1949-11-18

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I now lay on the table a summary of orders in council for the period from July 1 to August 31, 1949. As was
agreed on October 19, when the last summary of orders in council was tabled, this summary does not include the treasury board minutes.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Rene Walsh.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Sara Tepper Prupas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Joseph Wilfred Melanson.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to direct an inquiry to the Prime Minister, notice of which I have sent to him, following a suggestion I made during the debate on external affairs. I refer to a press report that an invitation has been extended by the Canadian government to Princess Margaret to visit Canada during the coming year. Has an invitation been extended, and, if so, has it been accepted? If no invitation has been extended, will the government consider extending such an invitation? According to press reports, Buckingham palace says it is interested in the suggestion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should be surprised if the report in the press were exact. There is no foundation for the rumours which have been circulating as to a visit to Canada and the United States in the near future by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret. On November 14 we were informed that this rumour was causing some embarrassment in London, and that it would be appreciated if steps were taken here in Ottawa to deny it. No invitation has been extended to Their Majesties or to any of the members of the royal family at this time.


Gordon Graydon: Would the Prime Minister mind answering the last part of my question -whether the government will consider extending such an invitation?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: The matter has not yet been considered by the government.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, but in his absence perhaps one of his assistants may be able to answer it or, if not, an answer could be given later. Are tenants who have had their rents increased by maximum rental decisions made since the minister made his announcement on November 3 liable to further increases on or after December 15?


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I shall take this question as notice and endeavour to give an answer on Monday.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Last evening I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs overlooked replying to my question as to Canada's policy with respect to the northwestern portion of this continent. If he will remember, I referred to the United States proposal that a survey be made for a railway line to Alaska. Is the minister in a position to explain briefly the policy of the government in this regard?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am sorry; I did overlook answering that question last night. I assure the hon. member it was not a deliberate omission on my part. I am in a position to say to him that the government is of course interested in any transportation development in the northwest which will bring that part of our country in closer contact with Alaska, not only for strategic reasons but for development reasons as well. The government has already surveyed the possibility of extending the railway line from British Columbia to Alaska. The difficulties in that connection

Supply-National Defence of course are obvious. They are largely financial. I would remind the hon. gentleman that during the war the United States military authorities made a survey for a light military railway which would cover the same territory, and I believe the estimated cost was about $112 million. At this time a standard gauge railway would cost probably well over $200 million. Existing transportation facilities are not overtaxed-that is, sea-rail and road-rail-so there would undoubtedly be a substantial deficit for many years, running possibly to $50 million per year.
It is true that a bill has been passed by congress providing for a survey and authorizing the President of the United States to get in touch with the Canadian government with a view to making that survey. It is also true, I understand, that no appropriation has been passed for this purpose, which means it may be difficult for the United States government to take the action recommended in the bill. If and when that action is taken, and the United States government approaches the Canadian government about this survey, the government will naturally be glad to discuss the matter.



TRADE WITH BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises out of a press dispatch appearing in this morning's Ottawa Citizen. Is it correct, as stated in the press dispatch, that Britain will not purchase Canadian eggs in 1950 and that the bacon contract will be reduced from 160 million pounds to 140 million pounds?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No contracts for eggs or bacon have yet been placed for 1950. The matters are still under negotiation, and no official answer can be given at this time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE General services-
239. Grants to military associations, institutes and1 others, as detailed in the estimates, $227,150.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Chairman, when the committee was last dealing with these estimates it had not reached the point where the items were
fMr. Pearson.1
being discussed in detail. I propose, therefore, to deal with the broad problem presented by the estimates rather than with any individual items. In doing so, I am simply following the course adopted by the minister and those who followed him in the discussion.
The importance of these estimates has been emphasized since we last met to discuss the problems of defence. In the debate which has taken place on external affairs, the unanimity of the members of this house with regard to the necessity of Canada being associated with the other free nations in every way necessary for the purpose of combining their strength to assure peace in the years ahead was recognized. The very fact that we are called upon to consider estimates for an expenditure of $383 million for defence is conclusive evidence that there is no thought in the mind of the government or of anyone else thal a mere expression of the desire of people for peace, or mere association in a common purpose, will in itself, bring that peace which is the highest desire of every human being. For this reason we must examine these estimates in the light of the position which Canada has taken as a member of the north Atlantic community of nations, and the commitment which that implies.
These estimates must be considered not merely in terms of the amounts appropriated, and their being spent in the best way, but also as part of the important problem of our playing our part in saving civilization itself.
When the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was introducing these estimates he said: "Members will have it in mind that today is Remembrance day." These estimates first came up for consideration on November 11. It seems to me particularly fitting that the estimates of the Department of National Defence should come up on Remembrance day. Each year on November 11 we are called upon to remember the many men who died in the free lands of the world because they had not been prepared for the defence of their country when war broke out, and also because they had not understood what the exact situation was. If there is one message above all others which should come to us from those whose memory we commemorate on November 11, it is that there is no substitute for a precise examination of the facts, and that no pleasant statements as to what we have achieved can be a substitute for the reality of that measure of combined strength which is the one hope for peace in the years ahead.
This does not mean the figures before us may be inadequate. It may well be that

they are too high, having regard to the agreements we have made with other nations, and to the fact that our commitment, which has been clearly stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), is to contribute our share in the best way we can, having regard to our strength and our facilities.
The Minister of National Defence went on to say, "We learned again that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." I think no one will question that statement. Eternal vigilance, however, is not merely keeping one's eye open to see what the other man is doing. Eternal vigilance implies also a constant supervision and a constant examination of our own ability to assume whatever role may be imposed upon us by the commitments that we as a democratic nation have freely undertaken. Our objective is peace. I am certain that no member of the politburo in Russia, which constitutes the small, compact dictatorship over the communist masses of the world, has any doubt that the supreme and only objective of the nations of the Atlantic community is peace. Any suggestion on their part that the North Atlantic security pact is an aggressive association of the western nations is of course hypocrisy, pretence, and an attempt to convince their own people that there is some reason for the tremendous military preparations going on within their own borders.
Our objective is peace, and we have been told that the large sums we are called upon to approve in this committee are the price that we must pay for preserving peace. But dollars will not preserve peace; it is what the dollars buy. We shall only play our part in the common cause, as the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the other nations will only play theirs, if the money that is spent-whether it be dollars, pounds, francs, lire, or any other currency-is effectively used for the purpose of preparing within each country that organization which can most effectively take its part in this great international team which has its mind only on the continuing peace of the world.
Those ceremonies which took place last week should indeed strengthen our conviction as to the importance of an association of this kind, backed by a well-trained organization for that purpose within each country. That also was the great lesson that came to us from the other wars. I use the word "wars", because both the first world war and the second world war could have been avoided if those nations which believed in peace and believed in the right of every nation to determine its own course had combined their 45781-123
Supply-National Defence strength, had stood together and had said to Germany or to any other possible aggressor: Let there be no doubt that we mean to preserve our freedom. Undoubtedly the leaders of Germany moved in 1914, as they moved in 1939, because they had come to the conclusion that the free nations were neither ready nor willing to defend themselves with all they had. Germany paid the penalty for that mistake, as did the rest of the world at the same time.
If there is one thought that should be uppermost in our minds as we examine these estimates and what these estimates imply, and what lies behind the dollars and the words therein set out, it is that war could have been prevented in 1914 and in 1939. The job of all of us is to do what we can within our sphere of responsibility to keep that lesson in our minds and before our people, and to make sure that never in our lifetime shall it be forgotten.
It is with this thought in mind that I should like to consider not only the estimates that are before us but the statement that was prepared and presented to the house on November 11. This document, which can in fact be called a white paper, covering "Canada's defence program" for 1949 and 1950, purports to give "Information on defence". That is the opening heading, under part I on page 5, and it is the stated purpose of the whole document. I should like to examine some of the things that are said in this white paper because I intend to repeat my appeal to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and to the members of this committee for the setting up of a standing committee on national defence which can obtain the information that is not now available to us and will not be available to us even if we sit in committee of the whole to consider these estimates from now until next May.
The reason I say that is this. Under the rules of procedure, no machinery is provided by which we can obtain the information that would give these estimates and this explanation any real meaning to most members of the committee and to the thirteen and a half million people of Canada whose future so largely depends upon what they really mean.
On the first page of the report, but the fifth page of the document, I find these words: Defence is no longer the concern of the soldier alone. It is the concern of each individual.
May I repeat that these are the words given to us by the Department of National Defence. Defence is above all the concern of each member of this committee. We shall not be doing our duty unless we make sure that

Supply-National Defence a procedure has been adopted which makes it possible to discuss the subject of defence with real knowledge of our objectives, of the plans that are being made, of the adequacy of what we are doing, and of what can be done to avoid any waste of money and to make the most effective use of the huge sums which are being allotted for this purpose.
I would refer to these words which appear on page 6:
Canada has a great stake in international security and stability.
Every Canadian has a great stake in international security and stability. There is not a mother or a father in Canada with young children today who does not look at these children and wonder whether in the years ahead they are to be called upon to take part in world tragedies which have been shared by two generations of Canadians. Within this house are many veterans of two world wars. These men, who have seen the ghastly destruction of war, have seen their friends, their brothers, those they knew best of all, blown to oblivion by the ghastly instruments of war, are the ones above all others in this country who are conscious of the need of doing everything within the realm of human possibility to prevent the recurrence of a supreme tragedy of that kind.
May I repeat that Canada as a nation not only has a stake in security and stability, but mothers and fathers-indeed everyone- no matter what their age may be today, look at the papers and at the disturbing headlines, and can only interpret the news they read in terms of the possibility not only of war but of the conceivable end of our civilization as we know it, if the combined sanity and the combined strength of the free nations are not fully associated in the most effective way for the preservation of the peace that was bought by the blood and the agony of the youth of Canada and of other nations who won such a decisive victory in 1945. It is in this frame of mind and from this point of view that I urge hon. members to examine these estimates, and not to take any statement for granted, not to be prepared to pass from this subject until they know, and really know, what is being done with this enormous sum of money.
As has been pointed out, it is no longer the job of the soldier alone, and it is not enough to be told that the military experts tell us this or that. This is the job of every Canadian, and we are the representatives here of the people of Canada.

Let us pass to the stated defence objectives which appear on page 11. In paragraph 17 we find this statement:
In 1948 Canada's defence alms and objectives were set out as being:
(1) to provide the force estimated to be necessary to defend Canada against any sudden direct attack that could be or is likely to be directed against it in the near future.
This is our first objective. Before we pass on these estimates it is our duty to know how close we are to that objective. How far have we gone in providing the force estimated to be necessary to defend Canada against any sudden direct attack that could be or is likely to be directed against us in the near future? How many infantry battalions are there in the active forces with their complete complement of weapons and equipment? Unless you know that, you have no idea at all of how ready the infantry are to take their part. How many artillery units have their complete complement of machines, of range-finding instruments, of controlled devices, of all the technical instruments that go with that service under the present establishment, which will be suited for the employment of that unit in active combat? How many hon. members know that? If they do not know, they cannot pass on these estimates with any appearance of reality in relation to the stated objective for which the money is being allotted.
How many of our armoured units have the machines of war and the equipment and all the control and communication devices that are required by an establishment for 1950- not 1945? If you do not know, you cannot pass on these estimates with any real knowledge of what they imply. How many of our engineering units have the establishment required for 1950 and the years beyond? How many of our signal units, how many of our army service corps units, how many of the other units of the infantry have their establishment and could move into positions to meet the first test set down? I think many hon. members guess the answer, and if they do, it is all the more reason why right now, today, the government should say that a standing committee will be set up where the military experts may be examined and where industrial experts and those who are associated with the nonpermanent units as well, the reserve units, could be brought here to express their opinions; because I would remind hon. members that many of the greatest developments in effective mechanism for defence came not from the military experts but from those who could not be included within that rather limited group.

We need only to recall that in the first world war the decisive weapon was the tank, and that it was not the result of the advice of the experts. The experts all said it could not be used, and blocked it. There was a young minister named Churchill who used a device which perhaps may not conform strictly to parliamentary practices. Hon. members will recall that he succeeded in having the tanks developed by including an estimate for land units of the naval force. It was under that appropriation the tanks were developed and were ready for the first attack in 1916. In the second world war the great test as to whether there could be an invasion of Europe was the possibility of establishing beachheads at places where there were no natural ports. There again a civilian named Churchill had put forward the_ idea of what came to be known as Operation Mulberry. Of course he had had a fairly extended experience in military affairs; but he certainly was not one of those who would be included within the group known as technical military experts.
Hon. members can think of many suggestions which have ultimately taken form and which came originally from the drafting boards of industry, suggestions which came from the ideas of amateur soldiers thinking in unconventional terms. Now, for years after the end of the war-or what we are pleased to call the end of the war-the time has come to bring some of those unconventional brains before a committee to see what ideas have emerged from the thinking of the people of this country as to the way in which, with the greatest economy and effectiveness, they can play their part in the task lying before us in this field. I suggest that unless we have such a committee we are simply giving a blank cheque, without accepting, and insisting upon accepting, the responsibility which is ours in connection with one of the most important duties of this parliament acting as a collective body.
We are told in this same document that the only kind of war which could involve Canada would be a war with communism. At the present time that is the only foreseeable war. At page 11 the white paper goes on to say that the best way to achieve victory in any war is to defeat the enemy in his own land, and that the right place to defend Canada and what Canadians believe in is as far away from Canada as possible.
This is the statement of the Department of National Defence as to their concept of our national military role. I ask hon. members to consider just how ready our present defence forces are to fit in with that role. Whether it is the right role or whether it is not, it is the
Supply-National Defence role placed before us as the stated role of our forces. And only to the extent that our forces fit into that picture is this money being properly spent. I cannot see any shading of the meaning in these words at all.
If our objective is to play our part within the terms now put before us, then the test as to the appropriate expenditure of every cent of money must be this: How close does this expenditure come to producing the results which are put before us in the statement of the Department of National Defence?
At page 12 there is a statement with which I am sure every hon. member will agree:
Our defence policy assumes that our armed forces will be used in association with those of friendly powers.
That of course was what the Secretary of State for External Affairs was emphasizing yesterday. It goes on to say:
The defence of Canada and the defence of western Europe are ultimately one operation.
It is necessary, if we consider how well the money is being spent, that we have at least an estimate of what types of units, what types of equipment, and what particular emphasis on a particular service, will best fit our defence forces to that requirement. The report goes on to say:
The development of these three phases must proceed at a pace which will neither be so slow as to leave us unprepared at any point, nor so hasty as to overburden the economy with the production of war materials much of which would become obsolete.
I believe everyone will agree with this- certainly with the latter part of it. But let us examine the first part of it, where it states that we must not be so slow as to be unprepared at any point. On this 18th day of November, 1949, are we prepared at any single point to meet the requirements stated by the Department of National Defence? Any hon. member who, through his association with military units in this country, knows something of what the situation really is, can give the answer, and he knows it is one which is not satisfactory in relation to the enormous figure before us.
The report refers to our being unprepared "at any point". All right; let us take this point in the history of Canada. On November 18, 1949, how ready are we, not only with any branch of the service but with any unit of any branch of the service, to take the stated part that has been placed before us? Every member who is passing on these estimates should know the answer, or should have the assurance that he will know the answer when we consider the estimates in detail. I make that qualification
1938

