is equal to Great Britain's. It is fantastic, is it not, when you look at it? It indicates a lack of a realistic approach to the whole matter.
I should like to turn now to part VI, page 25, paragraph 105, where, referring to the greatest bottleneck in meeting a future emergency, it says that:
... it would be in trained tradesmen. Steps are being taken to increase their numbers.
That is entirely laudable, but the minister has not told us how many trained tradesmen we have, whether or not the number we have is adequate for the needs of the times, and how many we have in reserve in case we are suddenly confronted with war. We shall have to be in operation producing munitions within two days after the next war commences. We shall not have fifteen or eighteen months to tinker around the way we did in the last war. I wonder if the minister can tell us exactly how many trained men he has, how many he has in training who would be ready, say, in three months, six months, one year, and so on, and why he thinks the number he has is adequate. This is the kind of thing I want to know. Some of my sons will be in the next war; I am concerned about the matter. My family will be in danger; I am concerned. I cannot just take nice smooth-sounding phrases and be lulled to sleep.
May I turn now to part VII, page 29, paragraph 127, which reads:
Contracts have been arranged with Canadair Limited for the purchase of 100 F86A's at a cost of $30,211,190, which does not include the cost of engines, armament and radios. The work has already begun on the construction of this aircraft.
Suppose Russia were to strike six weeks from today. How many of these aircraft
IMr. Blackmore.]

would be available? I really would like to know that. I realize that probably the minister might be divulging secrets which it would be inadvisable to divulge, but that is the kind of thing I want to know when I approach the whole problem of preparation for war. When we start to fight we shall need munitions right away. At page 31, paragraph 136, I find the following:
It has been decided to produce new high-powered radar equipment in Canada, thereby giving to Canadian electronic manufacturers experience and capacity invaluable in the event of an emergency.
When do they intend to begin to make this high-powered radar equipment? That is what I want to know. It has been decided; probably it was decided five years ago.
Paragraph 139 reads in part:
In 1948-49 we let contracts for 2,160 married quarters and in addition there were 273 housing units under construction at the end of the year.
That sounds all right, but I should like to know what was the average cost to the government of constructing each of these houses. I should like to know where they are located.
In paragraph 140 we are told:
Although we have added 70 per cent to reserve army accommodation during the last ten years, there is still a great shortage.
How great? We really would like to know that.
Paragraph 141 reads:
For a good many years to come, expenditures on construction will constitute a major item in the defence program.
Bless my soul, we all knew that! It seems to me I knew that when I was fourteen. Paragraph 141 continues:
We have to accommodate seven or eight times the numbers we had before the war,-
I should think we would all know that.
-and have much larger requirements for operational units, stores, hangars, training establishments-indeed every type of construction in every part of the country.
Why on earth did the minister waste our time telling us that?
In the closing paragraph on page 32 I find these words:
This network, furnished with modern radio teletype equipment extends throughout Canada and connects Canada with other countries.
Well and good; but I want to know if it extends adequately to meet our needs in case of an attack in any particular area of Canada. There are a good many other things I want to say, particularly as to paragraphs 148, 149, 150, 151 and 152, but I will probably direct my questions concerning them to the minister some time later.
In conclusion, I advise the minister to advise the cabinet, while yet there is time, to go about discovering means of satisfactorily

distributing the goods Canada is able to produce. Let them set to work to find out how to make what is physically possible actually financially possible in this country. As matters are going now we are approaching the time when our production will exceed our consumption, just as it did before the depression both in Canada and in the United States; then the more goods we have the poorer we shall be, just as we were at that time. Everyone must realize that this statement is sound.
What are we going to do about it? That is the question. Are we going to tinker along with the outmoded philosophies of finance that have filled the minds of the ministers up to the present time, or is it possible for them finally to grow some new wood? When they have learned how to distribute our surplus goods in Canada then let them tackle the problem of how to distribute Canada's surplus goods to the various nations which need them because they are starving, whether or not those needy nations are able to get our dollars with which to pay for them.
When they have finally discovered how to solve this problem let them send a delegation to the United States to talk to President Truman and other men there who are concerned with the same question. Let them inform those people what they have found, and they will make a genuine contribution toward the removal of the major cause of war, and will be putting themselves in line to reap the reward of that hope which General Bradley expressed as being a possibility in our time.
I shall say no more at the present time, Mr. Chairman, but shall probably have something else to say later on.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of my remarks I should like to quote two short sentences from the Mainguy report, as follows:
Although this report in the very nature of things is bound to be critical, it must not be assumed that there are not many reasons for great national pride in the achievements of the Canadian navy, past and present, and in the men who inherit and guard its traditions.
Then a little further on:
If, therefore, we have stressed what is wrong, it should not be forgotten that a great deal also is overwhelmingly right.
If we substitute for "report" the word "remarks" or "criticism", and for "Canadian navy" substitute "defence forces," these two sentences I think will apply to what I have to say, and I think to most of what may be said by members of the opposition. My conception of our job is that we should point out to the government what we think is wrong with our defence policy and our defence 45781-107
Supply-National Defence forces, and offer suggestions as to improvements which may be made. This makes it necessary that our remarks be critical.
In going about the country, in railroad compartments, people's homes and so on, when any general discussion of the question of defence comes up I have found that ordinarily three questions are asked. First, what is our defence policy? Second, what commitments have we for defence under the Atlantic pact? Third, have we the forces we need to meet those commitments? The people of this country as a whole do not know what our defence policy is. I am not too sure that I know what it is. Certainly I do not know the answers to the other two questions, nor do I think they are known to any members of this house, except the members of the government. It seems to me one of the first things the government should do is announce to this country what our responsibilities are under the Atlantic pact. Having definitely outlined those responsibilities, then let them say what defence forces we have to meet those responsibilities. If that were done I am sure it would be much easier to get the men required for our defence forces, both permanent and reserve, and I think the government also would have the full support of all the people of Canada in the expenditures it might be necessary to make in order to meet those commitments. As it is, the general public do not know the answers to those questions. As a result there is a great lack of enthusiasm on the part of the young men of this country toward military service.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maybank for the second reading of Bill No. 66, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company.
Mr. Ray Thomas (Weiaskiwin):: To go on,
Mr. Speaker, with my third and concluding speech of the current series on this Bill No. 66, last week I mentioned the fact that the life of the Turner valley oil field had been cut down considerably by the lack of foresight with respect to the conservation of the gas, and the fact that the life of the field is now estimated at approximately ten years. The requirements of the cities of southern Alberta have been jeopardized to such an

Alberta Natural Gas Company extent that, in the very near future, they are going to be forced to pipe gas down from the newer oil fields in northern Alberta.
So much for the wastage of the gas itself. There is another and probably more important reason for the conservation of the natural gas. This gas is used for the bringing up of the oil to the surface; it is estimated that for every barrel of oil taken out of the older fields, nine remain in the ground because the pressure of the natural gas has been used up by the wastage. Contrary to common belief, the oil does not appear in pools or lakes under the surface; rather, it comes in a porous rock which looks much like honeycomb. When your well is drilled, the natural gas pressure which has been building up over a period of millions of years forces the oil up into the well. As the pressure diminishes, the pressure of the salt water forces it up in between the oil in the porous limestone of the well itself. As a result, you have nothing left except salt water in your well.
The gas pressure comes in two different ways. The first is in a pocket of gas above the oil-bearing rock. The second type is dissolved right in the oil as a result of pressure. When the well is drilled the pressure is relieved and the gas naturally forces the oil up into the well. In the case of a gas pocket, gas may be retrieved at the well head, forced back down by means of pressure pumps, and used again to create sufficient pressure for the bringing up of the oil.
A recent survey made by the Gulf Oil Company has placed the known reserves in Alberta at 2,000 billion cubic feet. That sounds like a large amount of gas, but actually when the needs of the oil industry are considered, it is not a great deal. What gas we have must be conserved until we are assured that we have sufficient for our own needs and for the proper oil production.
There are some members, Mr. Speaker, who possibly think that I have been attempting to talk this bill out, but that is not true. My main point in speaking on this bill is to show the need for proper conservation methods. As for the incorporation of this company or any other company like it, we have no objections. We are in favour of incorporating any number of these pipe line companies. We have full confidence in the Alberta government and in the Alberta conservation board, and in their ability to determine how much of the gas may be exported out of Alberta to other parts of Canada and, after the Canadian needs are assured, how much may be shipped outside Canada to consumers in the United States.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: In rising to speak on this bill, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it perfectly clear at the outset that I do so in what, to my mind, is the best interest of British Columbia. I know that one member from British Columbia expressed fear that Vancouver would not get the gas if this bill did not go through. Unlike that member I feel that, if this bill goes through in its present form, Vancouver will not get the gas inasmuch as it would be at the tail end of any proposed pipe line. I am therefore speaking more as to the route through which this pipe line is to go to the coast than as to the product to be carried through the pipe line.
I could possibly rightly and properly take up the question of who owns the gas and whether it should be banded over to private enterprise or whether it should be distributed by the government of the province of Alberta or the government of the province of British Columbia; but I am not going to do that. I feel that the interests of British Columbia are paramount, and to my mind they definitely come before the interests of the states of Oregon and Washington. I am convinced that our best interests are not served if this line goes, as is proposed, through Kingsgate and through the states that I have mentioned. The location of this line is as important today as was the location of the Canadian Pacific Railway eighty or ninety years ago. I understand the minister made the statement that he wants the gas to go to the best available market. But I am satisfied that if the people who plotted out the route for the Canadian Pacific Railway in those days had sought a market instead of service, they too would have gone through the states of Oregon and Washington because the facilities and the type of terrain were far better suited to a cheaper line to the coast than the one through the Rockies. But that thought was far from their minds. They wanted to develop their own country. I feel that this pipe line today must be used to develop our own country, and particularly the province of British Columbia. The future development of that province depends on this line. I am selfish enough to feel that the industries that will follow in its wake should be developed in our own country rather than in the United States. I am also satisfied that the company could possibly save a few million dollars, but I believe that the few million dollars they would save would not be more than 10 or 15 per cent of the total cost of the line; and this amount, taken over the period of years during which it will operate, will be a mere nothing. Any profits that may be lost in the immediate present will be more than