Supply-National Defence for this reason, as I pointed out in an earlier debate: that the expenditure of money is effective only to the extent that it is made with a knowledge of the facts and the real purposes for which the money is being spent.
We must know exactly what the position really is-and not just accept the statement that we are spending so much money, and that our men and women in the services are well trained, and have a high morale. We know all that. It is because we have young men and women of demonstrated ability, it is because we have young men and women of whom we are proud, young men and women capable of undertaking any task placed before them, that we should insist upon knowing what is really being done to prepare them-and this is the only reason they are in uniform-for the defence of this country and the maintenance of the collective freedom of our civilization.
On page 12 we find this subheading, "Immediate defence of Canada". It is stated that while there is little likelihood of any direct attack, our services should be planned -and I quote:
-to meet an attack upon the scale that would be likely to be made at any given time as part of a war involving the north Atlantic treaty powers.
To meet an attack at any given time-that is the test we must apply today. We know that we are not ready in all respects, and we can expect that. But we must know to what extent. We must know where the emphasis should be placed. We must know where the job needs to be pressed most vigorously. We must know what real readiness there is at any given time to deal with this matter.
Then it goes on to say that for this particular type of attack we should have jet interceptors and anti-aircraft guns backed by a relatively small but highly trained, efficient and mobile force of ground troops. I think that Canada must devote its attention so far as ground troops are concerned to developing a small but highly trained, efficient and mobile force of ground troops. It is this type of force that will meet the possibility of the kind of attack on our own soil which is contemplated by the survey of the Department of National Defence. It is this kind of force that would be suited to joint operations on land with the other powers which, because of geographical position and larger populations, would be called upon to provide the main body of the land forces.
No matter what the position is today, what will it be next year; what will it be in 1951 and 1952, if we say that we have a small and compact land force capable of doing the job for which it is intended and for which we are
allocating the money? That is the question. It was to this that I referred a few minutes ago.
At this particular time we cannot greatly change the allocation of money, whether we should wish to do so or not. Because of the interruption of the last session for certain important public purposes, the business of the house was not completed, and we are now dealing with estimates which ordinarily would have been dealt with many months ago. We know that in practice most of this money has been spent or already committed. For this reason we cannot change greatly the amounts that will be spent in this current year. But this is the time for us to make sure that the mechanism is provided which will permit us not only to review what is being done now and the picture behind it, but also to consider the estimates next spring with the kind of knowledge that we should have before passing upon future expenditures on this scale.
It is for this reason that my remarks are directed again to the importance of having a standing committee in which details could be examined which simply cannot be effectively dealt with in committee of the whole. On page 13 reference is made to the nucleus theory which has been adopted in regard to the reserve or nonpermanent units. On that page I find these words:
Canada's peacetime forces, besides being prepared for home defence, must contain the organization and administrative nucleus of the larger forces which an emergency would eventually require.
I think everyone will agree with that. But how much do we know of the extent to which the organization of those peacetime forces are suitable for the projected needs of 1950, of 1955, of 1960? How far have those forces departed from the organization of 1949? One of the greatest difficulties after every war- and history shows this-is to shape the thinking of the Department of National Defence-this applies to every country-away from the experiences of the last war. It has never been different. Men are inclined to interpret the needs of the future in terms of their war experience. Usually it is only by bringing fresh and unconventional minds to an examination of the task that there is a break from the conditions applicable to the war that was fought some time previously.
In the military exercises between the two world wars the units were fighting over and over again in peacetime exercises the battles that had taken place between 1914 and 1918. Many of the exercises being carried on today are carried on as though they were incidents in the war of 1939-1945. The needs of these forces, the organization of the forces, the
(Mr. Drew.]

expenditure of money on the forces, are things that should be examined by this committee and recommendations made. It is not going to be a small task. It is going to be an important and continuing task, and that is why there should be a standing committee which will study continuously this extremely important subject.
On going through this report I find that constantly emphasis is placed upon the readiness of the forces to meet the various tasks that are placed before them. On page 16 I find a statement which seems to me to be symptomatic. It is in these words:
Canada was able to put her defences on a postwar basis more rapidly than most other countries.
Do we know whether or not that is correct? I am not suggesting that we are being deliberately misled by anyone, but do we know exactly what our position is today? If any hon. member does know exactly, then I am sure he is in a more favourable position than most hon. members of this house and most of those now serving in uniform in different parts of Canada.
I find these words on page 18:
The adequacy or inadequacy of defence expenditures depends on the appreciation of the international situation.
That is the guiding factor in everything we do; everything must fit into the pattern of what is best suited in relation to an appreciation of the international situation.
We are told about the high cost of war equipment, and a few examples are given. (Everyone knows that war equipment is extremely expensive, and undoubtedly the few figures given do indicate how costly this program is.
On page 20 I find this statement:
In unification and co-ordination Canada has been making continued progress and our place in the forefront of this field has been shown by the way in which steps taken first in Canada have subsequently been taken in other countries.
Let us be extremely proud of what we are doing as Canadians, but unification in itself is not an end; it is only a means to an end. Unification is effective only to the extent that the forces unified constitute an effective force to meet the stated requirements of our defence program. I submit that this statement is meaningless unless we know what is being unified, in terms of our real military requirements at this moment. It is not difficult to unify simply from the point of view of structural organization. The unification which presents the problem is the unification of forces in an effective form for a defined purpose; and I am convinced that we have not before us information that would
Supply-National Defence give that statement any meaning to us at this time. It is repeated in another way on page 21:
The test of Canada's system of organizing defence lies in the fact that unification has proceeded farther and duplication of function has been more thoroughly eliminated than in any other western country.
That is a fairly broad statement, and when we read it I think we must examine the situation as it has been exposed in at least one service, by the Mainguy report, which dealt under very limited powers with the situation in the navy. When we speak of organization, one statement in the Mainguy report should be remembered, not merely for the purpose of criticism but in order to realize how necessary it is that we go behind general statements of that kind. On page 50 of the Mainguy report we find these words:
. . . several important administrative departments were treated as though they were temporarily refuges for temporary misfits, rather than as fields of endeavour for the best available experts.
This statement hardly suggests the high degree of skill in administrative organization implied in the statement to which I have referred. After all, these are not my words; they are the words of a commission appointed by the Minister of National Defence. They come under the heading "Headquarters staff", that portion of the organization which becomes an integral part of any co-ordinated direction of our defence forces. It is a serious indictment of those responsible for administration, if the statement is correct; and after all, it was put forward in a report which has been generally commended/ as a fair and accurate interpretation of what was found. I repeat it:	"Several important
administrative departments were treated as though they were temporarily refuges for temporary misfits, rather than as fields of endeavour for the best available experts." All these departments are under one minister. If there is anything in the Mainguy report which imposes upon us a responsibility for securing wider knowledge in regard to the land and air forces, it is this statement, if it is to be accepted as accurately representing what was found. A headquarters staff that is a temporary refuge for temporary misfits, no matter how small may be the percentage of temporary misfits, is not the kind of staff which will produce effective co-ordination and unification, regardless of what the documents may appear to produce.
I suggest that this in itself is good reason for a thorough investigation of this subject. But, Mr. Chairman, if there were one thing above all others that would suggest the need for study by this committee now, not several

Supply-National Defence
months from now, it is the fact we have been told that a comprehensive and long national defence bill, which will bring about sweeping changes, is to be placed before this house. At page 22 of this report I read:
Its enactment would mean that Canadian defence matters would be dealt with for the first time entirely by the Canadian parliament . . .
I emphasize those words, "would be dealt with entirely by the Canadian parliament." It would be the first time. Defence matters have not been dealt with by the Canadian parliament, with knowledge of the defence problems, for many years, because the information has not been available. There is nothing in the act itself which assures that result. The only thing that will assure it is the setting up of a standing committee of this house which can examine these matters and this bill. I hope there will be no suggestion of this bill being dealt with in the remaining time available this session, because its implications are far too important and the effect of the changes much too far-reaching to be dealt with before we have an opportunity to examine experts as we cannot examine them in this house.
Words are often used to conceal information rather than to give it. I do not think any Canadian reading this document has any more information about the real state of our defence forces than he had before it was presented on November 11. What does any statement of the cost of national defence equipment mean unless it is related to a knowledge of how many of these items we are buying, and their effectiveness, and the opinion of industrial as well as military experts as to their availability and the productive power of this country in particular lines? We need this information in order to form an opinion as to where the emphasis should be laid in providing equipment of the kind.
We have come a very long way, Mr. Chairman, since the days just before the last war broke upon the world. If hon. members do not believe I have used words of the utmost moderation in referring to the enormous expenditures upon which we are asked to pass, may I remind them of what was said in this country only a short time ago. On a number of occasions we have been told that there was not an appreciation of the needs for defence preparation until this government took office. May I use this illustration, not for the purpose of dealing with that statement, but just to indicate how great the change has been, and why it is so necessary that we examine this subject with great care.
August 18, 1935, was almost exactly four years before the outbreak of the last war, and yet, on that date, we find the man who


was to be prime minister of this country during the war years criticizing in most vigorous terms the increases which had been provided for the Department of National Defence. In fact in that speech he said that these expenditures were being made with the idea of setting up a dictatorship, and that nothing else could justify the expenditure of such enormous sums. Let us see what was provided in that year. The total main estimates for the Department of National Defence in 1935 were $11,252,001.17. There were supplementary estimates of $1,796,000, making a total of $13,048,001.17. The estimates for aviation were separate, because they included civilian aviation as well. In 1935 the main estimates for aviation were $3 million and the supplementary estimates were $1,302,900, making a total for aviation of $4,302,900. The total for defence purposes, including civil aviation and the flying clubs, was $17,350,901.17.
The fact that that expenditure could be regarded so recently as a huge expenditure intended only for the purpose of setting up a dictatorship-those were the words-makes it apparent that we should examine with great care the extent to which every cent of the present estimates is being spent. It should not be done with any such suggestion as was made in 1935-and quite improperly made, I think-but simply in recognition of the tremendous change that has taken place in everyone's thinking between 1935 and today, when we are confronted with estimates of $383 million and realize there are other expenditures as well for certain associated civilian departments which do work for the Department of National Defence. This huge sum must be examined carefully. I repeat there is only one way in which it can be done effectively, and that is by a standing committee.
We have been told by the Minister of National Defence that the setting up of a standing committee on national defence has never been the practice under our parliamentary system. Many things are being done that were never done before. Certainly until a few weeks ago there was never a standing committee on atomic energy. Since atomic energy is part of the problem we are discussing today, I cannot imagine a single reason why there should be a standing committee on that subject and not a standing committee on national defence. The military authorities would be the only ones concerned with doing anything with atomic energy from the military point of view. If we need a standing committee for that limited feature of our development in this country, surely we need a standing committee to deal with the broader

organization which would employ whatever military use might be made of that particular source of power.
We have been told also by the Minister of National Defence that the fact that there are committees in the United States to deal with these subjects has no bearing on this matter. We have been told that it is not the right way to deal with a subject of this kind. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I hope the members of the house will permit me to read into the record a statement, which I believe is well thought out, concerning the importance of committees. It was contained in an article which appeared in Maclean's magazine on March 1, 1943. It was under the heading, "What's wrong with parliament?" I should like to read only that portion which deals with the use of committees, because I believe the statement is a clear one; it refers to the matters which are now before us and to the suggestions we are making. It reads as follows:
One reason why parliament has not functioned better is that 245 members cannot get down to close grips with a subject. Also there is not enough time for the whole house to deal with everything. Hence the practice of referring specific matters to committees for study and report should be extended.
On a good committee the party lines disappear. One member's experience is that on ten committees in three years there was never a vote on party lines. In committees the atmosphere of the arena is changed for that of the workshop.
To be effective a committee must be small, not more than fifteen. Its members should be selected because of their interest in the subject rather than solely because of other considerations such as province, race or religion. Committees should be set up early in the session and bring in their reports early, before the last-minute rush.
The committee on war expenditures has done exceedingly useful work, but it has been suggested that it has been handicapped by lack of technical assistance. A committee of this character should have attached to it one or two full-time people who are competent to prepare the material as is done at both Westminster and Washington. Without such assistance the committee is largely in the hands of the interested department.
Committees should sit regularly on such matters as manpower and labour, financial and economic questions, reconstruction, external affairs and information, munitions and supplies, agriculture, the navy, the army and the air force.
May I repeat that?
-the navy, the army and the air force. The United States Senate has forty-seven committees exercising great power. We do not need anything like that number. The close connection of our executive with our legislative branches makes it unnecessary. Fifteen working committees of our house, most of them only meeting through half the session, would do the job. My fifth point, therefore, is:
5. Whenever possible a matter of major importance should be referred to a committee of parliament, and where necessary the committee should be provided with adequate research assistance.
Supply-National Defence
Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe that is an excellent-


Mr. Isnor:: Would the leader of the opposition be good enough to give us the name of the author?


George Alexander Drew: Yes. The author was Mr. Brooke Claxton.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I was aware of that.


Mr. Claxton:: Everyone in the committee is, too.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It is a good article.


George Alexander Drew: The author of it was the present Minister of National Defence, when he was a private member.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It is a very good article.


George Alexander Drew: It is an excellent article.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Is that the same magazine that published "The merchants of death" about that time?


George Alexander Drew: Yes; it is the same publication. I wish hon. members would reread that article and would examine, in the light of what was said there, some things that have been done in regard to production for our defence requirements.
This article, I say, was written by the present Minister of National Defence, at a time when he was a private member; and he was expressing his opinion as to the success of the use of committees. Hon. members will note that the Minister of National Defence, who now says that a standing committee on national defence is not appropriate under our system, in 1943 specifically referred to a committee on the army, the navy and the air force. His view was clear then. Moreover, may I point out that his experience then, when he was sitting as a private member, does not bear out the suggestion that he now makes, that these committees divide on a political basis. He was referring to his own experience, and he said:
One member's experience is that on ten committees in three years there was never a vote on party lines.
Then he goes on to say:
In committees the atmosphere of the arena is changed for that of the workshop.
May I say that I subscribe to every word of that part of the article I have quoted. I do not think that the points I have been trying to make for some weeks could be more cogently and more effectively stated. May I also remind hon. members that this was under the significant heading "What's wrong with parliament?" That question was asked by the present Minister of National
1942	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence Defence; and he attached sufficient importance to the idea of these committees to have that paragraph in special type:
Whenever possible a matter of major importance should be referred to a committee of parliament, and where necessary the committee should be provided with adequate research assistance.
Hon. members will recall that the Minister of National Defence on more than one occasion has told us that it is not appropriate for us to see what is done in the United States, because our systems are so dissimilar. But in 1943 he thought there was a sufficiently related experience to point out that in the United States matters of this kind had been referred to committees. He said:
The United States Senate has forty-seven committees exercising great power.
He did not say that was a reason not to consider this procedure. He said:
We do not need anything like that number.
He referred to a smaller number, but he obviously implied that the machinery available to their members, with experts to assist them, was the kind of machinery he approved. Even at the expense of putting it on the record again, may I read the last paragraph I have quoted-and I hope the minister will not feel that I am presuming when I say that I adopt that statement as one that completely expresses my own opinion on this subject.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Does the hon. member approve the system used in the United States in regard to these committees?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the question is not relevant.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It has an important bearing on the matter, I would say.


George Alexander Drew: The question is not relevant, for this reason. The use of committees and the system are two different things. The hon. member who has just spoken is fully aware of the fact that the United States system is one which places committees in an entirely different position because the executive is not chosen from the members of congress. The members of the executive are appointed separately and independently. But as was indicated by the gentleman who wrote this article in 1943, this does not in any way dispose of the fact that, while the system may be different, the procedure by which information is obtained is one which offers useful suggestions to the house.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Then you do not approve the United States system.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to have the record confused by a statement of that kind. I most certainly approve the reference of subjects of this kind to a com-


mittee. I believe in the strength of our parliamentary system. I believe that our parliamentary system is a better system than the United States system. I believe our parliamentary system will work only if we have committees that get for members of the House of Commons the kind of information that is available to the members of the United States congress. That is exactly what the author of this article was pointing out back in 1943 under the title: "What's wrong with parliament?" That is definitely what is wrong with parliament. We are asked to deal with a subject of this kind without any mechanism by which we can get the information upon which we can assume our responsibilities; and this article sets out that fact as clearly as I have ever seen it set out. I hope that all hon. members will look it up, because it deals with other subjects that might also well be reviewed at a time when we are trying to make parliament more effective in dealing with these subjects.
We cannot greatly change the total required for this present year. We can, however, find out some of the things that are being done now, so that when we meet next year as a continuing House of Commons we may be equipped with information that will make it possible for us to deal with this matter.
With this thought in mind, may I again refer-and this will be my last reference to the article now-to this statement:
Committees should be set up early in the session and bring in their reports early, before the last-minute rush.
I should like to see that statement underlined in red in Hansard, but I am afraid that Hansard arrangements do not make that possible. But of all the excellent statements in the article I have quoted, none is more important than the one that these committees should be set up, and set up early, and that the committees should bring in their reports before the last-minute rush so that the reports may be examined carefully and the decision of the house made with actual knowledge of the facts.
Let us not pretend that we have any real information upon which to base our decision at this time. Let us not pretend that we know how far our present organization and the present equipment of our defence forces, with regard to weapons and all the other facilities that they require, meet the stated needs of these defence forces as put forward by the Department of National Defence. Let us not pretend that. But recognizing what the situation is, with a full recognition of the importance of this subject, let us insist that there be an assurance now of a standing committee which can examine these facts

for our information-if not for change at the present time, then so that we may be ready to deal with the matter next session, to the end that there may be an effective saving of money as well as the most efficient organization of our defence forces that is possible.
I am prepared to make this statement, and I am satisfied that it will be supported in his own mind, no matter what may be done vocally, by every hon. member who has had occasion to be associated with our defence forces spread across this country: an enormous sum is being wasted at the present time. We are told of the number of recruits in our reserve force. Mr. Chairman, that statement is meaningless unless we know how many of these recruits are training. The enlistment roll of the reserve units does not tell the story. What does tell the story is the attendance at parades, the number of men who go to the camps provided for the land forces, and the number of men who take part in the various training exercises provided for the reserve or nonpermanent naval and air forces as well. These are things we should know. How much good does it do to know that there are so many thousand volunteers on the enlistment roll of the artillery units unless you know how many men are attending the parades and how many are going to the camps which finish off that training? How much good does it do to know how many thousands there are on the enlistment rolls of all the infantry units across Canada unless you know the percentage of attendance at parades? How many privates are attending, officers and noncommissioned officers? How many attend camp when it is set up?	The same
applies to every other branch of the service. These are things we should know, because money is being spent on the assumption that according to the enlistment rolls these men are taking their part. The organization should contemplate the possibility of checking each one of these things, and a committee such as I have suggested is the only device by which it can be carried out.
We simply do not know whether the observation of the Mainguy commission that headquarters had become in some cases a refuge for temporary misfits applies to the other services, but we do know that the naval service is part of the same military organization, and part of the broad plan of unification in the preparation to meet the commitments placed before us yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that while we cannot greatly change the figures that will be
Supply-National Defence required for the current year, we have a duty to examine them beyond what is possible here. In the light of our commitments and our desire to play our part in preserving peace, we have a duty to ask that the views expressed in 1943 by the present Minister of National Defence be acted upon and a standing committee on national defence set up so that hon. members will be in a position to accept their great responsibility in relation to the activities of this department.


Brooke Claxton: With a great deal of what the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said as to the role and objectives of Canada's defence forces of course no fault can be found, because, subject only to one or two rather limited exceptions in his references to the white paper which was distributed on November 11, he had no fault to find. That is a very interesting observation to note. For the first time we put before hon. members in advance of the opening of the discussion of the defence estimates a statement which must be regarded as comprehensive, and then the leader of the opposition, who-has had a great deal of experience in public affairs as well as in defence matters, refers to it in his speech with I think only minor qualifications, with regard to the assertion in two paragraphs to which he referred at the end of his remarks.
It is interesting, too, that neither he, the leader of the C.C.F., nor the leader of the Social Credit party criticized the amounts sought this year as being either too large or too small. The leader of the opposition based his criticism on the assertion, which he-certainly made a great number of times, "We don't know." I think it is a fair summing up of his entire speech to say that that is the point he made. He used that point to support his argument in favour of the appointment of a standing committee on defence. This suggestion has been made repeatedly by members of the opposition since 1945, with regard to both defence and social security; and just as repeatedly it has been opposed by members of the government, for the reasons which are now well known to hon. members.
I must say I was amused, as I am sure the committee was, by the leader of the opposition's references to my article in Maclean's magazine, written in 1943. I appreciate his commendation of that article and his very kindly remarks about it. Since I have changed my mind after five or six years in this house, I hope that the leader of the opposition, when he has been in the house
1944	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence a little longer, will similarly change his mind, and be prepared to say so, as I have been on previous occasions.
The first reference to this article was made by myself in this house on May 30, 1946, as reported at page 2052 of Hansard, when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was proposing a committee on social security. I referred to the article and said that I had changed my mind. A similar reference was made by me just last month, on October 12, 1949, at page 723 of Hansard. If, therefore, it has recently come to the attention of the leader of the opposition, or if other hon. members have heard it for the first time today, I would point out that it has been before hon. members and has been in Hansard for over three years.
The leader of the opposition said that neither he nor other hon. members knew how many infantry units, artillery units, armoured units, engineering units, signal units, army service corps units, had been brought up to strength, completed their training and were fully equipped. He said that hon. members know the answer. Later he of course said that the answer would be negligible.


George Alexander Drew: I think I said "would be unsatisfactory".


Brooke Claxton: Unsatisfactory. Well, I would ask the leader of the opposition and hon. members to be fair in their appreciation of the situation. I think it would be possible for the leader of the opposition to put the same question about the state of recruitment, training and equipment of the units of the forces of this country at any time, or of any country at any time, particularly in a time of reorganization, training and re-equipment after a terrible war.
I venture to say that even with their congressional committee in the United States on service matters, there are very few members of congress or members of the public in that country who would know the answer with regard to the situation there on any one of these matters. I venture to say that that ignorance might extend even to the point of not knowing how many divisions were in a state of preparedness, or if there were any divisions fully manned, fully trained and fully equipped in any final sense of the word.
I am sure the same would be true in the United Kingdom. Just last night I was reading the report of a debate in which defence matters came up, although the debate had reference to the economic position of Britain. There one or more hon. members asked exactly the same type of question as the leader of the opposition has asked, and I am sure that there the same kind of answer must


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the minister a question? I notice he is quoting a private member of the United Kingdom parliament on the question of the preparedness of the defence forces of the United Kingdom. Does the Minister of National Defence suggest that he has to rely on the statement of a private member to know the state of the defence forces of the United Kingdom?


Brooke Claxton: No, I do not suggest that for a second. I quote this only for the purpose of indicating that it is the kind of view a private member has expressed, based on the information available to him-which, I suggest, corresponds to the kind of view expressed by hon. members of the opposition concerning the same subject. The private member in the United Kingdom was not answered by the minister of defence rising in his place and saying, "I am sorry; your figures are wrong. We have not only two or three; we have five"-or some other figure. He was not given a parliamentary committee to find out what the answer was. He made

the assertion, and it was left at that. I am afraid defence is a subject which sometimes must be dealt with in this way.
With regard to the various observations in the white paper to which the leader of the [DOT]opposition referred, I thank him for the very moderate way in which he dealt with these statements. He referred to paragraph 24, which states:
The development of these three phases must proceed at a pace which will neither be so slow as to leave us unprepared at any point, nor so hasty as to overburden the economy with the production of war materials much of which would become obsolete. If war is close and inevitable then all nations are doing too little to meet it.
And I add this to the part he read:
If war is not inevitable, or if it is remote, we may be doing too much.
Obviously the scale of our preparedness and the amount of the appropriation voted by parliament, as well as the amount of defence activity carried on in this or any other country at any time-that is, the proportion of the total national income we spend on defence -must be related to an estimation of the risks as they are seen from time to time. And those risks, of course, are changing.
Then the leader of the opposition referred to paragraph 28:
While the best available information indicates that there is little likelihood of any direct threat to our national security within the immediate future, the present international position requires that Canada's services should be planned and executed so as to enable us to meet an attack upon the scale that would be likely to be made at any given time as part of a war involving the north Atlantic treaty powers.
In this connection I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) when he tried to construe a statement made by me a year or so ago as indicating that I considered it to be a part of the role of Canada to be able to deal with the forces of the Soviet union single-handed. Of course, no such statement was ever made by me and no such inference could be drawn. Such a statement would not hold water for a second. Indeed it it doubtful whether the forces of any country, other than those of the United States, would be adequate to meet an attack directed by the Soviet union against that country alone. That is the real situation.
What I do say is that any war in which Canada would be involved would be a world war. Since we have associated ourselves with other friendly powers under the North Atlantic treaty, we would have to deal with the situation that was presented in which the Soviet union was directing its attention to our country as part of its total operations everywhere. Without being strategists, hon. members can see that in such a war, and at
Supply-National Defence such time should it occur, which we hope and pray it will not, the Soviet union would have a number of different roles and tasks; consequently we must appreciate what part of its forces might be directed against Canada by way of immediate attack. It is to meet that that I say one of the objectives of the Canadian defence forces is, and I quote from paragraph 23:
(1)	meeting immediate needs for local defence, here and now;
(2)	preparing local defences as needed in the future.
The scale of attack that might be anticipated at the present time or in the foreseeable future is such that, in the view of the officers advising me, we are preparing and equipping forces to deal with the threat as we estimate it from time to time. It may be found that with the full recruitment of our active forces, and the full organization and training of the brigade group, we will have more than we estimate to be necessary to deal with the situation in the foreseeable future. It may be that on reconsideration it will be found that we shall not need for that purpose the brigade group as now planned. But at the present time we are recruiting that brigade group up to its present establishment, giving it as good training as we can, and providing it with equipment as funds are available.
As I have said before, we now have over eighty-nine per cent of the present establishment of the active forces enlisted. Some of those are fully trained, but obviously a considerable proportion are not. When I say fully trained, I mean fully trained to the point considered desirable at this time. It must be remembered that in a modern defence force no man's training ever stops; it goes on continuously until he retires. This is one of the few occupations in which most officers and men must continue to satisfy educational, training and physical requirements and standards virtually up to the time of their final retirement from the service.
As the white paper indicates, we have in the brigade group completed the airborne training of the P.P.C.L.I. I think those who were present at Exercise Eagle were fully satisfied that that is a first-class unit in first-class shape. I have not had any suggestion from anyone that they thought the contrary was the case. That battalion today is sufficiently equipped to meet the test put forward by the leader of the opposition. But it is not the only unit which is sufficient for the task set out. There are other units, and there will be more developed and trained and equipped progressively. As I say, it is a continuous process, and this is an exceedingly important fact to keep in mind.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
1946	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose this morning I was replying to the remarks of the leader of the opposition. In reference to the suggestion that we have a committee on defence, I think I should say only one thing further.
This suggestion has been put forward time and again, and the answer has been given; but from the proposals that have been made by members of the Conservative opposition, and today by the leader of the opposition, it is perfectly obvious that in effect what is wanted is a committee on defence, representative of all groups in the house, which of course would have power to send for witnesses and then, having examined into the situation, make recommendations which would have the effect of determining the size and proportions of the forces and the type and suitability of equipment. I think those words were used by the leader of the opposition this morning. In other words ultimately this parliamentary committee in effect would have to do with the management of our defence forces and their administration and planning, as is the case in some ways in the United States, rather than that being done ultimately, as it is now in Canada, by the cabinet itself, with a responsible minister.


George Alexander Drew: If the answer to the request is to be that there can be no committee, I do not want it based upon any misconception of what I said. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that this committee would be similar to other standing committees, and that the most it could do would be to examine the facts and make those facts available to hon. members. I need not interject any further comments in regard to the set-up of the committee, but I want it made abundantly clear that I do not suggest that our ordinary parliamentary system be varied in any way. I am simply suggesting that there be a standing committee which can inquire and report. I recognize, and certainly would never vary my position in that respect, that under our system the government must assume responsibility for the decision finally made.


Brooke Claxton: I am glad to have that explanation, Mr. Chairman, but it does not alter the argument I was making, which was related to the sum total of all the suggestions that have been made in this connection, from which I suggest the conclusion is that the ultimate result would be as I have indicated. That, of course, we believe to be quite foreign to our system. If it does not amount to that now, it would amount to it in time, because it would be the result of that kind of examination, study and consideration.