retrieved by the shorter line going through Canada compared with the one going through the states.
Then there is the question of maintenance and the cost of construction. These bring immediate valuable revenue to one country or the other. It will run into millions and millions of dollars. It will mean the pipes, the fittings, the labour in putting the pipes down, the labour in maintaining it and the labour in distributing it over a good many years. We can do with that labour in Canada, we can do with that outlet for labour, and we can do with the revenue that will be derived from the pipe line going through our own territory.
As I said, if the Canadian Pacific Railway had taken the same stand we would not have the flourishing valleys of the Kootenay, the Fraser and the Okanagan in the interior of British Columbia that we have today, and the country as a whole would have lost out. I am satisfied that the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company in Trail, one of the biggest undertakings of its kind in the empire, would not have been established there, neither would it have flourished in British Columbia, if it had not been for the Canadian Pacific Railway giving it the necessary service.
Then we have the wealth that has been developed in the interior of British Columbia. That too can be directly attributed to the facilities offered by the railways in bringing in labour and machinery and taking out the raw material to be manufactured or processed as the case may be. The government of the day saw the possibility and their foresight has paid dividends ever since.
As I pointed out, I regard modern transportation as being streamlined by the use of the pipe line, and the route is just as important as the railway was. Along this route I can visualize many townships and developed municipalities bringing vast wealth to the interior of British Columbia, wealth that we know is possible through the actual presence there of fine lands, fine timber, fine mines and everything that goes to make a country prosperous. Surely that would be in the best interest of our own kith and kin in our own province.
A factory established in the Okanagan or in the Fraser valley would contribute far more to the welfare of this dominion, and particularly to British Columbia, than one established in Spokane or Wenatchee. That brings to my mind the saying that the city of Spokane was built on the wealth of British Columbia. That is practically true because that city was built on money invested to exploit our natural resources in the early days, both timber and mines. Today it is a
Alberta Natural Gas Company flourishing city. Similar cities may well be duplicated by this pipe line. That is one reason why I am going to fight to have this pipe line go through our own country. It is a modern Aladdin's lamp that conjures up new industry and contributes to prosperity.
I am not opposed to the sale of this product to our friends across the line. Neither will an all-Canadian route prevent their purchasing it, but it would mean that the line would enter the main consuming points in the United States from Vancouver instead of ending at Vancouver. I do not have to go into detail on that point because I think it is fairly obvious that the dead end of a line- it does not matter whether it is gas or oil or anything else-usually gets what is left after all the other customers have been satisfied. In this instance the last customer would be the cities of Vancouver, New Westminster and possibly some of the Fraser valley towns.
It is quite possible that the supply of this gas may peter out. I was pleased to hear my hon. friends tell us of the vast resources particularly of gas that are known to be in Alberta. If a shortage did arise and the service had to be cut, the cut would take place toward the end where the greatest cost of transferring the gas arises. The obvious place to cut would be on the last place to be served. Therefore Canadian consumers would be cut off from supply first. That would be the cities of British Columbia. I do not blame the company. They may or may not have to do it. I am assuming that if such a condition did come about British Columbia would suffer.
The Canadian consumers have a stake in this. I feel that Canada, when she develops her own natural resources, should have the first chance to use them. We can be generous because we cannot possibly use more than one-third of it, and we would give two-thirds to our neighbours. But let our neighbours take their turn, as we have for many years taken our turn on fuel oil, gas and anything else that we get from them. They too have been generous. We can be just as generous, but they looked after the United States first of all.
This bill would have my full support if it was changed to contain a clause that the line will traverse Canadian territory all the way to Vancouver and then cross over from Vancouver to Tacoma, Seattle and the towns that they have in mind. I say that because of the added revenue that will be derived from the line going through our own dominion. I mentioned some of the added revenue that would come along from the pipes themselves, namely, the valves and fittings that would be manufactured in this country. Then there
45781-107i

Alberta Natural Gas Company is the cost of maintenance which is an annual cost. But added to these is the potential increase in our actual income from definite industries that will be set up along this line.
So far as I am concerned it has not been made clear, if this pipe line goes through the state of Washington and the product re-enters British Columbia from a distributing point in Tacoma or Seattle or somewhere in between, whether the price to the Canadian consumer would be on the United States dollar basis, which would be to our detriment because we would have to meet that 10 per cent penalty; or whether it would be conveyed through in bond, as it were, to Vancouver and sold at the Canadian price. This point has never been made clear. But I would presume that logically the United States distributor at the point in Washington would redistribute to Vancouver, billing the Vancouver purchaser for the price of the gas plus the exchange value of the dollar. I believe it would be quite logical for them to do that because after all the United States businessman is in business for the profit there is in it. He is not going to sell at a loss to Canada if there is a difference of 10 per cent in the value of the money.
On the other hand, by delivering through Vancouver to the United States we would be charging the full cost of transportation from Alberta to Vancouver, and not only the full cost of transportation but all the other costs of handling at the distributing points. Then we would be distributing through a Canadian point rather than through a United States point.
Presumably there is a charge of so much per mile for conveying the gas, and that cost per mile would remain in Canada; otherwise it would be paid by Canadians to the United States part of the line.
In the Ottawa Citizen of November 2 an item appeared which was taken from the Medicine Hat News, which was obviously written by someone with a sound knowledge of the situation and a full appreciation of the potential value of our Alberta gas as an empire builder. Unfortunately this visionary empire is south of the border. I should like to quote from this item:
It may be that a deal will eventually be arranged between Alberta, Ontario and the federal authority for a reciprocal export-import arrangement whereby Alberta gas will be sold to Oregon and Washington on an exchange basis for Texas gas to Ontario. This would be a scheme on a national basis which would ensure that Canada as a whole would obtain benefit from Alberta natural gas deposits.
The same sort of exchange seems to be taking shape in the background of oil developments.
It suggests that Canada as a whole does not include British Columbia. Gas is going to the state of Washington, and in return the


province of Ontario is to receive gas from Texas. They talk of Canada as a whole. That is the point I wish to make.
Time and again we have sacrificed the west for the benefit of the eastern provinces. Maybe we are in the backwoods. Maybe we lose contact with what is taking place. But here is a definite plan, outlined by someone who thinks he knows what he is talking about, to use British Columbia, to sidestep us by taking gas to the coast, ignoring our need and making a deal whereby the province of Ontario would benefit. The article mentions that it would serve specific populous markets. These markets, it points out, do not exist in western Canada.
This may be quite true. It was true when the railway tracks were first laid. I understand that when those tracks were first laid across the prairies there were just a few buffalo, some sagebrush and very little else. But they had vision. I know they had no markets when they started out; and if the markets had not come and the country had not developed there would have been millions upon millions of dollars wasted in a futile effort in taking transportation to the west. But we know that you have to start somewhere.
The same argument applies here. While at the present time we have not the necessary markets in the west, there is no doubt in my mind that those markets would spring to life immediately if given a lifeline and the wherewithal to come to life. The railways led the way then, and I think the pipe lines can very well lead the way today. From the company's point of view, they would still have the west coast market. They would still be able to serve the very market they now seek to serve, from Tacoma to Seattle.
All we are seeking is an all-Canadian route to give that service. Then, the second part of the article I mentioned deals with the suggestion of a deal which, would give the final knock-out blow to our hopes in British Columbia. I cannot agree with the article when it refers to benefit to the whole of Canada. Neither can I be convinced that benefits to the states of Washington and Oregon are direct or indirect benefits to the Dominion of Canada.
Concentration of industry in the east has been a handicap in the development of the west. I am glad to hear and to see that certain firms are now opening up branches in the west, realizing that this handicap has been placed on our backs for too long. Not only that, I consider British Columbia has the greatest untapped reserve in this dominion; and we cannot tap that reserve and develop it until we have something like natural gas with which to do it. Climate, as we know,

is good out there all the year round. Our industries can function all the year round without handicap in winter and summer.
I come to another point. The companies claim that the cost per mile would be much greater-I understand around 15 per cent. But I should like to point out that traversing the route suggested, through Kingsgate, through the northern part of the state of Washington and to the distributing point outside Seattle would be 1,331 miles, while the all-Canadian route, following the railway, would be 940 miles, or roughly 400 less. That would take care of a good deal of the extra cost per mile in laying down the pipe line. I am not qualified to say what that extra cost would be. I understand the pipe is to be placed underground.
Then there are certain difficulties in connection with pipe lines. For instance, it is a favourite sport of hunters to take a pot shot at a pipe line almost anywhere, whether it be in the United States or in Canada, or Iraq. Hunters will always take pot shots at pipe lines, with the result that there is a tremendous upkeep cost, and patrolling .must be done. There would be fewer chances of such damage along the route in British Columbia than along the other route, and it is a shorter distance.
In conclusion let me make it perfectly clear, especially to those interested in the idea of having this pipe line, that I do not know the personnel, that I do not know where the capital is derived from, and that I am not very much interested in those points. All I am interested in is to fight for the province I represent-and I intend to do all I can in that way.
Here we are going to hand out a valuable asset, one which if properly handled can build up an empire. We are going to hand it, not to an enemy, true, but to a friendly competitive nation. But we have done this so often in the past-we are doing it with our pulp, with our concentrates and with our wealth in general-including our gold. The profits to be derived from the development of our raw materials and our natural products are thus turned over to a friendly nation, rather than retained in our own.
For this reason I am going to ask that this bill be held up until such time as the promoters of the scheme accept a provision whereby the line will go through dominion territory all the way to Vancouver. I should like to see this put to a vote. And if it is put to a vote, I should like to see it put to a democratic vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr, Jones:: I mean a free vote is not a vote starting from the leaders of the parties, but
Alberta Natural Gas Company starting in the back row and going right around and finishing with the leaders of the parties, letting members vote as they wish. I am afraid most of us vote just as indicated.
If a free vote were given I am satisfied hon. members in this chamber would see the point I am trying to make, that we are either going to give away an asset to a friendly nation, or retain and develop one of the most prosperous, and potentially more prosperous, provinces in the whole of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak on this bill or any other pipe-line bill. I have no personal interest either in the five bills passed last spring or the two which have come before the house at this session. However, in view of events which have taken place in the house in connection with these bills, I do wish to express my personal opinion upon them,
I believe there has been an entire misconception of the purpose of the bill before us, and the others preceding it. If one were to incorporate a public company under a provincial or the dominion companies act, provided one were not asking for something unlawful, the charter would be automatically forthcoming. Then it would be up to the applicant to qualify his shares before the securities commission before he was allowed to sell them to the public. That is the normal procedure. There would be no reason to refuse a charter to anyone.
But in the case of a pipe line company under the Pipe Lines Act it is required that a company be incorporated by act of parliament. There is a direct reason why it should be incorporated by act of parliament, and it is that these companies are given very considerable power, particularly in the field oi eminent domain. That is, they have power of expropriation under the Pipe Lines Act. Accordingly it was considered desirable that companies of this kind should be incorporated before parliament so that in each case they could be examined if necessary, and a decision could be made in order that the act might be passed. Five of these acts were passed at the last session and, although I have not compared them word for word, I think they are all identical with this bill. They were all passed pursuant to the Pipe Lines Act and the wording in the separate acts followed the wording in the Pipe Lines Act. However, when those bills came up before the house no opposition was raised to the incorporation of those companies.
If this bill is passed by parliament it merely means that a legal entity is established. It seems that certain members of this house have decided that this company shall
1684	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company remain stillborn, shall never be given a chance to mature and grow up. I ask those hon. members to reconsider their attitude. Surely if five companies have been incorporated pursuant to the Pipe Lines Act any other people applying for a similar charter should be entitled to enter into this competitive field. It does strike me as being most unfair and discriminatory that at this stage we should say that this bill should not be passed and that the five legal entities already in the field should have a complete monopoly.
I stress again that I have no personal interest, legal or otherwise, in any of these companies, but I do think it would be establishing a bad precedent to refuse incorporation to this or any other company. There are many things that must happen once the legal entity is established. The company would have to go to the relevant board and cabinet of the province in question to obtain the necessary authorization. Similarly it would have to go before the board of transport commissioners to obtain approval to construct the pipe line.
It was intended that the Pipe Lines Act should guide the lives of these companies and that that authority should be vested in the board of transport commissioners, not in this parliament. I should like to read the relevant parts of section 11, which are as follows:
A company shall not, except as in this act otherwise provided, begin the construction of a section or part of a company pipe line, until,
(a)	the board has by order granted the company leave to construct the line;
(b)	the plan, profile and book of reference of the section or part of the proposed line have been approved by the board;
Obviously the board of transport commissioners has control over these companies, not parliament. It is quite clear that the purpose of the Pipe Lines Act was not to have parliament supervise every last detail of the incorporation of these companies, but to have parliament incorporate the companies and then leave the direction and control over the companies to the board of transport commissioners.
It would appear to me to be most unfair and discriminatory to attempt to talk out this bill at this stage. This is the normal procedure. The only difference between an incorporation under this bill and an incorporation under the Companies Act is that control over the company is given to the board of transport commissioners. I would not suggest for a single moment that hon. members of this house were interested in this or any other bill, but I do suggest that if they were interested parties to bills of this type their action would closely resemble the action we have witnessed in this house. I ask hon. members