There are just one or two further points I should like to mention. The only references the leader of the opposition made to the white paper in a critical sense were to paragraphs 65 and 72, where we refer to the progress made in unification and co-ordination. Even there he did not argue against these, but questioned to what extent they were true. Well, I think it must be evident from information available to hon. members with regard to the organization of the department as a single department with a single minister, a single deputy and a single set of appropriations; the organization of the services within a single department and subject to a single minister; the arrangements for interservice co-operation through the three major committees, the chiefs of staff committee, the personnel members committee and the principal supply officers committee; the organization for dealing with major matters of defence administration through the defence council; the integration of the activities of defence research into the work of the department and the co-ordination effected through membership of the chiefs of staff on the defence research board and the membership of the chairman of the defence research board or the chiefs of staff committee; the joining together of some fourteen or fifteen operations of the three services so they are performed by a single service for all three; the elimination of duplication of services in such matters as motor transport, supply and medical services; the keying of all this into the cabinet through the cabinet defence committee, as well as co-ordination with other government departments through such agencies as Canadian Commercial Corporation as the only purchasing agency-in all these respects Canada has made very substantial progress in unification and co-ordination, which we believe justifies the claim that has been made.
The fact is that in most of these respects such progress as has been made in other countries has followed, in point of time, that made here. Further, in the tri-service cadet college plan now in effect we are endeavouring to achieve a co-operative attitude through having cadet officers in all three services train together.
The next point mentioned by the leader of the opposition was the defence bill, which he referred to as a very important measure; and so it is. It is now before the banking and commerce committee in the other place, where good progress is being made. Whether or not it is dealt with by this house this session will depend upon the progress made both in the other place and in this house. How this bill should be dealt with of course will rest with the house, but when it went before the Senate I ventured to suggest that

it might be found appropriate to deal with it in a committee, and that course is being iollowed. I have not discussed the question with my colleagues, but that is my view of the right way to deal with the matter, namely, to refer this measure to a committee, in the way that complicated and technical legislation usually is dealt with.
The hon. gentleman asked some questions and made some comments about the state of the reserve units, saying that it was not the strengths which were important so much as the extent of the training that was being carried on. I have here some figures for the reserve army showing total strengths and effective strengths for the years from 1926-27 to 1938-39. They show that the percentage of personnel training over that period before the second world war was 64-04 per cent. I have also the figures showing the total strength and the effective strengths for the years since the second world war, the four years from 1945 to March 31, 1949. They show the percentage training at 86-4 per cent, a very substantial improvement over anything that was done before the war. And I may add that the figures for the current year, beginning April 1, 1949, which are of course preliminary, show 92 [DOT] 2 per cent are training, which I believe is the highest percentage in the entire period I have here.
If we add to the effective strength of the army reserve the numbers of men now in training with the C.O.T.C., as we certainly may from the point of view of effective preparedness, we have a total of some 40,000 or 41,000 in the army alone. That, I submit, is higher than any year under review except the year immediately before the war, 1938-39. Considering it is only four years after the termination of the second world war, it is a result which is encouraging. Don't think we are complacent about this position. We believe we need more men in the reserve army. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, we would like to see another 10,000 just as soon as we can get them, and we are bending every effort to get them.
This figure of 40,000 or 41,000 men in training in the reserve and C.O.T.C. may be compared with the figures for the United Kingdom as at September 29, 1949. These figures were disclosed in an answer in parliament, and show that the United Kingdom had 79,400, which includes 9,060 women. On a basis proportionate to population, therefore, Canada has twice as many men in the reserve army today as there are in the territorial army of the United Kingdom.
Turning now to the navy and the air force: As of July 31, 1949, there were 2,253 active personnel in the air force reserve and the
Supply-National Defence number has increased since. That is much greater than at any time up to 1939. The figure for the navy is 4,404, and that again is several times greater than the corresponding figure for any year up to the outbreak of the second world war.
There are hon. members who are quite familiar, from their own experience, with the type of training that is being carried on in the reserve forces; the clothing and equipment issued, the pay and allowances, the administration and training staffs and the arrangements at camps and on courses. I am sure that every one of them will support the view which I have heard expressed by reserve army officers and men-I meet the representatives of the reserve army through the defence associations

that the reserve army is an even better outfit than it was before the second world war.
I believe a question was asked by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) as to the expenditure made on the reserve army. These estimates provide for an expenditure for the current fiscal year of $14,364,739 on the reserve forces and $1,711,111 on the cadet forces. These figures, however, must be read subject to a condition which is well known to hon. members familiar with the subject, and that is that all components of the active forces, from the chiefs of staff down, contribute in some way or other to the work of the reserves. Every part of the navy contributes to the work of the reserve because a large portion of the reserve navy goes to sea in ships that are manned by the active navy, and the cost of operation of which comes out of the vote for the active navy. The same thing applies to the air force auxiliary. To run an auxiliary squadron requires approximately 50 officers and men of the regular force, and requires an expenditure of approximately $600,000 per annum. All the pay and allowances and related expenditures applicable to the full-time officers and men come out of the items allocated to the regular forces. Even the costs of the operation of the auxiliary units come out of the costs of the regular forces to some considerable extent.
Altogether we are spending on the reserve forces directly today considerably more than we were spending on all defence in the years before the war. I do want to emphasize again the importance the reserve forces have in the mind of the government and its advisers. We regard those forces as forming with the active forces part of one navy, one army and one air force, which together constitute a team preparing to be capable of defending Canada if that defence should be needed. I should like to emphasize the fact that, at any given moment, the estimate of potential risk
1948	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence of attack must be taken into consideration in appreciating whether or not our forces are sufficient to do that particular job. Though they may be considered adequate for one particular operation, they must be always considered together with other forces which are in various stages of training, equipping and at different strengths. What we are aiming at is what we are best able to get with the men and money available to do the job at any particular moment.


Mr. Charlton:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw to your attention, and through you, sir, to the members of the house, that in the galleries there are one hundred representatives of boys' and girls' agricultural colleges from across Canada, comprising a total membership of approximately 50,000. These boys and girls are all winners in their own provinces, and have been competing at the Royal Winter fair this week for dominion honours in their respective fields.


Brooke Claxton: I hope many of them will join the reserve or active forces.


Mr. Lennard:: Will the minister tell us what proportion of the 41,000 men in the reserve army are in the ranks?


Brooke Claxton: I shall have that breakdown for the hon. member in a moment.


Mr. Fraser:: What is being done towards making the armouries across the country more suitable for the mechanized units which we have today? Most of the armouries were built for infantry units, and now that we have mechanized units the vehicles in many cases cannot get through the doors. Will the minister say what is being done in that connection?


Brooke Claxton: Where it is possible structurally, the doors are being enlarged so that the vehicles can get through. In other localities it has been possible to take over temporary buildings that were erected in the neighbourhood of the main armoury and use them for vehicles; in some places we have leased buildings just for vehicles; and in a number of places there is no accommodation and the vehicles must remain outside. In those cases of course they are suitably greased to diminish the rate of deterioration owing to the weather. But the fact that we need and have so many vehicles and so much wheeled equipment in the modern active and reserve forces has led to an enormous problem with regard to accommodation. We have increased floor space by 70 per cent for the reserve forces in the last ten years but that,
I am afraid, is not nearly enough, and we should continue a considerable program of construction.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I just wondered if it would not be possible for the minister's department, in my own city of Peterborough, to see that a suitable garage was put up for those vehicles.


Brooke Claxton: I will look into the matter.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It takes a man quite some time to get them in shape before they can go out into operation, and it would save a great deal of the men's time; and I think it would help a good deal.


Brooke Claxton: To answer the hon. member who asked for a breakdown of officers and other ranks, I may say that I have not here the breakdown related to the same total I gave him, but I have it related to another total which I will now give him. At July 31, 1949, there were in the reserve army 5,554 officers; there were 32,805 other ranks and there were approximately 2,500 members of the C.O.T.C.


Frank Exton Lennard: How many were privates? I do not want the number of other ranks. I want to know how many were privates.


Brooke Claxton: We would have to get that information for the hon. member.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Did I understand the minister to say that, with respect to the forthcoming bill, he was disposed to recommend that it be referred to a committee?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I am going to ask the minister if he will explain to us how he distinguishes so definitely between the reference of that bill to a committee and the creation of a committee to deal with other things that my leader referred to this morning. Before I take my seat I just want to say that, having been struck by the excellence of the argument that the minister, as a private member, had made some six years ago, I looked up the recantations which he has made since; and I am bound to say that the difference between the two seemed to me to be like the difference between a trumpet note which was sounded in 1943 and a rather quavering and uncertain note which he sounds in 1946 and again in 1949. I am not going to take the time of the committee to read them, but I suggest to the minister that he might think this matter over further, and I am going to make this further suggestion. I can quite realize that it may make some extra work for the minister and also that when in power a man thinks differently from the way he thinks as a private member. Nevertheless I think that this is a thing which should not be lightly disregarded, and I am hoping that, when the minister has a chance to think the matter over further, he may come to the conclusion that the same

line of argument that is moving him to have a committee in connection with this bill may be carried further.


Brooke Claxton: In reply to the hon. member for Greenwood, may I say that I dealt with this on two previous occasions. It is made plain by the situation in the United Kingdom. In that country there are five committees lettered from A to E. None of the committees has any special function. Important matters of legislation are referred to one or other of the committees by the Speaker almost as a matter of course. With that practice I am in full accord. When a matter such as the defence bill, consisting of 251 sections and replacing some 500 or 600 sections, is before the house, it can most effectively be dealt with before a committee. That is the place where drafting changes and the like can be made. I should be glad indeed to see followed here the practice that is followed there, when that seems to be the suitable course; and that is the course ordinarily followed in the house. But in the United Kingdom and in the other countries of the commonwealth they have not these functional committees, committees with special functions; and when they have had committees on estimates, they have generally dropped them because they found them to be unsatisfactory.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I venture to warn the minister against slavish imitation of things British and may I suggest to him also that there may be useful hints which we can obtain by observing things there.


Brooke Claxton: I quite agree. But I think that the British parliamentary system is the best we know.


Mr. Cruickshank:: May I ask the minister a question? I am not going back on what the minister has said or may have said through Maclean's magazine a few years ago, because I am proud of the fact that the minister does not stay stagnant like certain people and certain parties I could mention. He is willing to adapt himself to present conditions. I should like to ask the minister this question. He need not answer it now but I should like to have it answered on the estimates. What was the cost of the Abbotsford airport? What is to be done with it in the future? Why is it not being utilized at the present time, particularly as it is the best airport in western Canada and particularly as, under the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, it may not at any time belong to a certain other power? I should like to know why it is not being utilized. I do not expect the minister to answer that question now.
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to look into that matter.


George Matheson Murray: Has the minister made plans for extending the air service on the northwest staging route? In that connection, coming as I do from that great country serviced by the Alaska highway, I think it is only right to make reference here this afternoon to "Exercise Eagle". Some criticism has been offered as to the expense of Exercise Eagle and with regard to holding that great demonstration of air power which was held within my riding at the Peace river bridge on the Alaska highway. Hon. members have today been challenged by the leader of the opposition. They have been asked if they know whether money is being well spent for the Department of National Defence throughout the country. Hon. members have been asked if, from their own experience, they can say that there has been efficiency in the expending of these huge sums of money. Coming as I do from that part of the country, I should like to say that Exercise Eagle was a tremendous spectacle. You will pardon me, Mr. Chairman, if I mention this matter because I am the only member of this committee who was present at Exercise Eagle in the middle of last summer, the summer of 1949. I saw those planes coming in from the south, the transports bearing Canadian paratroopers. Of course it was all a theoretical business of capturing the airport, taking the bridge, cutting off supplies and so forth, a field in which I do not claim to have any expert knowledge.
I saw the transports coming in from the direction of Edmonton sharply at five o'clock in the morning, over the top of the Peace river and over the bridge. I saw 160 young Canadians leap out into the air, hit the silk and come down in the course of that exercise over very tough terrain, over the top of the mighty Peace river bridge itself. Not one of the 160 young men was injured in the fall. With them came their paraphernalia and equipment. Later out of the clouds came the great transports towing gliders. These gliders were cut loose and slid down to a resting place. From the gliders great trucks, tanks, jeeps and other equipment deployed. I must say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to hon. members that it was a spectacular thing and an historic thing for Canada. All these young men who were taking part were largely volunteers who were taking up flying and aviation purely as a work of love. They had volunteered to come out and take part in that great exercise which was called Exercise Eagle. The minister must have taken the
1950	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence name from the Bible because there is a passage in Deuteronomy which reads as follows:
As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings;
These lines from Holy Writ are appropriate. So also are the verses which follow in the 32nd chapter describing as they do a land of promise such as may be found in the Peace river valley. The minister did a splendid thing in organizing this great exercise for the "young eagles" of the R.C.A.F.
I was present also at Exercise Musk-Ox because it was largely conducted through the top part of Canada and in my riding. I am sure that the military men of this country and of our allies received a great deal of information from that exercise and from Exercise Eagle and from other exercises which are conducted on the Alaska highway in northern British Columbia, the Yukon and Alaska. There they are working out a plan for the security and safety of the hemisphere upon which we live.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate most warmly, as I think most hon. members in all parts of the house do, the remarks of the hon. member for Cariboo. In reply to his question, it will be found at page 201 of the estimates this year that we are planning to spend $9,217,166 on the northwest staging route, and $7,567,283 on the northwest highway system. While these are of great military advantage to Canada, the principal user of both systems at the present time is the United States of America. The American forces, both army and air, use the highway and the staging route extensively. Therefore these constitute a substantial contribution by Canada to joint defence. There is no present intention of enlarging either operation, but we do plan to continue the replacement of temporary structures by permanent structures in accordance with the program that is already commenced.
It is a happy coincidence, Mr. Chairman, that as we are discussing the defence estimates of our country this house should be graced by the presence of one of the great soldiers of the commonwealth, Field Marshal Earl Wavell who, as a soldier, statesman and scholar, has rendered service to his own country, to the commonwealth and to the world.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: I should like to comment briefly on some of the statements the minister has made in reply to remarks and criticism from this side of the house. In regard to recruiting he said on Friday last that recruits were coming in at the planned rate. If that be true I can only


say that the plan must have changed considerably over the course of the last three years; otherwise there is something wrong with the plan.
When our defence forces were first projected in 1945 we were at that time supposed to begin with a permanent force of 50,000 men in the three services. This was subsequently cut down and we were assured in 1946, as I remember, that these forces would be built up; they would be in being in a short time. During the last three years it still has not been possible to fill up the numbers of the reduced establishment which was decided upon. Therefore if it was planned that they should not be filled up before this time we should have been told about it two or three years ago and not at this time; because we were given to understand then that the numbers in all three services would be filled up just as rapidly as possible. That is what we were always given to understand.
Then there is the matter of civil defence. The minister said that the instituting of civil defence plans or projects of any kind was a matter of timing. Perhaps we can agree with that. It is a matter of timing so far as going after them on a full-scale basis is concerned. However, I do not think that the idea apparently held by the government that there is not going to be any immediate need for civilian defence plans to be put into operation -in other words, they do not envisage a war immediately-should be a reason why practically nothing is done in the matter. It seems to me that a great deal more could be done along the lines which I suggested last Friday than has been done without running the risk which the minister seemed to envisage of the civilians who take part in these plans becoming tired and losing interest in them and the whole organization going to pieces. At that time the minister said that we could improvise a plan with the information which is on hand and put it into effect in a matter of hours. If the minister thinks the matter over I believe he will want to revise that statement. I do not think it would be possible to put a plan of that sort into effect in a matter of hours, no matter how well the plan was worked out. If it is the basic idea of the minister and the department to improvise these civilian defence plans and put them into operation in a matter of hours, then they need to recast their ideas along that line.
In connection with some remarks I made to the effect that in my opinion the military organization of this country was top-heavy and there were far too many officers and men

at national defence headquarters and command headquarters and so on across the country, the minister merely had this to say: in the United States and in Great Britain they had similar difficulties. He said at page 1701 of Hansard:
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.
That is apart altogether from the point I made and which I should like to emphasize. I said that we have such a large proportion of our actual forces in these headquarters' jobs of one sort and another, and in administrative work, that we have practically no fighting forces left. To begin with, the number of fighting units is small, and up to the present they have been very badly under strength, largely because we have such a top-heavy command and administrative organization. To say that other countries have the same difficulties, and that we are no worse off as to the overhead in proportion to civilians, is not the answer. On a proportionate basis I think we are much worse off than either the United States or Great Britain. I know that the proportion of people engaged in these command and headquarters duties is not nearly as great in these other countries in relation to the total number of forces they have.
This morning the minister said there was no more information given in the United States on defence matters than is given here, despite the existence of their defence committee. I do not know on what basis he makes that statement. My personal experience has been that I get a better idea and more detailed information from reading American news magazines and other publications from that country as to the American defence set-up -the number of squadrons of aircraft in operation, and the like-than anyone can get from the questioning which goes on in the House of Commons concerning Canadian forces. Whether it is as a result of their committee, I do not know-I think it is, of course -the fact remains that merely from news sources the amount of information given in the United States is considerably greater than the amount given in this country.
The minister has said a great deal this afternoon about the reserve forces, and the number of men in training in those forces. As was pointed out this morning by the leader of the opposition, the total number of men on the roll and the total number reported as training are misleading pieces of information. The minister has had some experience with reserve force units, and I have been connected with them for many
Supply-National Defence years. We know there are always a considerable number of men who during an entire course of winter training will attend only three or four evenings. However, they are on the roll and are reported as training when they attend. I should like to know on what basis the percentages given by the minister were made up. What does training mean when applied in this way? Does it refer to the man who takes one night's training in a year, or the man who comes three or four nights; or does it mean the man who has attended on at least 80 per cent of training parades and who has gone to camp? Simply to say that 86 per cent of the men have actually been in training since the war does not convey a thing, unless we have this background information. My personal experience has been that the rolls are not made up as meticulously as one might wish.
I have one other point to mention, namely the state of training and equipment of our active force army units. This morning the minister said that the P.P.C.L.I. has equipment and training suitable for present-day fighting, and that they would be sufficient for any task envisaged. Does the minister mean by that that he considers one battalion is sufficient, so far as the army is concerned, to prevent any diversionary raid which we are told in the white paper, and have been told at other times, is the only sort of operation we would have to meet immediately at the beginning of any hostilities which might break out?
If so, let me say that I would disagree profoundly with the minister. I do not think one battalion in the whole of Canada is sufficient for that purpose. I would ask the minister if there are planes available to transport that battalion. Secondly, has the battalion the parachutes required to make landings? Does the minister consider that that one battalion, from its present headquarters, could be transported to any point in Canada at which it might be required rapidly enough to take part in a diversionary raid?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member has referred to his own remarks about top-heavy administrative staff, and referred to the fact that I had said they were similarly concerned about the same problem in the United States, Great Britain and other countries. I also said we were concerned about the problem here, and that it is one which must be watched and followed up.
I got an interesting suggestion of one way of judging-and it is only one way-just how operational a navy or air force is. The same kind of test does not apply to the army. It is to ascertain the number of hours flying or

Supply-National Defence the number of days at sea for each man on the total strength of the force, including headquarters and administrative personnel.
I am glad to be able to say that as regards the air force we are doing as many hours flying per month per man on total strength as they are in the United States, and considerably more than the Royal Air Force. We have not comparable figures for the navy, but I am informed that the same is true. The extent to which our forces are operational, when judged in terms of hours of flying or days at sea, is at least comparable with those other two countries.
So far as the army is concerned, it is of course inevitable that in a country of Canada's great extent, and with our rather complicated roles, we should have a relatively high overhead. For example the Canadian army maintains the northwest highway, and the Northwest Territories and Yukon signal services.
The geographical nature of the country, and climate, require that the Canadian army in looking after the reserve has to use a larger proportion of personnel on transport, supply and maintenance work, and the like. However, this is a serious problem and one which must be watched continuously.
The hon. member has suggested that we should do a great deal more by way of civil defence. Of course we are going to do a great deal more. But we do not believe it is the right thing to explode in all directions; we believe the right thing is to arrive at a sound plan at the federal level, discuss it at the provincial and work it out at the municipal. That process is moving on. We do not regard it as likely that an emergency will arise within the course of the next few days, weeks or months; so that my remark about being able to do something quickly should be taken only in conjunction with the fact that we do not consider the risk is great that we shall have to do something quickly. But should we have to do it, we shall be able to set up some machinery, because we have done a good deal of the early planning. From now on we are moving through the various stages I have mentioned. I was glad to hear the hon. member seemed to agree at least tentatively with the suggestion I threw out, that it might not be a good thing at this stage to get right down to the block organization.
With regard to recruiting, no one ever said or suggested that our armed forces would be brought up to strength at the stroke of a pen. We have had campaigns in order to arouse interest and they have been successful. We have got recruits at the rate we wanted them in order to keep our training establishments going at capacity. If we were


to get recruits faster than that we would have to increase our training establishments which would force us to curtail their activities when we were up to what we considered was the strength we should have at that particular time.
The hon. member referred to the establishment set-up in 1946. Adjustments have been made since then, but the ceiling for the navy, army and air force at which we are now aiming is approximately the same as the establishment set out in 1946. Of that we now have 89 per cent. We are taking some recruits for the navy, but others are being delayed, and unless the present ceilings are increased, similar situations will develop in the army and air force at some period during 1950.
If we were to get a great flood of recruits we would have to meet it as an emergency, set up new training establishments, take men out of the active forces to do the job of training and otherwise interfere with the planned progress that we are aiming at in the building up of our active force and the reserve force. When I refer to the figure of 688 per month which we are now getting as a satisfactory rate of increase for the active forces I mean that with that figure we can keep our training establishments working at capacity. On the present basis we would probably be reducing the number of people we would accept.
The hon. member asked what test was applied to training in the reserve forces. The test of training is applied by the general officer commanding the commands and the area commanders in accordance with instructions from headquarters. The tests are much stricter than they were before the war and they are such as are necessary to enable the unit to qualify for the pay which is based upon and related to the number of men under training. We have in the reserve forces at the present time 1,200 senior officers who are taking command courses. I do not think there is a reserve unit across the country that has not N.C.O. and specialist courses. That training will be extended and developed as different stages are reached, but at the present time it is being carried on on a basis which I am informed is better than what was in effect before the war. I was not in the reserve just before the war, being in it only after the great war. In my discussions with representatives of the various reserve associations they have by and large expressed themselves as being satisfied with regard to the various points I mentioned in my earlier remarks.
I was asked what I meant when I said that the P.P.C.L.I. could deal with the situation. I meant that we calculate that one battalion of the P.P.C.L.I. in the state of training

it is and equipped as it is, plus the other units in the state of training and equipped as they are, both active and reserve, would be sufficient to deal with any situation that is likely to arise at once. But of course the position will become more threatening and ominous as time goes on and therefore we shall be required to continue our training and equipping along the lines I have indicated. I did not mean for one second that the P.P.C.L.I. alone could deal with any situation.
With regard to planes to carry our men, we have a sufficient number of transport planes to enable the P.P.C.L.I. and the other airborne troops we have trained to do the job that is considered necessary at the present time. I do not say for one second that the North Stars, Dakotas and the like that we have are ideal planes for the purpose, because they certainly are not. We should like to have something like the United States C-119 Packet, but I understand that they are not in active production at the moment. We do not see that that should come first in the order of priority for the expenditure of United States funds when each plane with the spares and equipment necessary to last a year would cost close to one million dollars. The P.P.C.L.I. have the necessary parachutes.


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston City):: Mr. Chairman, since I represent the constituency of Kingston City where I believe there is probably the greatest collection of military personnel in Canada-who include the R.M.C., the staff college, the defence college, the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals, headquarters for R.C.E.M.E. and the Prince of Wales' Own Regiment, which is the reserve regiment, along with other services, I think it is proper that I should say a word or two today. After the hon. member for Cariboo has given us such a vivid picture of Exercise Eagle, or our army in the air, I think someone should say a word as far as the army on the ground is concerned.
I was in Kingston a week ago when Remembrance day was celebrated. During the parade I think the active and reserve units demonstrated that they have been efficiently trained by their officers. They showed that without doubt the training of the units in that district is being looked after in the proper manner.
While Exercise Eagle was held in the constituency of Cariboo I want to mention that it was my privilege this summer to attend Exercise Puncher which was held at Petawawa camp under Major General Foulkes. It was my privilege to go there with the sixth brigade headquarters from
Supply-National Defence Kingston. Immediately on arrival at Petawawa camp we were briefed by the officer in charge and then sent out to work from the divisional level right down to the battalion level. The signals corps from Kingston had something over one hundred vehicles and well over two hundred of personnel. They handled headquarters signals from the divisional level down. The officers and men in all formations were assisted by the A.T. staff. They worked for three or four days and were on twenty-four hour duty as though they were actually in action, as many of them had been. It was not only a revival of the training which the average officer and man who had been in action in the recent war had received; but they were also instructed as to modern tactics of warfare. They were also under the guidance of very capable staff throughout the tactical scheme. Today, when the question has been put to us as to whether our money is being well spent on reserve training, I think it only fair to the department and those in charge of the summer camp at Petawawa this year that they should be complimented on their work, their intelligence and their industry in training our reserve forces.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: There are one or two items generally which are troubling me. I am not setting myself up as a critic of the estimates, because in a general way I think the minister is doing a pretty good job, but in listening to the debate today I was struck by some figures that were mentioned. This morning, for instance, the leader of the opposition stated that in 1935 we spent approximately $14 million for defence. In 1948-49 we spent some $252 million, and this year as I understand our estimates are up a little more than fifty per cent. In other words, taking in the supplementary estimates and the like, I suppose we shall spend about $400 million this year.
I want to say at once that I do not know whether such an amount is too much or too little. If war is imminent I suppose it is too little; but what worries me is this. Since coming to Ottawa I have heard the Prime Minister say he does not think war is likely, at least during the life of this parliament. As the defence minister mentioned, Lord Wavell is visiting this city. Just before I came into the house I was reading a statement made by Lord Wavell several days ago, which I imagine must have shaken this parliament. Let me quote just one or two lines:
. . . Wavell said that he had been in Russia about two years in all, and he felt he knew the Russian people . . . Lord Wavell said he felt the Russians would not start a war of aggression . . .

Supply-National Defence
Then he went on to point out, as hon. members know, that he felt Germany was the threat for the future, rather than Russia. Just before coming into the house I spoke to a young airman who had just returned from taking part in the Berlin airlift, and he was of the same opinion, that perhaps we were worrying too much about Russia and not enough about Germany.
If those are the facts-and I suppose Wavell could be considered an expert-perhaps we are spending too much on defence. As I say, I do not know; but I am concerned about it. Our estimates for defence are up fifty per cent over a year ago, if I understand the position correctly. I picked up a newspaper yesterday; I do not recall which one it was. It had pictures of some jet fighters that Canada was building; but according to the newspaper report those fighters were obsolete even before they came off the assembly line. Is Canada in danger of building a lot of equipment which will be obsolete before we have any use for it? It may not be likely, but there is that possibility. I am sure the minister is keeping such a danger in mind, but I believe parliament must remember that the huge revenues we have had for the last several years may not last forever. Such a heavy defence bill could become a real burden if our revenues dropped substantially. They would be an almost impossible burden. I believe last month Britain cut its defence expenditures drastically. I am not suggesting we do the same thing at this moment, because I do not know the facts, but I believe it is something we should keep in mind.
Our defence estimates are away up this year. I wish the minister would tell us-if he knows-what we are going to do next year. Is there going to be another fifty per cent increase then? These estimates put me in a quandary, I admit quite frankly. I have no recommendations to make, but they do trouble me.


Brooke Claxton: All I can say is that if you want larger active forces or more equipment, then next year the defence estimates will be larger, unless we can take the money out of defence construction or some other item of expenditure; because we are providing what forces we can with the money voted under this appropriation.
With regard to the newspaper assertion that the jet fighters we are building are obsolete, let me deny that at once. I am not an expert in aircraft production, but I am assured that the two types of jet aircraft we are working on in Canada for military purposes-the F-86 being built by Canadair Limited and the XC-100-not only are not obsolete in any sense, but are the very latest. The F-86 is the


latest plane of its type, while the XC-100, if it is successful, will be well in advance of similar developments going on in other countries. There is one sense, perhaps, in which the newspaper account may be correct. It is often said that every plane is obsolete as soon as the first one comes off the production line. That is said in this sense, that by that time there are planes on the drawing boards or at various stages of development and production which will supersede the one actually being produced. In that sense it is almost always correct to say that the pioneers, the inventors, the industrial engineers and others are working on something in advance of what we have.


Mr. McLure:: I want to ask a question under these estimates concerning the new armoury in Charlottetown. For some little time we have been promised a new building there, and now that this opportunity has presented itself I should like to find out from the minister when that construction will be proceeded with.


Brooke Claxton: I was there myself during the summer and saw the situation. We have moved one of the major units out of the existing armoury into what was called the gun park or the transport park, and that has relieved the congestion in the old armoury. I am also trying to arrange the transfer from the air force of some buildings which can be used by outlying companies of the various units in Prince Edward Island. In time we hope to have a new naval reserve building in Charlottetown. We need new buildings for naval reserve divisions at only three or four places across Canada, and Charlottetown is certainly one of them.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Coming from Halifax I am interested in the item which deals with fire fighting. As the minister will recall, during world war I Halifax suffered an explosion which caused the death of 1,600 persons and the destruction of a great deal of property. Again in world war II we had an explosion which caused damage running into millions of dollars. I would appreciate it if the minister would be good enough to explain this item dealing with fire fighting in order to let the house, and more particularly the people of Halifax who are interested in this matter, know what is proposed in the way of greater fire protection for that section of the country.


Brooke Claxton: Fire fighting during the war and since has been done in different ways in the three services. In the air force it was found necessary to have service personnel attend to fire fighting because of the specially hazardous nature of the job they had to do in connection with crashed and burning aircraft. Similar considerations prevailed in the

case of the navy. In order to arrive at a plan that would be reasonably uniform we translated the civilian fire fighters into service personnel, enlisting the civilians wherever they were suitable. In places like Halifax, Esquimalt and so on, we have considerable quantities of equipment and trained personnel which are available to look after fires occurring to servicj ships or properties. They are also there as a reserve for civilian needs if the civilian fire fighters are not sufficient. At such places, too, the service fire fighting service is backed up by a reserve of the civilian firefighters where necessary; they work closely together.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Is the minister in a position to tell us the numbers in that establishment?


Brooke Claxton: There are 274 in the naval force divided into seven naval bases. The largest number is in Halifax.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: How many would there be in Halifax?


Brooke Claxton: Seventy-eight are in Halifax.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Will the minister answer the question I asked a moment ago? Has the general staff consulted at all on the statement which Lord Wavell made a few days ago? Will there be any readjustment of defence efforts as a result of it? I do not know whether the minister is in a position to answer those question, but will he comment on the statement?


Brooke Claxton: It is extremely difficult to answer or comment upon the statements that are made about Russia in every part of the world at almost every hour of the day. Yesterday a number of statements were made in this house about Russia. Lord Wavell is a person of great distinction who has had experience in Russia. He is not here in any official capacity but we are very glad to see him. All statements relative to Russia must be considered in the light of all other statements relative to Russia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: According to the details for this item given on page 196, it includes grants for rifle associations. Can the minister say whether, at any time in the past, a portion of that grant has been given to civilian rifle associations? Then, can he say whether such is the case now, and if it is not is consideration being given to including civilian rifle associations within the provision of that portion of the grant?