to reconsider the fundamentals of this thing and decide whether in fairmindedness and fair behaviour they should not say: If this bill is in proper form, it should have our approval.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I did not interrupt the hon. member when he was speaking, but I should like him to name the five companies which were incorporated last year to transport oil and gas to the west coast.


Mr. Howe:: Why not let him look it up.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You make your speech and I will make mine.


John William Gordon Hunter: I would refer the hon. member to chapter 27 of the statutes of 1949, an act to incorporate the British American Pipe Line Company; to chapter 34, an act to incorporate Interprovincial Pipe Line Company; to chapter 36, an act to incorporate TransNorthern Pipe Line Company; to chapter 37, an act to incorporate Westcoast Transmission Company Limited; and to chapter 38, an act to incorporate Western Pipe Lines.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I hope I am not transgressing on the time that would be allotted to me to speak when I ask these questions.


Mr. Speaker:: No more questions can be allowed at this time. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I think there are some further observations which should be made before the question is put. As I understand it, the purpose of the bill before us is to incorporate a company whose objects do not appear clearly in the bill. When I say that I have in mind that the route proposed to be followed and the points from which the gas will be collected and delivered do not appear in the bill we are discussing. In this connection I should like to support what was said a few days ago by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), that before the house is called upon to approve or disapprove of the principle of this bill permitting the transportation of natural gas which originates in Canada we should know clearly where the gas is to be sold and the route by which it is to be transported.
I make these observations because I believe in the principle which has been stated by many hon. members in the past, that the natural resources of Canada should be made available to and preserved primarily for the people of Canada. It is on that principle that I base the remarks I intend to make tonight in connection with this bill.
Although it is not immediately apparent from the terms of the bill, we understand that this company will gather the gas in southern Alberta and take it by pipe line

through the United States to be distributed to cities there; then if anything were left it would be taken to the Pacific coast city of Vancouver. Not only will the route by-pass the interior of British Columbia; the users in Vancouver and other cities in the province will have available only what gas is left over after the needs of the points in the United States have been fully supplied.
The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones), who preceded me in this debate, made what I think were pertinent references to the history of the development of the western part of Canada. One of the features which stand out in that history is that if the founders of Canada, the pioneers of the nation, had not had faith in its future, which faith was not justified by the previous development of the country but was founded upon their determination and belief that they could and should build a great nation north of the 49th parallel, this country would not have existed today as a separate entity. I think we would be somewhat untrue to the faith and determination of those who went before us, and who built the nation, if we did not hold true to the principles they laid down in the days when the tasks and difficulties of constructing the country were so much greater than those which we face today.
In taking the position that Canadian resources must be reserved primarily for the development of Canada, one is not necessarily adopting a selfish or unreasonable attitude, and it should not be regarded as a slight to the United States of America. In fact it is nothing more than taking a lesson from the history of the development of Canada. We know quite well that the Canadian Pacific Railway, to come down to cases, would not have been built if it had not been that the fathers of confederation, those who insisted that Canada should exist as a separate nation, said that the lines of communication in the northern half of this continent should run east and west rather than north and south. They took that stand in spite of most serious obstacles, and carried it out in building a railway through the barrier of the Rocky mountains on to the Pacific coast.
As a result of their vision this country came into being, and the dream of confederation was eventually completed by the addition of the Pacific coast province as a part of Canada. It is not necessary for us to go back into history to remind hon. members of the fact that at one time it was somewhat questionable whether that Pacific coast province, or the southern portion of it at any rate, should belong to Canada or by virtue of geography to the nation south of the 49th parallel. In the same way that the country was built up and came into
Alberta Natural Gas Company being because of the determination to build a nation from Atlantic to Pacific, I think that we should insist upon developing that nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific and serving our people before we allow our resources to be diverted south of the border.
The hon. member for Yale has mentioned the potentialities of the province of British Columbia, climate, resources and people, affording a great natural market for industrial development. Such development has not taken place at the rate which we would desire to see, because of a combination of two factors. It is rather like the old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Must you have the population first in order to attract heavy industry, and after heavy industry power and other factors which will create an industrial economy, or must you have power and communications first in order to build up a population which will support the heavy industries that people have the vision to establish there? In my view, Mr. Speaker, the history of Canada shows that it is communications, power, transportation, which invariably come first in this country.
That has been the history of the development of the west. It was the history which followed upon the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was the history which followed upon the building of the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Northern Pacific, and the Grand Trunk Pacific railways. While it is certainly true to say, particularly of the last three railway systems, that they fell upon hard times and for many years did not pay, and that it was necessary eventually for the dominion government to take them over and amalgamate them into the one Canadian National system, is there anyone in the house who will say that the country was badly served by the vision, inspiration and determination of the men who built those railway lines in advance of the actual population requirements? I am quite certain that no one will say the country was badly served, although it is perfectly true that these railways did go through a most difficult period before they were amalgamated and made into a paying proposition.
Anyone who is familiar with the history of the western area of Canada knows full well the part the railways played in the development of the country, and that at the present time they are paying lines because population, industry, agriculture and the economy generally have been built up to a point where they support and make it possible for the railways to be a revenue producing proposition in the same areas where at first they were bankrupt.
We from the west coast province believe that it is capable of much greater development in the future than has taken place in
1686	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company the past. We know the resources of the area; we know its potentialities; we know the great untapped areas which have not yet been subject to any development at all. Because we have contributed in the past to the development of the rest of Canada, because we have paid our willing tribute as a part of Canada to the predominantly industrial sections of the central part of the country, Ontario and Quebec, we feel it is not unfair for us to request that these portions of Canada, which have benefited by the advantages we were able to contribute to the development of confederation, should bear their share in developing the undeveloped parts of our province.
Although, on the basis of strict economics, it may be somewhat less profitable to insist that these pipe lines should be constructed through Canadian territory, and should serve Canadian markets, I leave the thought with the house that the development of a nation, if one has a patriotic idea of that development, never proceeds upon a basis of straight economics. If we had proceeded upon such a basis in the past Canada would not be an independent nation today. We believe Canada can become a much greater, more powerful and more independent nation than she is today, standing on her own feet, if she follows her own course of development. Because we believe in that and because we insist upon that, as far as we in the west are concerned, at any rate-and in this respect I certainly believe I can speak for my constituency-we feel that these pipe lines should serve Canadian markets and Canadian consumers before our resources are made available to those south of the border. Not being satisfied upon that point, I must oppose this bill.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, the constituency of Nanaimo may not appear to be directly affected by this bill, because it is on Vancouver island and I do not know whether it would be possible or practicable to pipe this natural gas under the strait of Juan de Fuca to that island. However,
I do know that the prosperity of Vancouver island depends very largely upon the prosperity of the city of Vancouver and the great hinterland of British Columbia. We are largely dependent upon the tourist trade, and that is not composed entirely of foreigners coming to our island. We are delighted to welcome people from other parts of British Columbia and other parts of Canada who come to enjoy our scenery and take advantage of our facilities for such sports as fishing, mountaineering and so on. Many people from the great cities of Vancouver and New Westminster spend their week ends and their 

holidays on Vancouver island, and particularly in my constituency. Their ability to come over to our island and enjoy the advantages we are able to offer depends entirely upon the prosperity of those two cities; and anything that will enhance that prosperity naturally reacts to the advantage of the people of Vancouver island.
So it seems to me that if in these somewhat difficult times we can make available to the people of the metropolitan area of Vancouver our natural resources, which can be transported there direct from another province, it will not only help the interior of British Columbia but will also benefit the pleasure resorts of Vancouver island. From the little I know about natural gas, I believe that when it is piped it can be tapped anywhere along the line and much of the gas can be diverted before it reaches its ultimate destination. Therefore I feel that we should route this pipe line direct from Alberta to the great cities of the Canadian Pacific coast instead of sending it through the friendly northwestern United States and allowing the huge cities of the states of Washington and Oregon to have first chance at this Canadian product which many of us believe should be developed for the benefit of Canadians rather than the benefit of those of another country, no matter how friendly that country may be.
I have travelled by motorcar, by train, by aeroplane and on foot over a great deal of the territory lying along the boundary between Canada and the United States, and I do not believe there are any insurmountable obstacles to a pipe line following the all-Canadian route. As has been pointed out already by previous speakers, that route is shorter than the United States route. It is not as well known or as well travelled, but that is largely because the roads are not so good.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will revert to the business under consideration at six o'clock.



HOUSING


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: If I might have leave to revert to motions, Mr. Speaker, in conformity with an undertaking I gave the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) at page 1318 of Hansard to table correspondence with the provincial governments in respect to housing, I now table that correspondence with all provinces, going back to the Prime Minister's letter to all provincial premiers dated March 2, 1949.