Brooke Claxton: Those grants are made to the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association and the provincial rifle associations. There are a large number of civilians in those associations as well as men who have retired from the active or reserve forces. They do
Supply-National Defence excellent work. We do not make grants to associations that have no service connections. Those were discontinued a good many years ago. It was found that grants to civilian rifle associations had no service advantage whatever. The men in those associations enjoyed shooting, and no doubt improved the quality of their shooting, but when it came to meeting an emergency it was found that their particular attributes did not eliminate the necessity for military training. They might be great shots, but they still had to be trained as military shots. Consequently, it was not considered by the government of the day or by subsequent governments that there would be any military advantage in making grants to purely civilian associations. As I say, however, all the associations have a large propoi'tion of civilians in them and are definitely affiliated with military associations.


Mr. Knight:: Following the question by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) about fire protection, I believe the minister will admit that fire protection, particularly in cities, has become an integral part of national defence. This fact becomes more evident as we take a greater interest in aerial warfare. If we are to be faced with atomic warfare, the matter becomes even more important.
In the civilian field, one sees in the press many references to the loss of lives and property due to deficient, insufficient or unworkable fire equipment. It is often the case that the municipality concerned was unable to afford fire fighting equipment which would have provided the necessary protection. I believe this government should place no obstacle in the way of a municipality purchasing such necessary equipment at the cheapest possible price. I do not know to what extent taxes are imposed upon the purchase of such equipment, but I do know that in reply to a question I addressed to the government on the matter I was informed that there are high tariff duties imposed on fire engines entering this country. I should like to suggest to the minister that he use his influence with the ministers of Finance and National Revenue to remove those impediments to the provision of proper equipment by all municipalities.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I do not like to be persistent, but there is one point upon which I am not clear, and I hope the minister can clear it up. It has to do with the statement by Lord Wavell. In his preliminary remarks, I believe the minister stated that the only possible enemy would be Russia-at least that is the way I understood his statement. Naturally, our expenditures would likely be made with that in mind. Yesterday Lord

Supply-National Defence Wavell, I believe the former commander-inchief of the British armies, stated that in his opinion Germany is probably still the enemy to be feared rather than Russia. I am wondering whether the general staff is studying that statement to see what merit there is in it. We might be spending millions of dollars uselessly if Lord Wavell is correct. Can the minister give us that assurance?


Brooke Claxton: The Department of External Affairs and the intelligence branch of the armed forces are studying all such statements. We can see no reason for asking for less money this year because of anything we have heard.


Mr. Jeffery:: 1 should like to draw to the minister's attention the fact that we have an unusual situation in the city of London. There is a large building for the training of troops in the city of London, which is situated on the main street within two blocks of the centre of the city. There is also a naval barracks situated on one of the other main streets, approximately half a block from the centre of the city. Considerable discussion has taken place amongst the citizens of London about the fact that the government is using this valuable land for military purposes. The matter has been referred to me many times.
Has any consideration been given to removing the armoury and naval barracks from their present positions? I should like to point out to the minister that I would not like to see them moved if they were moved to a spot where the army and navy would not receive an adequate amount of publicity, which I believe is necessary for the raising of the number in our armed forces.


Brooke Claxton: London is one of the places in which we feel that, in time, we should have a new naval reserve division building and that is down on the plan. I do not think it is of as high priority as some others but still it is there; and the observation that the hon. member has made will receive consideration. As to the armoury for the army, I shall be glad indeed to give consideration to the point of view expressed by the hon. member.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was glad to hear the minister's statement of a few minutes ago in connection with what one perhaps might call the role of the P.P.C.L.I. and also the fact that they have all the parachutes which they require. I should like to make it clear that nothing I may have said in connection with the P.P.C.L.I. in particular was ever intended as any reflection upon them in any way. I have only the highest regard for the P.P.C. L.I., for their state of training, what I have

seen of it, their general morale and so forth. As a matter of fact, I am an honorary member of their mess. As I say, my relations with them are most cordial and certainly I am filled with admiration for them.
As to the matter of recruiting, the minister said that nobody ever envisaged that our national defence forces would be filled up and the recruiting required done, as he expressed it, with the stroke of a pen. I should like to remind him that a period of between three and four years cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be looked upon as just the stroke of a pen. This has been quite a long period of time. As far as I can see, the relative numbers in the army at least have been growing extremely slowly. There has not been a great increase, from year to year, during these past three years.
The minister also said, I think at another time, that our active forces were something like 89 per cent of establishment and that the establishment is close to what the original plan was, which, as I have mentioned, was. supposed to be some 50,000 men. As I remember, some 25,000 of those 50,000 were put in the army; and as I have understood ever since, that number-the target, we might say,, for the army-has been cut down to something in the neighbourhood of approximately 18,000 and still remains there. When the-minister mentions 89 per cent, I should like to ask him if that is 89 per cent of 18,000 or 89 per cent of 25,000.


Brooke Claxton: The figures are given at paragraphs 91, and following, of the statement. Perhaps I might put them on Hansard:
91.	In 1946 it was announced that the post-war establishment of the three armed services would be 51,100 officers and men. The navy was fixed at 10,000 the army at 25,000 and the air force at 16,100. In preparing the estimates at the beginning; of 1947, the target was set at 75 per cent of these figures-a total of 38,325. At that time the strength of the forces was 32,610, which included a number of officers and men enlisted for the duration only. By September 30, 1947, all the forces had been put on a permanent basis.
92.	Today the establishments for the three services total 50,359 or about the same as the 100 per cent figure announced in 1946. These establishments are changed from time to time to meet changing needs.
93.	As at September 30, 1949, the total strength of the three services was 45,159, representing 89 per cent of the present establishment and well over the target set at the beginning of 1947.
Then I deal with the navy. The hon. member for Calgary East is particularly interested in the army.
95. The Canadian army, active force, with the present establishment of 23,034, has a total strength of 19,931. At the present rate of net increase, it is expected that the army will reach its establishment by September, 1950.

Then in reply to the suggestion that the numbers are not increasing very much, there is this statement:
98. During the twelve months ending September 30, 1949, we took in a total ol 12,267 officers and men and released 4,006 by retirements, discharges, etc., leaving a net increase of 8,261. The average net increase was 688 per month.
For a country the size of Canada, I think at this time that is a respectable figure.
As to the situation with regard to the reserves, I have just asked for the position in Calgary itself and find that this year the strength of the reserve forces has increased by 17-1 per cent over last year, reflecting great credit on the units of Calgary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
250. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $547,497,388, including authority, notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $401,942,006, and commitments for future years of $145,555,382, against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1949-50 will not exceed $339,442,006.
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Under this item I think the Minister of National Defence has given the example of unification perhaps to an almost exaggerated extent. Under item 250, which carries the rather extraordinary title of "Demobilization and Reconversion", the immense sum of $339,442,006 is placed under one item. That covers training, organization and administration of the navy, the army and the air force as well as all the various other items of interest, such as the northwest highway system, the northwest staging system, and the search and rescue organization of the air force. But the process by which this unification was arrived at is found in the details set forth at pages 197 to 201. When the minister was speaking on November 11, he made this statement, and I am leaving out the words which do not apply; but they do not change the meaning in any way. As reported at page 1701 of Hansard, he said:
... it would be interesting indeed to hear suggestions that . . . the relative proportion as between the three services is not correct . . . but such suggestions have not been made during this discussion, as far as I know.
I propose to deal with that subject now and to make some definite recommendations as to the proportions of the amount of money which is being spent on the various services.
Just to keep the record straight I must call the committee's attention to the fact that earlier, on November 11, I made this statement, as reported at page 1669 of Hansard:
Surely we are not putting the emphasis in the right place in providing reserves and the expansion which is so essential.
Supply-National Defence
Then I went on to say:
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.
No doubt it is better to discuss that policy under this particular item, but I did just want to refer to what I said on that occasion, because I went to some considerable length, I think, in pointing out that the weakness in our defence forces existed in the weakness of our Royal Canadian Air Force, and the reserves that were being made available as replacements for that particular service. I consider that the lack of R.C.A.F. reserves is the weakest point in our whole defence armour.
I intend now to try and emphasize that point and to show how we should re-allocate the amount of money which is being made available under this item for the training, organization, administration and maintenance of all the three services so that the people of Canada may get better value for the amount of money that is being spent.
Reference has been made to the so-called white paper. This morning the leader of the opposition referred to the objectives which were set for Canada. On page 11 of the white paper, paragraph 19, the following appears, which was read in part by the leader of the opposition:
The only kind of war which would involve Canada would be a war in which communism was seeking to dominate the free nations, in other words, a war in which we would be fighting for the one thing which we value more than life itself, and that is our freedom as a nation and our freedom as people.
On page 12 we find this:
Canada's services should be planned and executed so as to enable us to meet an attack upon the scale that would be likely to be made at any given time as part of a war involving the north Atlantic treaty-powers.
Such an attack could only be launched by air or sea.
Farther up the page there is this sentence:
The most likely kind of attack from outside on Canada ... in the foreseeable future would be in the form of diversionary raids.
Whether the only attack from outside Canada might be in the form of a diversionary raid is open to question. It is purely a matter of opinion, because it is a well-known principle of war that force is concentrated against the vital objective at the right time. The most powerful of all the free nations at the present time is the United States of America. If the U.S.S.R. are ever to achieve victory in the foreseeable future they must strike at the United States. The time that

Supply-National Defence they will decide to strike will be of their choosing. It may be after the war has broken out for some time; it may be after they have lured American and Canadian forces from this continent on some diversionary major operation which is being conducted in Europe; and when defences of this country have been weakened perhaps the forces of the U.S.S.R. would strike at the United States and at Canada. On the other hand, it is quite possible that they might decide to attack their strongest opponent, the strongest country of all the free nations, right at the commencement of operations, at a time that they considered opportune, when for some reason or another, without any open declaration of war, they would decide to commence operations.
It is all very well for this white paper to say, as it does on page 11:
The best way in which to achieve victory in any war is to defeat the enemy in his own land.
The Russians know that as well as we do. Are we to be the aggressor? I think not. I do not think that there is the slightest chance of this government planning a war-


Mr. Sinnoli:: Who suggested it?


George Randolph Pearkes: I cannot see that there is much likelihood of Canada, in the early stages of a war, being able to reach a decision in the enemy's country. It is very pleasant to say, as the sentence goes on to say:
The right place to defend Canada and what Canadians believe in is as far away from Canada as possible.
That is a counsel of perfection. Of course we should like to do that. We should like to attack, as far away from Canada as possible, the enemy's forces that are attacking us. But we may not have very much to say about that unless we are going to seize the initiative at once and if the enemy has not taken the first step as an aggressor.
I should like hon. members to consider a map of the world, not the ordinary projection but a global map. If hon. members will look at a global map of the world, particularly the north part, they will see on the other side of the north pole from Canada is the whole republic of Russia. There are two clear-cut approaches across the roof of the world. On our eastern coast, coming from Murmansk over Greenland, and perhaps over Labrador and Newfoundland and on down to the great industrial cities of the eastern United States, is one direct approach. At the other end of our country there is another direct line of approach which is clearly visible to anyone who looks at the global map. One may trace the route from western Siberia, over Alaska and the Yukon and
down through northern British Columbia to the great industrial northwestern states. On those two lines of approach there are at the present time a number of undefended air bases in Canadian territory.
Reference has been made to our active force units. Of these we have five, three of which are regular infantry battalions and two reconnaissance battalions. We have been told how one of those infantry battalions has been trained as an airborne unit, and that the others are already receiving instruction in that particular type of operation.
This white paper however lays down that the role of these forces is to repel a raid. They are to be trained in Arctic warfare. I do suggest we should now place some form of active defence on those exposed air bases at Gander and Goose Bay in the east and at Whitehorse in the west, which are just invitations for any raider to come along and drop down at those points. There is no defence there at the present time. Perhaps following up behind there would be a small number of airborne troops in bombers who could land on those undefended airports. Those aircraft could refuel, and be over the great industrial centres in the east and in the west within a comparatively few hours.
Today we are flying heavy transport passenger planes across the Atlantic from Montreal to Scotland. The distance from Siberia to Whitehorse is no greater than that from Canada to Scotland; and in the foreseeable future those distances can be limited to a great extent.
I know the minister will say that Canada is an immense country, and that we have enormous spaces. I know. That makes his problem of defending this huge country an extremely difficult one. But I do suggest to you, sir, that there is only one service which can eliminate time and distance, and that is the air arm. And it is the air arm upon which we should be concentrating today in order to give a defence which is essential, and in order to prevent the possibility of these raids which the minister tells us may come as a diversion in order to carry out the very principle he has enunciated, namely that of meeting the enemy as far away from Canada as possible.
In this white paper he has said the enemy must come by air or by sea. Obviously it must. If It comes by air, and if we are to meet it before it lands its airborne troops, then it is in the air we must meet it. If the enemy is coming by sea, the situation is somewhat different. Mind you, we are told that the one war in which we might possibly become engaged would be a war against communism. We know that the U.S.S.R. have

not a strong surface navy, so there is no great likelihood of large armies being borne across the sea.
I maintain it is in the air that we have the only chance of meeting the only enemy we see far from our Canadian homes. We must take advantage of the great mobility inherent to the air arm. It can move over great spaces, and in its movement eliminate both time and space.
When I examine these estimates, when I examine this white paper, and as I listen to the minister today, I realize the emphasis is not being placed on the air force. Time and time again in answer to questions of hon. members the minister has explained how recruiting has been going on in the army. I admit that the majority of questions have been concerning the army. This only emphasizes the point, however, that members of the House of Commons do not appreciate the supreme importance of the air arm in the defence of Canada at the present time.
I would ask the committee to consider these figures, all of which I have taken from various official publications. We are told at page 24 of the white paper that the active army totals 19,931, and that it is hoped by September of next year to increase that number by another 3,000 to bring it up, as the minister has said, to the objective at which they are aiming. Then, as to the regular air force-and, mind you, please do not think that every airman is a pilot; necessarily there must be a large ground organization to maintain even a few aircraft in the air-we find the strength is 16,356; and by December of next year it is hoped another 2,000 will have been enlisted. This means that by the end of next year the air force will number somewhere around 18,000, and the army around 21,000. The emphasis is not placed on the regular air force.
Someone may say, "Well, there is not a great deal of difference between those numbers." But if an attack is made against this country and is made by air, and if we are to meet it far from our Canadian homes, then the first troops to be employed will be those of the air force. The casualties in the first few days in that force will be much greater than those in any other service. If we are to meet the enemy far from our shores we have to meet him in the air.
Let us now look at the reserve army and the auxiliary air force, and the means existing for the replacement of active personnel. As reported on page 1698 of Hansard the minister said that the reserve army had some 39,000, but we are told on page 24 of the white paper that the reserve air force has only 3,086. A total of 39,000 for the army and 45781-124
Supply-National Defence 3,086 for the air force. I submit that we are not placing the emphasis on the essential arm and that what the minister has allocated in these items is not for the best advantage in carrying out the role enunciated by the government for the defence of this country.
Then I return to the contingents in the universities where we expect to obtain the future leaders. We find that there are some 2,618 cadet officers under training in the army contingents in the universities of Canada, whereas there are only some 699 in the air force contingents. Six hundred and ninety-nine as compared with 2,618. When it comes to replacements for the essential service for the defence of Canada, we are putting emphasis in the wrong place.
Speaking before the Senate committee, as reported in the Gazette of November 15 of this year, the minister said that we were getting new men about as fast as they could be absorbed. Then he went on to say, as he has said today, that they hoped to have another 10,000 for the reserve army. We need 10,000 for the air force far more than we need 10,000 for the reserve army. If the air force is not able to absorb 10,000 men when apparently the army can, then I contend that the whole policy has been definitely wrong. This is not the fault of the individual air force personnel or the individual army personnel. We all know that they are trying to do the best they can within the prescribed limits. National defence policy is made by the government and it is national defence policy that renders the air force incapable of absorbing more men than they are at the present time. This policy must be corrected because it is definitely wrong in view of the problems which have been set out and the objectives which have been indicated in this white paper.
Why is such discrimination shown against the air force? I can only assume that it is that we are slavishly adhering to the old traditional policy which I referred to on November 11 when speaking in this chamber. As I said, this policy has stood us in good stead for the last 150 years during which time the citizen armies of Canada have been able to mobilize and train after the outbreak of a war because the forces of other countries were available to take the first shock and provide the necessary time. In those days we were able to rely on the British regular army. Are we now counting on the air force of the United States? There are air forces of the United States stationed in Greenland and in Alaska. Are we relying entirely upon them to take the first shock and to hold off the enemy who may be threatening us? Are we giving consideration to the time factor which has