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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
239. Grants to military associations, institutes and others, as detailed in the estimates, $227,150.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Before the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I had been saying something about the three questions I found being brought up most frequently by the general public as far as defence matters are concerned; that is to say, what is our defence policy, what are our defence commitments under the Atlantic pact, and have we the forces to meet those commitments. Now I should like to go on and say something in reference to our defence policy.
I suppose the seven points the minister gave us this afternoon summarize our defence policy and give it as clearly as it has yet been placed before this house or the public. I presume those seven points are included in the white paper the minister tabled today. I am sorry I have not yet had an opportunity to see that document, and I shall certainly be most interested in reading it. However, I jotted down those points as the minister gave them. The first five were what might be called more or less general; that is, that the only possible aggressor is Russia; that any war would be a world war; that the best way to prevent war is to have strong forces; that in order to have strong forces with which to prevent anything in the nature of Russian aggression we must have the co-operative strength of the western world; and that Canada welcomes the Atlantic pact as giving that co-operative strength definite form. Then the sixth and seventh points might be said to be those under which the practical details of our defence policy would fall. We have had statements in this connection at various times. Roughly it comes down to this; that what Canada requires is a small but highly trained and efficient navy, air force and army, the navy capable of doing convoy, antisubmarine and anti-mine work, and the air force and army capable of meeting any diversionary raid. In other words, as the Ottawa Journal has in its headlines, "Sneak Red Attack Canada's No. 1 Defence Worry." That headline pretty well sums up the situation. The question whether the army and the air force are in a situation to meet a sneak attack of that sort is one which I shall come to a little later on.
In addition to these permanent forces which I have been dealing with up to this time, however, there is also the question of the reserve forces. As to the navy and the air force, the reserve forces are comparatively small and, as far as I know, the
Supply-National Defence plans do not envisage large reserve forces for those two arms of the service. But the plans do envisage fairly large reserve forces for the army, running to a strength of five or six divisions, and in the event of emergency capable of rapid expansion into a strong hitting force which could be used for fighting wherever the theatre of war happens to be-and which everybody hopes will be, as the minister said this afternoon, as far away from Canada as possible.
During past sessions, and particularly since the post-war defence force was brought into being, we have directed various questions to the government with the general object really of finding out to what extent this force, about which the minister was always talking and to which a great deal of publicity was given, was in being; in other words, whether we had a navy which could do its job and whether we had an army and air force which could do the job, or whether we had not. The general impression given was that we had those forces, that we were all right and that in the event of one of these sneak attacks it could be repelled, and so forth.
In speaking on defence in the budget debate, the minister said that he had answered all questions which had ever been asked in connection with these matters, except one which I happened to ask and about which there was some question last year. I do not want to get into any argument about the number of questions that were not answered. I can assure the minister that I could turn up a few others that were not answered. I must say that, as to questions which were asked by me and which were not answered orally here in the house or in writing in reply to the written questions on the order paper, the minister or his parliamentary assistant of that time would frequently come to see me or telephone me and say: We will not give this information in the house, we will not put it in the form of a written answer, but we will give it to you privately. I wanted to say that, in order to be completely fair in this matter. That happened frequently; but there, were some cases in which it did not happen. In spite of what the minister has said to the effect that he had answered all questions, the fact remains that the answers given orally in this house, the written answers given, and the information given to a person privately when he wants to ask a question about some particular thing, such as the number of tanks we had or something else, are not sufficient to give any member of the house, and particularly the house as a whole, any complete, good, balanced picture of what the situation is with regard to our defence forces.

Supply-National Defence
In this general committee of the house it is impossible to get sufficiently detailed information. For one thing, ordinarily we cannot take enough time to get it. Only today we were informed that it is hoped that the session will be over by December 3. We have some thirty or forty bills still on the order paper, and we have practically all the estimates yet to be dealt with. In this general committee it is impossible to get the detailed information which is necessary to give any member of this chamber the knowledge that he should have in order to be able to consider intelligently the situation with regard to our defence forces. This inability of members to get information is, I think, to a large extent the result of the set-up, the way our business is done here, and so forth. That is one reason why the members of this party for some three years now have been pressing for a defence committee of this house to be set up, in which we could see the heads of the services, could get the detailed information that many of us would like to have, and could find out what our situation is.
To leave that point, Mr. Chairman, the contention of several of us on this side of the house in the past has been that we did not have the defence forces which the general public and in fact the house had been led to expect that we possessed; and our contention is that in fact we still have not those forces.
As to the navy, in spite of the Mainguy report I think it is probably an exception from that point of view. As far as I know, I think the navy is a fighting force in being. In other words, it could go out tomorrow and fight. If it were given a week, ten days or a month, it could probably fight fairly efficiently. There might be some ships which were not in good shape; nevertheless so far as I know, it is a fighting force in being. In spite of certain deficiencies which have been shown up in this report, in the navy I think we probably have something like what we have paid for and what we should have.
When we come to the army and the air force, I do not think that situation has prevailed during the past three years, and I do not think it prevails at the present time. As far as I know, the fighting units in the army and air force are lacking in trained personnel, and are particularly lacking in equipment. They could not go out and fight tomorrow; they could not go out and fight in a week's time; and unless the equipment were forthcoming in fairly short order from the United States or some place else, they would not be able to go out and fight in several months' time.
[Mr. Harkness.i
In my opinion, that is not good enough. Under the defence policy as enunciated by the minister, we were supposed to have an army and an air force capable of meeting any diversionary raid on this country. Last session and the session before we were assured that we had a force designed to do that, and that we had an airborne brigade group. As a matter of actual fact, as I say, I do not think we have that. I think the members of the house should be able to get the information required in order to know whether we have a force or whether we have not, and to know just what is the situation.
I should like to say one or two things further in connection with this matter. From the casual information that I have been able to pick up-I have not sought it out or looked for it; it has just come to me because I know a large number of people who have served and are serving in the defence forces -I think considerable progress has been made in the last six or eight months with regard to the army. As far as I know, the number of men has increased considerably, and as a result their training has been considerably improved. I know that about a year ago most of the permanent force units of any size in this country were at half strength or less, as the result of which it was impossible for them to train efficiently; and of course it would have been hopeless for them to attempt to fight. I know also that at the present time at least some of those units are up to full strength; and from what I have been able to see of them, I think their training is fairly good. That is encouraging. As I say, that is just information that, as far as I am concerned, I have gained casually and so on. But on the basis of that I think a considerable amount of progress has been made in the army during the last eight months or so. I am glad of that, but so far as the situation in the air force is concerned I do not know whether there has been a similar improvement or not. One thing I do know is that their equipment situation is still not good.
I should now like to say something about the numbers of officers and other ranks who are employed in headquarters of various sorts. Last year a return was made to a question of mine which is now out of date, therefore I will not bother quoting it. But the number of officers and other ranks in the three services who were employed at National Defence headquarters or at command headquarters or at naval division headquarters was considerable. It was a big proportion of the total number of personnel in all three services. I was glad to see that the Mainguy report took some

cognizance of that and made a recommendation in connection with it which appears on page 61 under "administration." It reads as follows:
The needs of the modern navy, in general, and the mass of administrative detail, paper work and committee work involved, have placed upon valuable naval officers an undue burden of administrative detail. In Britain the navy commands the services of a number of high-ranking and competent civil servants. Although difficulty may be encountered in creating civilian positions of high enough level and salary to attract the most desirable entrants, we feel that there would be a considerable improvement in efficiency and a substantial saving both in money and in valuable manpower if the British system were followed.
Great benefits would flow to all three services through releasing from office desks here in Ottawa, and at command headquarters and at various other headquarters across the country, a large number of officers and other ranks who are held there at the present time doing administrative detail work. I trust that that is a move which will be made and made just as rapidly as possible.
I have talked to several people in the services about what I would call the top-heavy organization of the defence forces. We have far more people in headquarters, and in things of that sort, than we have in the actual fighting units. Most of them have said, "Yes, it is too bad that is the situation, but unfortunately we must have a headquarters set-up which, if a war broke out, could be rapidly converted to handle a large army of five or six divisions." How are we going to get away from this kind of thing? Since we have to cut our coat according to our cloth-our resources-I think that in the meantime it would be much better to use the manpower available, and the manpower which we can afford to pay for, mainly in actual fighting units rather than having this large administrative and command set-up which will really come into operation and be used only if we raise a large army.
I should now like to deal with the reserve force. To begin with, I should like to pay a tribute to the officers and other ranks who devote a considerable portion of their time to working in reserve units throughout the country. At very considerable sacrifice to themselves in most cases they are doing an extremely valuable work which all too often the general public in their own communities do not appreciate and do not thank them for. Without the counterparts of these men in 1939 I think everyone admits that we could not have mobilized the first and second divisions with the rapidity with which we did, and the subsequent divisions afterwards. They are the people upon whom any large mushrooming of the defence forces,
Supply-National Defence particularly of the army, must be built, and they deserve all the encouragement that can be given them. One of the great difficulties, in fact the greatest difficulty so far as the reserve units are concerned

and it is of the army particularly that I am speaking-is the difficulty of getting men.
When the minister spoke this afternoon he said that the recruiting was satisfactory; that they had been getting all the men they wanted except in the reserve forces. I doubt whether they have been getting all the men they wanted in the last three years, otherwise we would have had the permanent defence force filled up far sooner. We have been trying for about three years now to get it filled up and it is still not filled up. However, I think everybody admits that there has been extreme difficulty in getting men into the reserve units. The recruiting campaigns which have been put on have been flops.
In Calgary we have had two or three army weeks that I remember, during which the various units came down town with pieces of their equipment. This equipment was put in prominent places such as busy street corners and so forth to be seen by the people. Posters were put up. Advertisements were put in the newspapers. Talks were given on the radio, and so on, all designed to draw in recruits for both the reserve forces and the permanent forces. So far as the reserve forces are concerned, these means were just hopeless. Very few recruits were secured as a result of them, in Calgary at any rate. I understand the same thing was true across most of the country.
One of the things I object to is that when questioned on this matter the minister has always said, and this has been going on for the last two or three years: "Our policy is to train officers and n.c.o.'s. We do not care about getting a lot of men in. What we want to do is to train a good solid corps of officers and n.c.o.'s; after that we shall go out and get the men; but that is what we have to do first." That has been a very convenient excuse, a very convenient story, but actually that is all it is. You cannot train officers and n.c.o.'s unless you have some men for them to work with.
It is just a hopeless business having a full strength of officers and n.c.o.'s in reserve force units and have them come down to the armouries once a week and find five or ten men to work with. They get discouraged. There is nothing for them to do in the way of training except to talk to one another. They get discouraged, and in many cases they quit or they come only infrequently. In order for an officer or an n.c.o. to get training he must have some men to work with. That has