Supply-National Defence changed so materially in the last 150 years? Will there be time for a leisurely mobilization of the defence forces of Canada?
I am not considering at the moment the setting up of an expeditionary force to go to the battlefields of Europe. I believe there will be time for that. As I say, apparently our policy is still based upon the traditional practices which have existed in the past, practices which were based on the concept of a Canadian expeditionary force leaving the shores of this country to go and fight and take part in the crowning victories as they have done in the last two wars.
Government policies are revealed in the estimates that are produced. Without going into too great detail and dealing only in millions and hundreds of thousands, the details of these items show that the active army is to be allocated $64,997,000 while the allocation for the air force is $44,814,000. The army reserves are allocated $8,939,000 while the air force auxiliary is allocated only $3,648,000, not half what is being spent on the army. Under university contingent training we find that $1 million is being allocated for the army and $363,000 for the air force. Again I say that emphasis is not being put in the right place.
I have been an infantry soldier most of my life and I have all the pride and tradition of marching men behind me, but I say with that background that where we are spending under these items $1 on the army we ought to be spending $3 on the air force. One dollar on the army and $3 on the air force. I have not had the advantage of discussing this matter with the committee; I have not been able to prepare details of the estimates, but those are the proportions in which the money ought to be spent. That is why I feel in duty bound at this time to oppose the whole policy underlying the maintenance of our forces, because I do not believe the people of Canada are getting the proper amount of protection in return for the money they are providing.
I am not going to criticize small details; I want to attack this policy from the broadest point of view. I ask whether the minister now has the power to change, within the item, the amount of money which has been allotted to the various services. In the old days with which I am familiar the minister was able to transfer amounts from one item to another. But I wonder whether it would be wise to grant the minister that authority, if he does not have it now, because I notice that in the estimates for 1948-49 parliament provided $2,753,192 for air reserves. I presume that in discussing those estimates we felt that was the right proportion to be
TMr. Pearkes.]

spent in order to develop the reserves of the Royal Canadian Air Force. But according to page 98 of the annual defence report I find that only $1,067,496 was actually spent on those reserves. Was the rest of that money transferred from the air force to the army? Were not the recruits brought forward? Was the training not made sufficiently attractive?
I speak with the utmost sincerity, because I do believe we are following the wrong practice at the present time. The only explanation I can imagine for the emphasis being placed elsewhere than on the air force is that we are still following the concept of sending an expeditionary force to Europe. It may be that the final decision will be reached there. It was during 1914, and the enemy hoped it would be during 1940, 1941 and 1942. But in those days the strongest of the free nations were France and Great Britain. Today the strongest of the free nations, as I have already said, is the United States. Surely our plans should be based upon the defence of our own country first of all, and I cannot believe that any other nation coming under the North Atlantic pact could consider anything different. I do suggest that the greatest contribution we could make to this North Atlantic pact, the greatest contribution we could make to what was described yesterday as the common pool to which we should contribute by the most suitable and most effective means, would be to ensure that the approaches to the great arsenal of North America were protected.
I have referred to those approaches, from European Russia over Greenland and down the eastern seaboard of this continent, and the western approach from Siberia across Yukon and northern British Columbia to the industrial areas of the Pacific. What greater contribution could we make to the success of the strategy of the United Nations than by providing a great flank guard for the protection of those industrial areas and, if necessary, the movement of American troops to the continent of Europe? In so doing we should be at the same time defending our own country. I feel that our first task must be the protection of our own country; and when at the same time we can be doing a worth-while, essential task, one that must be done under the general strategy, so much the better.
Then, of course, there are the sea approaches to this country, which are vulnerable, particularly the Pacific approaches. On the Pacific coast of Canada we have no purely service air base; we have very few service aircraft. We have nothing like the United States coastguard system for the

reporting of aircraft moving across the spaces of the Pacific, and the reporting of weather fronts as they approach. We have no aircraft carrier on the Pacific; the Magnificent is on the Atlantic. I do not know whether it is the policy of the government to provide land-based aircraft to search the ocean approaches of the Pacific, or whether it is the policy to provide an aircraft carrier to guard those approaches. At the present time we have neither aircraft nor carrier; and the cruiser Ontario, formerly stationed in the Pacific, has been turned into a training ship. That was in accordance with the recommendations of the Mainguy report, but she has not been replaced in her operational role.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I have endeavoured to show this committee that I do not agree with the distribution of funds under this item. I consider it unsound and a slavish adherence to what I have described as the C.E.F. complex. Had there been a committee of the house, as has been recommended, we might have examined these problems and been able to warn the house and the country before this large amount of money was spent. What I have said today may have very little effect upon the estimates we are now considering, but the estimates for next year must be in course of preparation now; and I hope what I have said will be taken into consideration when next year's estimates are being reviewed.
I want to stress again that our first task is the defence of Canada, particularly our northern approaches and the vast air spaces over those approaches. No greater contribution could be made towards the preservation of peace than for our defences to be concentrated upon these objectives. It would be far better than making any plans for taking part in a victory parade that may be held in Europe.
Then, I come down to a few definite recommendations which really summarize what I have said. We have to have a fighter interceptor air force in being now. There must be adequate reserves provided for replacement and to provide for the expansion of that air force which must be in being now.
I entirely agree with the proposals in the minister's statement concerning radar developments. I have referred to that at every session of parliament since I have been here. I have always urged the expansion of radar as our early warning and protective system.
Then there is the question of providing active garrisons for the defence of those essential northern areas. An aircraft carrier should be provided for the Pacific area or, at any rate, ground-based reconnaissance 45781-124J
Supply-National Defence squadrons of aircraft might, if they had an effective range, perform tasks similar to those which might be carried out by carrier-based aircraft.
Lastly, we have to have protection for our great industrial centres. I feel that many of the units of the reserve army would be better engaged in concentrating upon the protection of those industrial centres around which the men live than perhaps in any other role that might be assigned to them. In the time that has been available, I probably have not been able to develop sufficiently the background which led up to these recommendations. I spoke on September 26 and on November 11, and if the minister and hon. members will read those two speeches, they will find the background to these recommendations I have made.
In dealing with this particular item, I say that if we are to provide for the essential defence of this country out of the amount of money that has been allocated, then transfers must be made from non-essential items to the one essential service which I feel must be put first if Canada is to be given any reliable form of defence. The minister has to face this matter with determination, and face it immediately. If necessary there must be not only a ruthless redistribution of these funds; but, if he finds the air force is not capable of absorbing this increased activity, then there must be a ruthless reorganization of the R.C.A.F.


Brooke Claxton: Not only would we have to have a ruthless reallocation of funds as between the navy, army and air force, we would have to have a ruthless redistribution of funds as between the Canadian people, the Canadian government and the armed forces. I can tell my hon. friend just how practical his suggestions are. I would put the cost of bringing about what he has suggested at roughly around $600 million a year for a period of five years, which would be spent entirely on the air force or the air defence portions of the army. I believe it is important for us to be realistic about the problem of national defence and not say that we want this and that when we cannot get this or that because the country cannot afford it. The problems of our national defence are to find out what proportion of the national income we should spend on defence, and then see how that can be divided as between the navy, army, air force and defence research.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is exactly what I am asking you to do.


Brooke Claxton: To suggest that we should spend $3 on the air force for $1 on the army this year leads to conclusions that I must point out: My hon. friend has been most helpful

Supply-National Defence in all his remarks and in his attitude. The one thing that makes me answer him as I am doing is that I thought he went too far. I am in complete agreement as to the importance of the air force. What I do not think he did with fairness was to show how much we are already emphasizing that importance ourselves.
In making a comparison of the distribution of the defence dollar as between the army and the air force this year, the hon. member read out the figures appearing at pages 199 and 200 of the estimates concerning the expenditures on active, reserve and officer training but relative only to personnel. The hon. member omitted from that comparison what was necessary in order to see the whole picture, that is found on those pages or the adjacent pages where the amount provided for the army by way of equipment, et cetera, $63,295,349, and for the air force, $107,986,455. The total provisions for the air force and army this year in the proposed estimates of $375 million would be $124,583,872 for the army, and $142,836,365 for the air force. In other words, instead of the emphasis being on the army, as the hon. member stated, we are spending very considerably more on the air force, and that by a considerable amount. Yet, the carrying out of his suggestion, which I cannot think he was making seriously, that we should now spend $3 on the air force for every $1 on the army this year, could be done in one of two ways. We could either do it by multiplying by three the expenditures on the army, which would bring the air force expenditures to $373 milllion, and which would mean an addition to the air force expenditures of $231 million, or more than is being spent on the whole army and the whole navy today. If we were going to do that this year, we could only do it by wiping out the navy and wiping out the army.
The second way we could do it would be by giving the army one-third of the air force expenditures of $142 million. This would reduce the army expenditures by some $53 million and reduce the whole defence appropriation by that sum, or it could be done by a combination of those methods. If we are going to have an appropriation of approximately $375 million, then we certainly cannot spend $3 for $1 for the air force as opposed to the army without wiping out either the army or the navy, or else cutting them all to the bone. That shows how practical this suggestion is. But on the other hand, leaving that aside, with a great part of what the hon. member said I am in complete agreement and I am much obliged to him for his helpful remarks.
As to the importance of the air force in Canada, we have no doubt whatever. Other-
[Mr. Claxton.l
wise out of the defence dollar this year we would not be spending 38-8 per cent as opposed to 33 [DOT] 1 per cent on the army whereas in 1948-49 we were spending 37-7 per cent on the army and 32-3 per cent on the air force. In other words, in a single year we have reversed the loading and put it in favour of the air force; that is an indication not of a backward way of thinking but of a forward way of thinking such as the hon. member wants us to adopt.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is not forward enough.


Brooke Claxton: He says it is not forward enough. Again, in this connection it is important that we should recognize the need not only for the right emphasis but also for some balance. May I read a passage from a speech by General Bradley. He said:
When I speak of balance, I don't mean the dividing of funds equally among three services, nor do I mean an equation of so many ships equal so many soldiers equal so many air groups, to create a pattern on a chart. When I speak of balance, I mean effective forces equal to the tasks that modem warfare may thrust upon us. And in striking this balance we must include that which can be reliably contributed by our allies. We can upset this equilibrium by committing ourselves, not strategically, nor numerically, but financially, to plans which on the surface seem proper, but tomorrow tower over us in burdensome upkeep.
There are a good many morals to be drawn from that statement. One is this. Our present plan of equipment for the air force includes purchasing one hundred F-86A's with their necessary arms and equipment, going into production on the XC-100 and doing the other work, which we regard as essential, to maintaining the air force equipment at present levels, improving it, and bringing about modifications in existing equipment, lengthening runways, the construction of buildings for operational purposes, for interceptor stations, for personnel because we have to construct buildings for every group of men we now take on. If you take our present plans and project them into the future, we are going to get a relationship between the air force and the army which will certainly please the hon. gentleman; and that has been the course of defence planning over the last several years. But it is not going to be three to one yet and it is not going to be done without either making important curtailments in other parts of the defence program as it is today or else obtaining substantial additions to the defence appropriations. Again may I say that this work is not done by mirrors; it is only done with money. As I have pointed out, and as the white paper points out, it requires large sums of money.

In this speech, which was to congress, General Bradley goes on to say:
Budgetwise, you will note that the 1950 funds recommended to the congress provide the following division of our defence dollar for the three services. The army, allotted 33-6 cents of the security dollar, has been steadily rebuilding, while carrying on the occupation duties to which it is assigned. The air force, given 34 cents of the defence dollar, has progressed steadily in size and ability, and the navy, allotted 32-4 cents of the defence dollar, stands second to none in the world.
As hon. members can see, in the United States the authorities happen to have arrived at a division of the defence dollar which is almost equal as between the three services; and General Bradley hastens to add:
It so happens that approximately one-third of our money has been allotted to each service, but I consider this as only a coincidence, and may not necessarily hold as we continue to evaluate the capabilities of the only aggressor in sight, and future developments in warfare. Certainly any material change in this proportionate division of the defence dollar would be made only after careful and complete consideration and analysis of the roles and missions of all the services.
In other words, speaking in October, he does not indicate any definite plan for changing the allocation of the defence dollar in the United States. Here in Canada we have been changing the emphasis during the last three years, and our change is reflected by our spending on the air force 38-8 per cent out of the defence dollar whereas in the United States the percentage is only 34. Hence, far from our living in the backward looking state to which my hon. friend has referred, we are endeavouring to use the money that is allotted in the way which will best meet the needs of Canada in the order of priorities that are established.
We are not going to meet all the needs, and I hope no member of parliament has any idea that we are. No country of 13 million people with 3J million square miles of territory can do that in this kind of a world. But we can play our part with our allies, and we mean to play a reasonable, sensible, fair part and to make our contribution much in the way suggested by the hon. gentleman. But we cannot do it all at once, and I am afraid that we cannot do everything of that character without cutting into the existing program for the other services or else having much more substantial sums of money. That is what we are face to face with in this allocation.
However, once again may I say that I am grateful to my hon. friend and I apologize to him for not having referred, before I sat down, to this part of his speech which he made on November 11. I had mislaid my notes; and besides that, sufficient time would not have remained for me to do so.
Supply-National Defence


Mr. Fulford:: Is it not true that much of this expensive air equipment, at the rate of present development, would be practically obsolete before it could be delivered?


Brooke Claxton: That is a possibility. But when we get to equipment of the type of anti-aircraft guns, at $600 thousand for each gun-completely equipped and installed of course-then I would say that we, with our defence appropriation, cannot afford many. We have one. We have it for the purposes of training, development and experimentation. No country in the world has many either. But that does not mean that it is not the best weapon there is in the world; probably it is. But it may become obsolete by the further development, perfection and use of rockets and guided missiles. How soon that will come we do not know. If it does come it will render types of anti-aircraft weapons of this kind obsolete in part. Therefore the question asked by the hon. member is a difficult one. It is one that must be related to the particular weapon, to our knowledge of what other countries are doing, and to our resources. Certainly, had we gone into the production of earlier types of aircraft than the F-86 or the XC-100, they would have been out of date before the first order would have been fully delivered. In these two we believe we have something which is up to date and which will take care of our needs for a good many years to come.