Supply-National Defence been one of the difficulties with the reserve units. They have not had the men. This story that they do not want the men until they get these people trained is just so much eyewash. Actually a very large proportion of the officers and n.c.o.'s in our reserve force units are men who had years of service overseas during the war. In other words, they were trained men. It is true that the number of new officers taken in in the last year has been increasing, but some of the n.c.o.'s, actually the bulk of them, are men who had a good deal of actual training right on the battlefield. What they needed to keep the units going, to keep them interested, was some men to work with, and they have not had them. There must be some reason for this.
The recruiting campaigns put on have been unsuccessful. I think the basic reason is this. The young men of this country have not been joining the reserve force units in any numbers because they have no real belief that they are needed in these units. They have not been convinced that it is their duty to serve this country in a reserve force unit. I think a considerable number of them are convinced of that fact. They were convinced during the war when they enlisted in large numbers.
I believe we are going to have great difficulty in getting any reasonable number of men in our reserve forces. I have one suggestion as to how in my view this could be corrected to some extent. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence might make very definite appeals to the young men of this country to joint the reserve force units, and then follow that up by enlisting the help of service clubs, newspaper editorialists, schools and the like. If this were done we would have much better response than we have had thus far.
The main thing is that these young men have to be convinced that they are wanted, that there is a duty for them to perform; and when they are convinced of that they will come forward to do it. That is one possible way of having the message put over. Certainly to date this has not been done.
I should like to say something next about certain defence deficiencies which were shown up by Exercise Eagle. The minister had something to say about this when he spoke a few days ago on matters of defence, as reported at page 1413 of Hansard. I shall not read all he said, but the point he made was that this exercise was designed to test stability and the state of training of officers and men of the P.P.C.L.I., the scale and state of training of the officers and men of the air force, and the work of the staffs which planned and carried out the exercise. He indicated that from that

point of view it was a great success. I have no fault to find with that statement. From those points of view it was successful.
However, the minister goes on to say that it was those three things the exercise was designed to test-
-and the reports by my officers indicate that in these respects the exercise was very successful indeed.
What the minister does not say-and should have said, I think-is that whether the exercise was intended as a test of the fact or not, in actual fact it showed that we have not a properly equipped force to deal with a diversionary raid. In other words, it shows that we have not the very things that, as indicated by these newspaper headlines tonight, the minister himself says in his white paper we need-an integrated air force, and army airborne troops, properly equipped to meet a diversionary raid.
It was not intended that this exercise should show we did not have that; I have no doubt about that. Nevertheless it did show it, I suggest, and it is up to the minister's department to make good that deficiency, and to make it good very rapidly.
It also showed up another thing, namely equipment shortages. I am not going to go into the various details concerning aircraft, and so on. However, those equipment shortages were definitely thrown in the public eye. As a result they have disquieted the general public-and that is easily understood.
One of the reasons the country generally was disturbed over the report was as the result of the general impression which has been left during the past two years to the effect that we had an efficient force which could do this very job the exercise showed the force used could not do. Certainly we did not have any better force to use in place of the one used. We had no better infantry battalion and no battalion better trained than the P.P.C.L.I. for airborne operations.
In this connection I would say one further word about a matter mentioned in the Mainguy report, namely shortages of kit. At page 54 a paragraph deals with shortages of kit for those newly entering the navy. I do not know why there should have been such shortages. We had large quantities of naval clothing and the like during the war. There must have been a great deal of that on hand. And if we did not have it, surely there has been plenty of time in the period since, if stores were exhausted, to get new ones.
I find it difficult to understand why it was impossible to equip these people, or to re-equip them when their stuff was worn out-kit, clothing and so on. This should

not have happened. What is the state of affairs in this connection so far as the air force and the army are concerned? Are they similarly short of kit? If so, why? Certainly if an emergency of any sort were to develop and there were a shortage of kit for permanent force personnel, it is easy to envisage the bad situation we would have.
I remember that when we were mobilized in 1939 the men of my unit went around without uniforms for a considerable length of time. There were no uniforms for them at all; and this condition was not corrected until the first issue of battledress came along in November, I believe it was, 1939. There should not be any repetition of that; there is no need for it, particularly with the large amounts spent for defence purposes at the present time.
I would also mention the provision of armouries. A considerable number of reserve force units have been badly handicapped in their training and recruiting because of lack of armouries. I know the construction of armouries has become difficult because housing and barracks accommodation have had prior claims. However, I would ask the minister to meet this need for armouries accommodation as rapidly as this can be done. Particularly would I recommend the provision of small or makeshift armouries in small places where there is considerable interest in reserve force units and where they have been carrying on under extreme difficulty. I believe it would be possible to give a considerable number of these places armoury accommodation without any great expenditure of either funds or materials. In many cases all that has been asked by these people is that huts on abandoned air force stations, and the like, should be moved over, rebuilt and adapted to their purposes.
I should like to make reference to some remarks of the minister concerning unification. At page 1415 of Hansard he took a good deal of credit to himself for the speed of unification, and stated:
With regard to organization, I believe I can say without fear of successful contradiction that in the work of unification, co-ordination and the streamlining of our forces, navy, army and air forces, the Department of National Defence of Canada has made more progress than any other country in the world.
I do not doubt the truth of that statement. However, I suggest it is not a matter for great congratulation on the part of the minister. I do not know why we should not have made more progress than any country in the world: we had far less to unify, it is quite clear that the less by way of forces we have to unify, the more rapid progress we can make in that regard. If we have
Supply

National Defence only one ship and one squadron of aircraft and one army battalion we can unify them in short order. The reason we have been able to make more rapid progress lies in the fact that we have had so little to unify.
In the same speech the minister dealt with a request made by the leader of this party, and many other members of it, for a defence committee of the house. As reported on page 1414 of Hansard the minister said:
I would welcome a committee on defence or anything else, but I do not believe that is the proper method of conducting business in parliament or of running the defence forces of this country.
I should like to make it clear that in asking for a committee there was no thought that the committee would be running the defence forces of this country. No one ever had that in mind. The purpose of the committee would be to get information to enable hon. members of the house to see the full picture of the defence situation. Any idea that the minister or his officials may have that it is being suggested that the committee would take over the running of the defence forces is completely wrong.
Before I close I should like to say something about civilian defence, a matter about which I spoke at considerable length a year ago and more briefly during the throne speech debate. It is a matter on which this house has never had any information so far and I should like to ask the minister to make as full a statement as possible on what has been done and what is being done in this connection. I know that General Worthington was appointed civilian defence co-ordinator and has been travelling about the country as well as going to the United States and Europe to study civilian defence methods that are being followed. I know General Worthington, and I am sure he is doing a good job, but I should like to know how much support he has had and what else besides appointing him is being done in connection with this important matter.
I think the government has failed to realize that the people of the country are concerned over this. This is not merely a question for debate here among a few people who are interested in defence; it is something which affects everybody in this country, it is something in which a large number of people are interested. The possibility of an atomic bomb attack in another war has been more or less in the thoughts of a large number of people and most of them are wondering what measures, if any, are being taken for their protection and the protection of their families in the event of such a catastrophe.
This is something which should have the fullest publicity. Definite measures should be taken for the evacuation of people and for the stockpiling of tents and other materials

Supply-National Defence which could be used in an emergency, of medical supplies, of foodstuffs and so on. My own view is that it is more important to carry out these civilian defence measures than it is to develop our defence forces. They should have first priority because the basic strength of this country is in the civilian population. As an indication of what people are thinking in connection with this matter I should like to read a letter which I received the other day, under date of November 3, as follows:
I am sending you a cutting from the Calgary Herald which outlines my own view as to what could happen if the communists wanted to start a sudden coup in this country before war was declared, and it is to be hoped that matters similar to this are being taken care of by the defence authorities in charge.
You can imagine what would happen in our fair city if the Calgary power dam, the Glenmore dam and other similar projects which supply our water were blown up. It would be too late to think about these things after and steps should be put into effect at all times to watch for and control such projects "while there is time."
To my knowledge, I have never seen the writer of that letter. The clipping which was enclosed dealt with the action taken at Denver, Colorado, by the national guard there to build up civilian cells, as it were, to counteract communist cells and to prevent any sabotage. That idea, I think, is well worth looking into. It certainly indicates a real interest by the people in civilian defence.
In this morning's Globe and Mail there is a report which reads as follows:
Fire Dangers Dim A-Bombs, says Worthington
The dangers of fire far overshadow those of atomic radiation in any potential enemy raid on a Canadian city, Major General F. F. Worthington told the engineering institute of Canada today.
The people right across Canada should be given information as to the best way of fighting fires which might develop as the result of an atomic bomb attack. I was glad to see that apparently the people of Toronto have taken this matter into their own hands to some extent and have formed a committee which is investigating this matter of civilian defence. Apparently they are making some progress in getting information out to the general population in Toronto and advising as to ways and means in which they can help themselves. I am wondering how much help these people have had from the Department of National Defence and how much interest is being shown by the department in having similar committees appointed in Canadian cities, particularly in the larger centres.


Mr. G. D. Weaver (Churchill):: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the various speakers this afternoon and evening and one thing has struck me. Each of the opposition speakers has picked out a portion of the picture with
[Mr. Harkness.l

which to deal. There was probably a certain amount of truth in what he had to say, but if the story of Nelson putting the telescope to his blind eye has any significance or symbolism, it is that he refused to be stampeded by what he saw of a portion of the picture. In his mind's eye he looked for the whole picture and went on to victory.
Naturally, for security reasons, the defence estimates cannot be discussed in the same way that the agriculture estimates could be; but hon. members have a responsibility to their constituents and there are many ways in which they can see the whole picture and thus carry out their responsibilities. We all read the newspapers and can see what goes on in other countries. We are able to make our own decisions as to whether this job is being well handled. I cannot understand anyone blocking unification, and we have all seen what has happened since the last war. One great lesson that was learned was the necessity for co-operation between the various services. That co-operation has continued and in this country it has reached a peak not equalled by any other country in the world.
We saw what happened in the naval inquiry and we know that something really came out of that. This afternoon the minister mentioned the conversion of Royal Roads and the reopening last year of R.M.C. as the Canadian services colleges. When the R.M.C. closed in 1942 the last number on the rolls was 2,828, and over 2,000 of those ex-cadets served their country on active service in all quarters of the world.
I feel that is one of the reasons why the minister made it a part of his policy to reopen the college. Six weeks ago I had the opportunity of visiting it on the occasion of the governor general unveiling a plaque in memory of those ex-cadets who are a part of those whom we commemorate today. At that time I had a chance to see just what had been done in the short space of a year, and I was most pleased with what I saw. At the annual dinner of the ex-cadet club the minister made a toast to the college, and it is from a person's words that you can see how he thinks. The words he spoke that night revealed to me why Canada's defence thinking is in the front rank of the world today, not excepting any country. At this time I want to commend the government for its defence program, and I also want to commend the minister for reopening that college. I want to read to you a portion of what he said. These are the words of the present Minister of National Defence:
In conclusion there is one thing I would like to emphasize. In the years between the wars there was often a dividing line, a cleavage, between members of the permanent and reserve forces. There

was also frequently a cleavage between graduates of R.M.C. and those who had not had that good fortune, as you would regard it. Then there was a division between the navy, the army and the air force. Finally there was the division between the services and civilians. All those divisions I want to see wiped out. At the services colleges I want to see the three services working as one team. Perhaps they might keep the habit. In summer training I want to see men from Royal Roads and R.M.C. mixed up with men from the universities and from the reserve units, in the ships, at the camps, and on the flying fields, doing the same work, learning to like each other because they know each other.
I want to see active and reserve forces working side by side, wearing the same clothes, getting the same pay, achieving the same standards ... as citizens and service men. And because we shall have done these things, then we shall see no difference between members of the civilian and the service community-both are citizens-but the services will earn the respect and support they deserve because in addition to being citizens they serve their country all the time.
Fellow members, these are the words of the minister who is responsible to us for the program of Canadian defence. I have read between the lines as to what is taking place, and I am satisfied that the program is in good hands.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: There are a couple of points I want to raise. I think it is generally agreed in all parts of the house that we should have preparedness. The division of opinion seems to be as to just what constitutes preparedness having regard to another war. To my mind there are two points which I think are most important. The first one is the co-operation and co-ordination of our forces with the forces of other countries which think as we do. The minister has stated that if we have another war it will be a world war. In a world war the contribution of a country the size of Canada, even though we think we are pretty important, is small compared with the total contribution. Unless we have co-ordination between our forces and the forces of those who may be our allies, I do not think we can contribute as much as we could if such co-operation took place in time. Even though we have to sacrifice some of our national pride, it seems to me that, in the world as it is constituted today, any enemy we may have to face is going to be one who will drive from one central point with one central objective, and with complete co-ordination of their forces. Unless we can meet that by co-ordination and co-operation, we shall do just as we did in the last two wars. We shall sacrifice thousands of lives in getting to the point where we can meet a concentrated attack.
The other point I want to mention is that the next war, if there is one, will be won or lost on the technical advances made in the next few years, not on our skill in the use of the weapons with which we won the last war.
Supply-National Defence Too often our objective between wars has seemed to be the training of people to use the weapons with which we won the previous war. No war is ever won by the use of the weapons with which the previous war was won. That is the lesson which we should have learned from history, and it seems to me that in spending money on our defence we should do so intelligently.
For instance, the distribution of our defence dollar, it seems to me, is something about which we should certainly make inquiries.
In 1948-49, 6 per cent of our defence dollar was spent for defence research, and in 1949-50, 5 per cent of our defence dollar is to be spent for that purpose. To me that is nonsense. If it is true, and it is, that wars are won by technical knowledge and development, then that is too small a proportion of our defence dollar to spend on the research which will be necessary to win the next war. 1 would say that three or four times that proportion would be well spent in technical research.
We know that probably our greatest single drawback in the first and second world wars was the fact that we lacked the necessary new equipment. We had plenty of Ross rifles and rifles of other makes in the first world war, but we lacked artillery. It was only when Lloyd George organized the economy of England, and reorganized the production of that country, thereby developing the artillery and shells that were necessary to win that war, that we were able to make advances. The same is true of the last war. It was two or three years before we developed the production of the materials necessary to win the war. Surely we will not allow ourselves to get into the same position in the event of another war. Surely we should have learned our lesson from the last two wars. Surely we should have learned that technical research and the development of a strong economy, in which we are producing the essential materials to win a war, is the best preparedness that we can have in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems to me that there has been general agreement, as one would expect, with regard to the objectives of Canada's defence forces, and the necessity of spending large amounts of money in order that such forces may be adequate. I am sure that no one, least of all the minister and his supporters on the government side, wishes to spend money to no good purpose. Certainly members of the opposition regard it as their duty to see that every dollar spent is spent wisely and to good purpose. We are all agreed that heavy expenditures on defence requirements are necessary, and we are all prepared to support such expenditures if we are agreed that they are being spent wisely.

Supply-National Defence
The point of difference between the minister and his supporters and those on this side of the house who are criticizing him is simply that we feel the money is not being spent wisely and that Canada is not getting value for her dollars in terms of defence. It should be made abundantly clear at this point that we feel the responsibility for this situation rests squarely upon the shoulders of the minister, the government and those at headquarters, and that it rests in no way upon the shoulders of the officers and men in the field and throughout the country who make up our defence forces. We know they are doing the very best job they possibly can under the defence system laid down for them, and with the resources and manpower at their command. For our part we feel that the inadequacy lies entirely in the framing of the defence policy which those officers and men are called upon to implement.
In his statement this afternoon, and in his statements during the period since he took over the department, the minister has consistently put forward the view that Canada's defence forces are adequate to Canada's needs and that they are well integrated with the defence requirements Canada may be called upon to meet under the Atlantic charter. Unfortunately we in this house are not in a position to comment on the latter point, because at no time has it been clearly stated-though we have frequently asked for this information-just what in fact is Canada's role in the Atlantic defence structure. So my remarks will be confined entirely to the question whether or not Canada's defence forces are adequately designed to meet our defence requirements, within the limited knowledge we have of our separate defence strategy; and my remarks and criticism will be based upon the minister's statements in that regard.
I should like to analyse a number of statements the minister has made over the past year or so, since February or March of 1948. In all those statements the emphasis has been upon the necessity for Canada to have defence forces able to defend our territory against attack from any quarter. I am sure all hon. members will appreciate that with our population it is going to be extremely difficult for us to defend our vast territory against attack from any quarter; but oddly enough that is the role the minister has laid upon our defence forces. Speaking in Montreal on February 10, 1948, and commenting upon the size and strength of the soviet armed forces, the Gazette of that date reports the minister as having used these words:
Mr. Claxton stressed that he was not suggesting that Russia was poised on the brink of war, but merely that she and her satellites have shown that

they are not ready to seek permanent security under law, and that as a consequence Canada "must ensure positive security under her own arms."
In his statement to the house this afternoon the minister supported that previous declaration, and also supported my contention that his emphasis is upon defence of our territory by our own forces. He said that our defence organization-referring entirely to Canada's domestic defence organization-must ensure the integrity of our territory. In other statements the minister has made he has given the impression that our recruiting policies and our armament and equipment policies all are proceeding satisfactorily and at a rate which will speedily ensure that our forces are of the size and nature, with sufficient equipment and armament, to fulfil the role he has laid upon them, namely that they should be capable of ensuring, virtually without outside support, the defence of our own territory from attack from any quarter.
That is the picture the minister has given; that is the role he has laid down and the impression he has left in the calculated statements he has made: that our defence forces are adequate for that role. Let us then examine the facts as they are disclosed in available returns, figures and information. When we examine the structure of our forces in the light of the minister's statements it becomes perfectly obvious that they are totally incapable of filling that role, if indeed they were ever designed or should ever be designed to do so, without some outside support or without being integrated into some defensive role within the structure of the North Atlantic alliance. Take the picture as to the strength of our services as shown in the annual report of the department. We find that the navy has an authorized strength of 10,375 all ranks, and that its present strength is 8,154. The army has an authorized strength of 26,329, and its present strength is 18,970. The air force has an authorized strength of 18,221 and a present strength of 14,552. So the total authorized strength of our permanent forces is 54,925. That is what is called the nucleus of our defence force, which is supposed to be adequate to defend our millions of square miles of territory, with thousands of miles of vulnerable sea coast and other thousands of miles of vulnerable northwestern approaches. This nucleus, which is supposed to be capable of defending all this territory, has an authorized strength of 54,925, and it falls short of even that pitiful authorized strength by more than 15 per cent, according to the last report issued by the department.
The whole picture the minister has given of our defence set-up is entirely misleading, in the first place because by ourselves, with

our limited population-and here I take direct issue with his statements-we cannot hope to defend our millions of square miles of vulnerable territory. In the second place they are misleading because the authorized objective set for the forces is short of attainment by over one-quarter. In other words, we are 15,000 short of even the objective of 54,925. It may be remarked that the picture I have presented so far leaves entirely out of account the reserve forces. It does. The picture would be redeemed in large part if in fact our reserve forces were up to strength, or if they were trained and equipped in such a way as to enable them to be rapidly expanded into an effective striking force in support of the permanent force. But the picture in that respect is far from encouraging, and falls short of the glowing rosy pictures the minister has painted. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that a country in Canada's position, with a small population and a vast territory to defend, in the first place must rely upon the Atlantic alliance to help defend our country.
But even then, as I have said, we have no clear picture of what our role is. We do not know. But taking the minister's statements as given to the house and to the members, even if we are fulfilling whatever role we are assigned in the Atlantic alliance, because of our limited population we must rely largely upon a reserve force which is capable of immediate expansion, of arming and equipping and of taking the field within the space of weeks or a month at the most from the outbreak of hostilities. The time factor was fully discussed this afternoon by the hon. member for Nanaimo. I do not need to go over that ground again in order to remind the committee or the minister that no longer in a future war, should a future war take place, shall we have time for a leisurely mobilization. If we are to play an effective role in defending our own territories, we must be able to put in the field an effective striking force within weeks or at the most a month of the time of the outbreak of hostilities. Is our reserve force capable of expansion in that way, to fill the role which that picture thrusts upon it? It certainly is not.


Mr. Ferrie:: How do you know?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Because I happen to have looked into this matter of the reserve forces. As given in the published report of the Department of National Defence, at page 82, the strength of the reserve forces at the present time is as follows: for the navy, 3,272; for the army, 36,311; for the air force 1,427; total reserve forces of all three services, 41,010. If my hon. friend who asked me the question, or any other hon. member who
Supply-National Defence is interested, will take the trouble to consult with the commanding officers of any of our reserve units, he will find the answer to his question. Those officers are reluctantly compelled to say that their units would not be battleworthy for a period not of weeks or a month, but of months or a year. We therefore have not a reserve force capable of taking the field, under present conditions, within less than a year from the outbreak of hostilities.
Just as a matter of comparison, I should like to direct the attention of the committee to a few figures as to the size of the reserve army today as compared with what it was before the war. If you take any year from 1924-25 up to 1938-9, you will find that the size of the reserve army was substantially in excess of the reserve army of today. I give these figures by way of substantiating the statement that our reserve forces of today- and we know how long it took them to take the field in the last war and in the first world war-are even less prepared, less trained, less well equipped and less well manned, if I may use that expression, than they were at any period from 1925 to 1939.


Brooke Claxton: Who says that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The figures establish it.


Brooke Claxton: The figures do not indicate anything of the kind; they do not indicate anything except the number of men on the strength.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, but when one has knowledge of the state of training and equipment of the units in the years from 1925-1939, in comparison with what they are today,-


Brooke Claxton: It does not show that at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -then the picture becomes clearer.


Brooke Claxton: If one has that knowledge, it does become clear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister's statements, which have been quoted in the chamber by others and by myself, as to the role of Canada's forces, as to the state of training, preparedness, equipment and recruitment, have been so misleading that I think this statement he has just made is equally misleading.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Robert Henry Winters: Nonsense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When one comes to the question of the other statements which have been made as to strengh and equipment, one sees an equally disturbing picture. Perhaps it would be interesting to the committee to have placed on the record some of the actual figures to which I refer, as to the strengths of
1696	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence the reserve forces in the period I have mentioned. To deal with the army, in 1924-25, 50,492. In 1930-31, 53,201; in 1935-36, 48,761; in 1938-39, 51,418. For the post-war period: in 1946-47, 37,657; in 1947-48, 33,591; and 1948-49, 36,311.
Then we come to some of the other statements of the minister with respect to the progress being made in bringing our forces up to strength; and we find that, when examined in the light of actuality, they have an equally disturbing eifect. I have here the answer which the minister made in the house on March 16, 1948. He was replying to a question asked by the former member for York South, with regard to recruitment for the army. As reported at page 2253 of Hansard, the minister's answer was:
... I can tell my hon. friend . . . that good progress is being made, and, in comparison with other countries where similar conditions obtain, the showing is encouraging. Men are being taken in at about the rates we want to have them for the army . . .
At that time the authorized strength of the army was 26,329; the actual strength was 15,409 or about 9,000 below the authorized strength. It will thus be seen that the minister's statements throughout, in the house and in the country, have been to the effect that Canada is well prepared, that her armed forces are well equipped, well trained and well manned to resist attack from whatever quarter it might come, and to defend our territory, of our own strength, against this attack.
Hon. members will recall that in March of last year the President of the United States made a very important and far-reaching statement on the subject of military preparedness, having to do with the personnel requirements of the United States armed forces in support of the efforts then being put forward to increase considerably the strength of those forces. In his speech before congress President Truman said-and I think this is the principle which should guide us in the design and equipping and manning of our forces-
We must be prepared to pay the price of peace or assuredly we shall pay the price of war.
In commenting on these remarks when speaking in Montreal in March of last year the Minister of National Defence said that the President's remarks were:
The beginning of the marshalling of force on the side of right which is essential if we are to preserve the way of life in which we believe.
On the basis of that statement, and the other statements which I have read, one would have assumed that Canada was playing a role comparable to that of the United States in proportion to our resources and to


our population. But if we compare the figures on the basis of population, and on the basis of the actual strength of the United States forces at that time, we find that Canada should have a permanent force of 150,000 if we are to play a role in proportion to that of the United States, as the statement of the minister would indicate we should. But the figures that have been given already indicate that the total authorized strength of our forces is 54,925. It seems to me that this has a definite bearing upon the role which Canada is called upon to play within the North Atlantic alliance. It may well be that under that alliance we have obligations of a different nature, or of a lesser proportion, than the military obligations assumed by the United States or the other parties to the alliance. If that is so, the country should be told. But it is misleading if statements are made which indicate that we are expected to bear, and are prepared to bear, a military role proportionate to that of the United States when in fact the authorized limit of our armed forces is only one-third of the present strength of the United States forces.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Our boys are worth three to one anyway.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I come next to the list of accomplishments given by the minister in the course of his remarks today. In many of those accomplishments there is cause for pride and satisfaction; but if they are analysed they are mainly with respect to improvements in the service standards, such things as the ration scale, the clothing, progress in provision of married quarters, and the start in aid of building, quarters for single men. The minister referred with pride to the shipbuilding program. When one analyses the accomplishment one finds that we have built one icebreaker. Then there is the aircraft program. We have placed orders for up-to-date jet fighters, but according to his statement our main accomplishment is in overhauling and modernizing machines.
The minister said that the training of the armed brigade group has been pressed on. That training in accordance with the reports on Exercise Eagle, which has been analysed in the light of what actually went on, has not been pressed on to the stage where the brigade group, the mobile permanent force group, is able to fulfil the role which the minister himself has laid down for it. The minister then went on to refer to the training in civilian defence. But if one analyses the statement on the basis of that statement alone it does not appear to have got much farther than the appointment of General Worthington. That is the record which the minister gave us this afternoon.

With respect to recruiting, the minister said that the campaign has been continued with the desired result in every respect, with the exception of the reserve army. If the results fall so far short of the authorized ceiling desired by the minister-and these were his words: they would produce the desired results -I suggest that he should immediately inform the country that in fact the glowing statements he has made as to the preparedness and equipment of our armed forces should be substantially modified because they are not yet ready to fulfil the role which he himself has outlined for them.
On the basis of these statements, these facts and figures, it is dangerously likely that the whole present defence policy of the government is not geared to the needs or the capabilities of the Canadian nation, and that the minister appears to be living in a world of unreality, not even he being aware of how far short our defence forces come of the goal that he himself has set, and in his own lack of knowledge or unwillingness to recognize that situation the country as a whole is unfortunately being misled. There is substantiation of this picture to be found in the words of the Mainguy report. At page 41 the commissioners report:
Several high authorities suggested that the navy is engaged in making too many bricks with too little straw. Most of the unsatisfactory conditions have been known to naval authorities for three years or more.
On page 42 they state:
iThe present actual complement of officers and men was stated by several witnesses to be inadequate for the existing commitments and tasks of the navy, if it is to concentrate on training, as it must do.
The significance of these statements, Mr. Chairman, is in the fact that the commissioners find that these conditions have been known to naval authorities for three years or more; and yet in the light of the inadequacies set forth in this report, many of which were known to naval authorities, the Minister of National Defence has consistently presented a picture of the armed forces, including the navy, which has come up to every expectation and which are thoroughly ready now to fulfil the role which he has set for them, which picture is obviously not consistent with the facts as shown in the figures issued by the department itself when compared with the statements made by the minister. In the light of these conditions it seems to me that the need becomes perfectly obvious for the setting up of a permanent defence committee of the Canadian House of Commons. This is a matter which in my experience has been pressed for every year since 1945. It is not a happy thing for any
Supply-National Defence hon. member to stand in the Canadian parliament and suggest, in fact state, that the Canadian services are not ready to fulfil the role which has been set for them as their task in defending this country. The statements I have made have been made on the basis of an analysis of the facts and figures given by the minister and his department, in comparison with the statements made by the same minister with respect to the role of those forces.
I realize that the inner details concerning these facts and figures are not fully known to me or any other member on this side of the house-and I doubt if they are fully known to any member on the other side, because we have not been given the opportunity to become fully acquainted with all the details and ramifications of the defence role of our forces. Particularly, we have not been told what is Canada's role within the structure of the North Atlantic treaty.
So that what I have been saying tonight has been said seriously, on the basis of the best information I have been able to acquire 

the information given by the department itself. If there are gaps in it, if there are injustices or apparent injustices to Canada's armed forces, the reason for those injustices is the incomplete knowledge or the gaps in the knowledge available to myself and other members of the house.
The desire of all members is to assist the department in so far as we can in building forces equipped to fulfil the role set for them, and also in acquainting the country and our constituents with the needs of Canada's defence forces in order that we may encourage support for those services, in order that we may within the limits of our responsibility and our opportunities encourage even recruiting, if need be. But with the lack of information we are totally unqualified to fulfil that which I suggest with respect is the perfectly proper role for any member of parliament in face of the very serious world situation with which we are confronted today.
I make these few remarks in support of a renewed plea for the setting up of a national defence committee of the Canadian House of Commons, and conclude by reminding the committee that this request was made in 1945. The then minister of national defence said he entirely agreed that it was a reasonable request, and said the same thing again in 1946, when the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra, and the hon. member for Nanaimo-supported on each occasion by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the leader of the C.C.F.-made the request.
In 1946 the then prime minister said he felt, too, that it was a reasonable request, a
1698	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence desirable thing and in the best interests of the defence of the country that such a committee be set up. May I read the words of Mr. Mackenzie King as they appear in Hansard for March 29, 1946:
I think the suggestion of my hon. friend is a very good one-
Referring to the suggestion put forward on that occasion by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra-
-and, as the Minister of National Defence has just said, it is one that he is prepared to consider sympathetically.
Then, after pointing out that at that particular moment, when a number of special committees were being set up, it would be difficult to constitute such a committee on national defence, the Prime Minister concluded with these words, as they appear at page 406 of Hansard:
I think my hon. friend's suggestion of that particular committee is a very good one.
The then prime minister's remarks concerning the necessity for a committee, and the desirability of informing all members of the house and all citizens of the country as to the requirements of Canada's defence forces, and as to the way in which they can best serve to fulfil those requirements, have not lost force since that date. In fact, in view of the world situation of today-and even in spite of the misgivings we have as to the adequacy of the minister's policy-we are prepared to support these estimates amounting to $383 million. I believe the necessity for that committee is vastly greater today than it was in 1946 when the then prime minister said he considered it a very good idea. I hope the minister will give his consent finally to the setting up of such a committee.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, probably
it would meet the convenience of the committee if I were to deal with some of the points raised by hon. members in their very helpful remarks. If the hon. member for Kamloops will pardon me, however, I shall not endeavour to correct every inaccuracy he has been uttering in the course of his remarks. But I should just like to say that his interpretation of the statements to which he has referred is so far away from any natural and proper interpretation that the words will bear, that I do not think it is necessary for me to follow him through that course.
However, I should like to deal with some of the express questions or points raised by hon. members and express appreciation to them of everything they have said of a helpful nature. First, turning to the question raised by the hon. member for Calgary East,


and referred to again by the hon. member for Kamloops, as to our commitments in the North Atlantic treaty. It is perfectly clear that we have no commitments whatever under the North Atlantic treaty. The organization under the treaty has just been set up. The regional groups have been organized and the appropriate officers and representatives of the various governments concerned are considering what should be the various strategical plans and requirements.
This is expressly dealt with in paragraph 12 of the statement I gave, in which I said:
It is still too early to spell out the consequences of the pact in terms of men and dollars.
And that is said after I have described the organizational work up to this present time.


Mr. Green:: When shall we know our commitments under that treaty?


Brooke Claxton: Well, first of all, there will be no commitments except with the consent of the government of Canada; and, secondly, there will be no commitments until the strategical considerations to which I have just now referred, and to which I referred in greater length before, have been given attention.


Howard Charles Green: About when would that be?


Brooke Claxton: I have no means of estimating a date. It depends largely upon the work of people outside the Canadian government and forces. For example, in the western European group, there are five nations as well as Canada and the United States as observers. They will be meeting and working things out. Then there will be consultations between the different groups, anjl ultimately clearance both by the standing group, the defence committee and the council. So that while this operation is being pressed forward with all speed, it will of necessity take some time.
With regard to another point raised by the hon. member for Calgary East, and referred to by others, I should like to make it perfectly plain again-and I want to state it as definitely as I can-that we have been getting recruits since January 1, 1948, and before that, at the rate we required, at the planned rate, for the active navy, the army and the air force, and for the navy reserve and the air force auxiliary. If we got recruits at a faster rate it would be necessary to have increased training establishments and increased capital equipment, neither of which would be justified by our concept of the strategical situation.


Howard Charles Green: What about the army reserve?


Brooke Claxton: I dealt with that before. We now have some 39,000 men in the army reserve, and I should like to see about

another 10,000 there. We have been doing everything we can to support the commands and to give national direction to campaigns to that end. In that connection the hon. member for Calgary East paid a well merited tribute to the officers and men of the reserve who have done a magnificent job. However, he referred to the recruiting campaigns as being a flop. In January, 1948, we had in the reserve forces of Canada a strength of 36,173; in September, 1949, it was 45,123.
Again I do not like making comparisons with other countries because they are so liable to be inaccurate and misleading and one must take into account all factors; but with regard to the strength of our reserve forces, navy, army and air, I want to say that they are greater in proportion to population than any country in the British commonwealth and considerably greater than the corresponding forces in Great Britain. That is nothing to be thankful for, but it does indicate that we are tackling this problem and securing a response relative to the present situation within three or four years of the end of a war, at a time of full employment and when our young men are interested in other things, which I think is encouraging, all things being considered.
The situation is satisfactory with respect to everything except the reserve army and I think it is encouraging in that connection. I know the position of the commanding officers of the reserve army because I was in the reserve for a time myself. They do have a difficult time when there is not an adequate number of men. I have never suggested for one second, as was said by one hon. member, that we do not want men in the reserve army. Of course we do. The hon. member was good enough to suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and I should make an appeal for recruits, bringing home the need. We have both done that repeatedly. The Prime Minister has shown the utmost interest in the work of all the armed forces.
The suggestion made with regard to armouries is well founded. There is nothing I should like more than to be able to begin the construction of armouries wherever they are needed across Canada, but it is a question, first, of labour, then materials and then money. The hon. member suggested that we should try to procure temporary accommodation by the use of existing buildings. That is a most useful suggestion. In fact we are already doing it. Since 1939, in the last ten years, we have increased the floor space of armouries for the reserve army by 70 per cent. That is a substantial increase, being nearly double, but still more is needed because of the great quantities of equipment which modern reserve armies have.
Supply-National Defence
We are continuing the practice of increasing accommodation wherever we can and we have let a contract for the construction of the first new armoury for a major unit at Sault Ste. Marie. The cost of this indicates that here again real money is required. The contract is for $850,000 for an armoury to accommodate a single unit.
The hon. member was good enough to say that training had been improved and there was a considerable increase in numbers, and of course it is most satisfactory to hear him say that, because he has been in both the reserve and the active forces. The hon. member said the air force equipment situation was not good, but here we must be realistic. We must understand what modern defence forces mean.
At the present time we are at work on the XC-100, a twin-jet all-weather fighter. If that plane is a success when it is tested it will be two or three years in advance of any plane of its type anywhere. We are at work on the construction of the F-86 which is as far as we know the fastest plane there is. I was asked by one hon. member how long it will take to produce these. We are working at a planned rate to produce these planes, not as fast as possible because we do not expect war within a year, but at a rate which will provide an economical flow from the factory where they are produced.
If I could show hon. members the schedules of production for planes in countries much larger than ours they would be astonished at how they differ from wartime rates. It is simply because countries have not the means to rearm at the rate they would like. It is interesting to note that in one of his fine statements on defence when speaking about the navy in the United States General Bradley said that the United States, with all its great wealth and resources, the richest country on earth, had to choose the things that would come first, had to work on priorities, because they did not have all the money they wanted for defence. Of course that is well known, and we are in the same position.
If any hon. member thinks that our armed forces are too small, that we should recruit faster, let him realize that that means $2,600 per year for each man taken on, and for each subsequent year until the man goes out of the army.


Howard Charles Green: Is that active or reserve?


Brooke Claxton: Active, and the figure is approximately the same for each of the three services. That does not include any overhead. If you want more in the way of equipment, it must be paid for. What is

Supply-National Defence almost more important, new equipment involves continuing commitments for maintenance, repairs and modifications. Modifications are the bugbear of all defence planners, particularly at a time of rapid change and development. Almost every piece of equipment seems to be subject to modifications before it is even delivered.
The hon. member for Melfort remarked that this year we were spending only five per cent of the defence dollar on research whereas last year we spent six per cent. The percentages given in that table are in round figures. The actual amounts are given in vote 251 of the estimates. The figure for 1948-49 was $19,700,000 for defence research, and the figure for 1949-50 is $21 million. Therefore, while the actual percentage shows a decrease, the actual amount has increased because of the fact that the over-all defence appropriation, when granted by parliament, will be 50 per cent over what it was last year. There is an increase in every single item in the table. We are cognizant of the need for keeping up with defence research. It is an important aspect of defence policy. There again our work is closely related with that of friendly nations along the lines of the hon. member's suggestion. Our working arrangements with the United States and the United Kingdom are just as close as they could be in all aspects of the matter.
References were also made to the shortages of kit. described in the Mainguy report. The shortages, as they have been reported to me, occurred between November, 1948, and June, 1949, and they applied to certain sizes of caps, collars, shirts, shoes, two types of trousers, underwear and vests. They did not extend to major items of clothing, and they were in certain sizes only. It is difficult to plan the purchase of clothing so as to keep on hand an adequate supply of all sizes at all times unless very large stocks are maintained.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are the shortages you refer to at Esquimalt, or the alarming shortages which were referred to as existing at headquarters?


Brooke Claxton: The shortages at Esquimalt; the other is the same question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What about the situation in the army and the air force?


Brooke Claxton: If I may finish my answer on this matter, I will come to that. As to what caused the shortages, it was due, largely but not entirely, to the navy getting recruits faster than they had planned or expected. It was due largely to that, but also to the fact that their methods of stock-keeping, unlike those in effect in the army and air force, were not as modern and up to date as they should have been; consequently they


did not provide for easy advance planning. That is being changed. The shortages have been overcome now and the matter has been cleared up.
As to the time that it takes to obtain clothing, where the cloth has to be woven' as is usually the case with uniforms, delivery takes over a year from the time of placing the order. Therefore planning must be related to the flow of recruits and discharges, and if we get more recruits and have fewer discharges than we expect, we are likely to run short at a time of rapid build-up.
Dealing with the army and the air force, I am informed that apart from occasional shortages of certain sizes, particularly unusual ones, there is no shortage, and that further we are gradually building up some stocks to meet future needs. The new summer uniform is in general issue now, and the blue uniform will come into general issue towards the latter part of 1950.
The hon. member for Churchill was good enough to refer to the Royal Military College and our efforts to re-establish the college on a sound footing. As hon. members know, he is one of two men in the house-the Minister of Mines and Resources is the other

who are ex-cadets of that famous institution. I must say that the progress made in securing close co-operation with respect to the training of officers for the navy, army and air force is encouraging in view of the fact that the college was only opened again in September, 1948.
The hon. member for Calgary East referred to the question of civil defence. Here we have had a difficult dedision of timing to make. We could very easily proceed to set up local civil defence organizations in every community right across Canada. There is no doubt that local communities would cooperate in that respect, and that work could be done. I may be wrong but my belief, based on such experience as I have had with organization, is that if local organizations were set up in every part of Canada and there was nothing for them to do except carry on for any considerable period the kind of training that civil defence groups would, then the men and women who would devote their spare time to this activity would soon cease to be interested in it, and would not be on hand should an emergency arise. The whole job of organization would have to be done over again. That is the view on which we have acted.
That does not mean, however, that that view is going to remain constant. With the progress in other directions which I expect there will be, we are working towards the organization of civil defence based first of all

on all the government departments concerned with the question, and then the provinces, because almost all matters that have to do with civil defence have provincial aspects. Some of them are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and in many matters the municipalities are mainly concerned. General Worthington has studied what is now being done in other countries as well as what was done during the last war. He has also interviewed the provinces. We have had a planning committee at Ottawa with representatives of the government departments concerned, and the matter has reached the stage where we could very speedily set up a plan and put it into effect. It would be a matter of hours to do that. We can now move on to the next stage of getting it developed at various levels so that we shall have a skeleton organization on which to build a civil defence body in every part of the country to meet any need.
While I am on my feet I should like to say a word to make clear one thing I think is important. In paragraph 29 of my statement concerning Canada's defence program, I referred to the development of radar; and I should like to quote the passage:
To meet attack by air requires jet interceptors and anti-aircraft guns with the necessary radar equipment and communications system, backed by a relatively small but highly trained, efficient and mobile force of ground troops. The territory of Canada is so vast that it is obviously impracticable to construct a chain or grid of radar warning stations similar in density and consequent effectiveness to the installations during the last war in the smaller areas of Britain or Germany; nevertheless an early warning system to cover certain vital approaches and areas is being developed.
That paragraph should be read as it appears. It would be beyond the economic and industrial resources of Canada to provide a radar defence system or an anti-aircraft defence system such as Britain had during the second world war. Moreover it would involve our country in static defence to a degree which would virtually paralyse any offensive effort; and even then it would not be one hundred per cent effective. Hon. members know, because many were there, that Britain was bombed despite radar and interceptor defences of the kind I have mentioned. In fact perhaps only ten per cent of the aircraft on bombing raids were knocked down. This is a field in which we must have knowledge of all developments and must be prepared to do what we can to defend vital and vulnerable points, and in which we must begin the development of what is considered a proper level of defence; but I hope no one will think for a second that we are going to put a string of radar stations over the North pole or anything of the sort. We are not. We could not
Supply-National Defence do that, and it would not be the right way to spend our defence dollars.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that in this field it would be interesting indeed to hear suggestions that our forces are too small or too large, that the relative proportion as between the three services is not correct, or that we are spending too much on personnel or on equipment and properties. But such suggestions have not been made during this discussion, as far as I know. The fact is that we can only increase the strength of our armed forces today by spending more money. We can only increase the equipment or build more properties by spending more money. The question then is: How much money do the Canadian people feel that the risks involved require us to spend? Obviously if we believed that within a year there would be a war involving us and the whole world, this is not the kind of appropriation we would be seeking. We would not be spending time discussing hundreds of millions. I am afraid it would go into billions, and many of them. All defence planning depends of necessity upon the calculation of risk and the estimation of forces, both those of any prospective enemy and those of any prospective friends. The next step is to spend the money made available out of the national budget in the most intelligent way to meet the needs as economically as we can.
That is a task which I can assure the committee is proving difficult in every country, because there are so many uncertain factors in the whole situation. But it is a task in which we have had the advantage of good advice from very competent officers, and also of discussion and consultation with our friends in other countries.
As a final word, the hon. member referred to high overhead; and I must say I often feel that the overhead, the number of men we have on the staff, seems very large indeed. It is not much consolation, either, to find that my opposite numbers in Britain and the United States are similarly concerned; but the fact is that this has become an exceedingly complicated and technical business requiring very considerable numbers of experienced, highly trained and well educated staff, both officers and men. Then again in this field, which involves so much in the way of co-operation between the services and also between one country and another, we have a great many inter-service and international committees which require considerable groups of personnel. However, in making comparisons with the forces of other countries, I do not think we are in any respect worse off, with regard to either the overhead or the proportion of civilians. But it is a matter that requires constant attention and

Supply-National Defence that I can assure you is receiving the attention of the chiefs of staff, the deputy minister and myself.


George Randolph Pearkes: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, during the course of my remarks this afternoon I stressed as emphatically as I could that I did not think sufficient emphasis was being placed on the air force. Obviously, if I did not make it clear, the inference was that I thought a larger proportion of money was being spent on the other services. Therefore I was surprised to hear the statement made by the minister just now. My feeling that greater emphasis should be placed upon the air force was one of the main reasons why I asked for the setting up of a committee to investigate this whole question of defence policy.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it the wish of the committee to carry on with this discussion? It is now eleven o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull) moved: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as understood this afternoon, the first item of business on Monday will be Bill No. 144, to amend the Combines Investigation Act. If we should conclude that matter there are some bills which, after listening to the discussion during the resolution stage, would not seem very contentious, and which we might take up. I would mention Bill No. 64, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; Bill No. 145, respecting the acquisition of the Temiscouata Railway; and Bill No. 146, to authorize the granting of a subsidy to the government of the province of British Columbia in aid of the construction of an extension to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.

Monday, November 14, 1949