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, on November 2, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Nanaimo, the Minister of National Defence, after tabling the Mainguy report, promised to give us a full statement and to tell us what steps his department had taken to implement the specific recommendations of the report. Can the minister make the statement now and tell us what steps have been taken?


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. It would I think be most convenient if I referred to the recommendations of the Mainguy report by their numbers as given in the report. There are some forty recommendations in all, and if I may I shall deal with them in a summary way. 1, Manpower and material stretched too far. That is agreed to and has been acted on already. 2, Necessity for training ships. That was in effect before the report was handed down.


Léon Balcer: May I ask a supplementary question? How many training ships have we now?


Brooke Claxton: Every ship is a training ship, but we have now specially set aside as training ships seven, including the Ontario.
1964	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Léon Balcer: What is the type of the other ships?


Brooke Claxton: Destroyers and frigates. Then we have recommendation No. 3 with regard to the type of recruiting. I differ with the report in its finding on this. I feel that the recruiting advertising was of a desirable character. It got the men and the rate of releases has not been at all bad. Anyway, there is room for doubt over that and we are carrying into effect the other recommendations with regard to recruiting made by the committee.
Recommendation No. 4, Communal entry. We are willing to consider that but do not believe that it is appropriate to a navy the size of the Canadian navy, when we are up to strength in men, and must be even more selective from now on. Therefore, while this recommendation will be considered, it is not thought to be particularly applicable to meet the needs of the Canadian navy at the present time. 5, New entry training. Recommendation 5 (a) deals with kit shortages. That has been acted upon and corrected. 5 (b) touches on naval traditions. That has been acted upon. 5 (c) deals with improvement of living conditions. That has been acted upon. It is a matter of great regret that the members of the commission of inquiry did not visit H.M.C.S. Cornwallis before they made their report. Had they done so I feel certain that a good many of the recommendations contained in recommendation No. 5 would have been treated by them in the recognition that they were no longer applicable in view of the fact that from May 1, 1949, all new entry training has been done at H.M.C.S. Cornwallis at Annapolis. That is a fine naval establishment. I have seen it. It has good amenities and arrangements, good living conditions, and is in every way suitable for the job. The morale of the place is excellent. I have talked to the officers and men and have found them in good health and spirits. Therefore it is regrettable that the commission did not go there. The reason that they did not was that, at the time the commission was in the maritime provinces and in Halifax, Cornwallis was just getting under way, and there was not much for them to see. However, Admiral Mainguy, a member of the commission, was familiar with the scene there and no doubt reported it to them.
With regard to 5 (d), a booklet on new entries, that is in course of preparation.


Léon Balcer: What is the average number of new entries at Cornwallis?


Brooke Claxton: The present course is twenty-one weeks, and they take in seventy-four men every two weeks.


The next recommendation is 5 (e), training officers. That is agreed to and has been acted upon. 5 (f) deals with the divisional system. That is corrected and has been acted upon. 5 (g) deals with welfare committees. That is agreed to and has been acted upon. 5 (h) refers to leave for new entries after their training. That has been acted upon. Indeed all of these: 5 (a), 5 (b), 5 (c), 5 (e), 5 (g) and 5 (h) were mostly carried out before the report was handed down.
In recommendation No. 6 the committee suggests that we should lengthen the period of training at Royal Roads. I have always been in favour of that and that will be done. It was to find out whether or not it was in the opinion of the inquiry desirable that I put a question expressly to them. On the training of officers they say: "That practical and theoretical work be more closely integrated than they are at present". We have a committee working on the consideration of that. Then they go on to say:
That the training at Royal Roads should be followed by experience on Canadian training ships and that if Canadian ships are not available, a partial diversion to American ships should be considered.
We do not agree with the recommendation that there be a diversion to American ships at this stage. We cannot see that there would be any advantage whatever in that at that stage-that is, the stage of undergraduate training of an executive officer-to go to sea. There would be no more advantage in sending him to American ships than to British ships. We see disadvantages in both. We want to have them trained in Canadian ships. That, again, is going to cost a lot of money. However, it will be carried out just as soon as suitable arrangements can be made. With regard to men on advance training in British ships and in American ships, we are all for it, but at the later stage after the officer has been fully qualified as a Canadian under a Canadian training system.
Then the fourth paragraph suggests that Canadian officer entries should begin their practical duties as commanding officers with a background of experience and education not inferior in quality, narrower in experience or shorter in time than the training which has been given British and United States officers.
Of course I am in favour of that. And that was already in effect for all officers training in the Canadian forces of the navy, army and air force, except for two groups, namely executive officers in the navy and engineering officers in the navy, both of whom stopped their tuition at Royal Roads or R.M.C. at the end of two years and went to England for

subsequent training. I think it will probably take some time for engineering officers to be trained in Canada because we have not got an equivalent system of training those officers here. Until that is developed we will carry on with the present system. But with regard to executive officers, I would like to see the commission's recommendation implemented at once.
Then, with regard to 6A, training of chiefs and petty officers: This has already been acted upon. It was acted upon before the report was made, and the new course was already in existence.
With regard to No. 7, change to civilian clothes on going ashore: That is something we have always been in favour of, but it is exceedingly difficult in view of the limited accommodation on small ships which largely comprise the Canadian navy. There is no storage accommodation for civilian clothes on the ships. However, that is under consideration.
No. 8, Canadian naval service benevolent trust fund: Here, as I understand it, the recommendation is that the officers and men should have compulsorily deducted from the profits of the canteen and paid into the fund a certain proportion. Officers of the navy regard that as impracticable, canteen profits being at the disposal of the men who make them, and I agree with them.
With regard to No. 9, confidential reports on officers and men: First, with regard to officers; that was already in effect before the report was made. Secondly, with regard to men; that is agreed to, and is being acted upon.
Then, with regard to No. 10, the desirability of having a laundry established at Esquimalt; this is desirable. It is a question of priority in building. Before we have a big laundry it may be desirable to have a barracks block. Whether or not that is so, I do not know. However this is receiving consideration. The need is recognized and it will be acted upon just as soon as funds are available.
Then, No. 11, living conditions in ships: That is in process of being improved. We already have under reconstruction H.M.C.S. Sioux, one of the destroyers. It is being completely reconstructed along the lines of American-type quarters, with separate living and eating quarters. We have also made a great many minor changes in the other ships to improve living conditions. There is a program established under which this is being proceeded with.
With regard to No. 12, barrack and married quarters:	We are pressing on with the construction of barracks and married quarters just as fast as we can. This year, as I have
Supply-National Defence indicated before, we have available for construction some $90 million. There is $40 million in the department, and even more than that with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We may not be able to spend all that because of the difficulty of getting the jobs under way. However, we have started on barrack accommodation at Halifax, and barrack accommodation at Esquimalt is high on the list. We are building married quarters as fast as we can get the land and services at Halifax, Dartmouth and Esquimalt.
With regard to No. 13, administration generally: We are in agreement with the report, and are working it out.
With regard to No. 14, the desirability of announcing policy; we agree with it completely, and that has been acted upon.
No. 15, liquor on board ship: The inquiry does not give any formal answer, but they recommend that the question be looked at. We are going to look at the question. It is not an easy one.
No. 16, kit upkeep allowance:	The army
and air force have plans different from the navy. It has been suggested to the navy that they should place their arrangements on the same basis. That is under consideration.
No. 17, free transportation: that has been provided in part since I came to this office, and we have had it under consideration since. It would involve a very considerable amount of money, and also would require similar treatment for the other forces. However, that is something of which I personally am in favour, and it is under consideration.
No. 18, medical care for dependents: that is done now, not as a matter of right but as a service at isolated centres. We doubt very much whether it could be widely extended in Halifax, Esquimalt or Ottawa because in those centres there are existing hospital, medical and dental services provided through civilian sources. However, in this field we are giving more medical service all the time in the armed forces to more people. This will receive consideration.
With regard to No. 19, dependents' allowance: It is suggested that the allowance be paid in respect of dependents in addition to the wife. We do not regard this as practicable or in accordance with general government policy.
No. 20, pay for good conduct badges: That is under consideration.
No. 21, responsibility allowance: That is also under consideration.
No. 22, welfare committees: The rule was in effect before the report was issued. The report, however, in drawing attention to this
1966	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence very important question will reinforce the orders which have been repeatedly given that welfare committees work, and the naval officers and myself will see to it that they do work.
No. 23, ship's routine: That is completely agreed with and acted upon.
No. 24, officer-man relationships: This is a complicated question. You cannot deal with it by passing rules. But with the general line of the report I think most people familiar with the Canadian scene would be in substantial agreement. We are going to work toward its fulfilment, but that will be a continuing process taking a good deal of time.
No. 25, training in "the humanities": That is already in effect.
No. 26, Canada badges: That will be carried out either in the form of shoulder badges or by some other definitely recognizable indication that the officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy are Canadians. We are now at work in devising the precise form of badge that will be used.


Léon Balcer: Is the department going to take any particular steps toward the Canadianiza-tion of the Canadian navy, or is this the only step in contemplation?


Brooke Claxton: The most important step that could be taken would be to ensure that all the officers in the Canadian navy receive training to qualify them as officers in Canada where they are exposed to Canadian conditions and Canadian environment. And we are going to do that just as rapidly as possible. I think it will be done with regard to all. It is in effect now with regard to all groups except executive officers and engineering officers for the last period of their training, and we will see that it is done for them just as soon as possible. I would point out that at the time the incidents occurred on the naval vessels there were no products of the tri-service plan of education, which is now in effect at Royal Roads and R.M.C., on active service.


Léon Balcer: At what date was the order issued to recall the Canada badges from use by naval personnel?


Brooke Claxton: I have not that, but I can give the hon. gentleman the date when the order was issued that the maple leaf be not painted on the ships-that was June 15, 1946. When it was drawn to my attention I at once gave orders that it be countermanded. That was done before the committee was set up.
The question of income tax involves matters which have to do with the general rule that all personnel should be charged income tax


in respect of pay and on allowances that are similar to pay. Personally I have always felt that this matter should receive consideration and it has been actively considered over a considerable period. The report will accelerate this consideration.
With regard to recreational facilities afloat, there is complete agreement as to the desirability of improving these. There have been considerable improvements and we will continue that process. With regard to recreational facilities ashore, after having seen those at Halifax I believe them to be second to none in the country. Those at Esquimalt need improvement, but a new major building should come second in priority to a new barracks building. However, we should make improvements in the meantime.
With regard to films at sea, this is a matter dealt with by committees of the men. There is an inter-service film committee and a naval film society. More will be done in that field. What happened was that the choice was left to the officers and men on each ship. They pay for the films themselves. We think we should do more in the way of making educational, documentary and similar films available and also making it easier for them to rent current films. This is under consideration.
If I may summarize, twelve of the recommendations were mostly in effect before the report, four have been acted upon, eleven are in process, ten are under consideration and three are not considered presently practical.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister paid a visit to Charlottetown last summer and I should like to ask him what is the situation with regard to the naval barracks there?


Brooke Claxton: I mentioned this before, but I shall repeat it. We now rent a building from the provincial government but it is not considered to be entirely satisfactory. The provincial government want it back and we would like to build or buy suitable accommodation for the naval reserve division in Charlottetown. I think there are four places across Canada where we shall have to lease or build accommodation for the naval reserve divisions, and that will be done just as soon as priorities permit. There are 21 naval reserve divisions across Caanda, 17 of which have entirely satisfactory accommodation.


Léon Balcer: Is it intended to have a naval division located at Three Rivers?


Brooke Claxton: That has been considered and it will continue to receive consideration. If there is real assurance of definite support we would have to give that matter sympathetic consideration.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. Bradeiie (Cochrane) presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maybank for the second reading of Bill No. 66, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, when we were considering this matter a week ago I had almost finished explaining why I felt it would be in the interests of British Columbia if this gas line could be routed through that province rather than through the United States. I based my argument on the fact that the distance would be shorter; that this gas would become more readily available to the towns and villages in the southern part of British Columbia and the great metropolitan area of Vancouver and New Westminster, and that the increased prosperity which would result from the line going through British Columbia would be reflected in my own constituency on Vancouver island.
At the present time we have developing in British Columbia a situation that is causing some organizations a degree of anxiety, in that employment is not as readily available as it has been in the past or as it is desired it should be; and the construction of a pipe line through the southern portion of the province would provide a great deal of employment for our people. It would provide our mills with a market for their products. It would mean that a number of construction gangs would be operating in that part of the country, which would give employment to the men in the gangs themselves and provide a market for the farmers supplying them with produce.
Alberta Natural Gas Company
I do sincerely hope that due consideration will be given these factors. As I said, a serious situation is developing in British Columbia because of the decrease in the jobs available for the very large number of people who have moved to our province in the last two years. Any big construction project that will provide employment will be beneficial, and the net result of bringing and distributing gas to those towns in southern British Columbia will be an increase in the general prosperity of an area which is a long way from the main markets. Now that other markets upon which that part of the country has depended so much in years gone by have been lost, or have decreased, we certainly require other outlets for our goods. Only today in the newspapers we saw that Great Britain is going to purchase her poultry supplies elsewhere. British Columbia is a great poultry area, and of course if the poultrymen could obtain cheap gas for use in their incubators and that sort of thing they would be enabled to raise their product more cheaply and supply it at lower cost.
For all these reasons I hope due consideration will be given the advantages of routing this pipe line through British Columbia rather than through the United States, thus giving the benefits to our own people rather than to the competitors of our dairymen, fruit growers, vegetable producers, and so on.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to enter this debate, even though members from British Columbia should be more interested than any others. However, the other day I noticed a dispatch in the Vancouver Sun which said:
There was protest again at the filibuster on debate to incorporate the Alberta Natural Gas Company, which hopes to pipe natural gas from Alberta to British Columbia and the northwestern United States.
Then it goes on to say that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter) had asked for fair play in this debate. After reading that, after listening to hon. members debate the matter, and after hearing a minister of the crown take part in the discussion, I determined to find out something about it, not only to satisfy my own curiosity but perhaps for the good of my own riding. I thought perhaps there was some difference between the bills which were presented to this house last session and the present bill. So I looked up Hansard for April 29, 1949, and found that the debate was somewhat less than intense. Hansard says, under the heading "Private Bills":


George Alexander Cruickshank: the second reading of Bill No. 240 to incorporate Westcoast Transmission Company Limited.
1S68

Alberta Natural Gas Company


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
I found also that there were three other bills of the same kind dealt with at the same time and in the same way. So I thought perhaps the bills which had been presented by some of these paragons of reliability we have heard about might be a little different from the one now under discussion. So I looked up the statutes of 1949; and chapter 37, section 6(a) reads:
Within the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia or outside Canada construct-etc.
Evidently, therefore, the other pipe lines are no different from this one. They had been incorporated with the idea of constructing a pipe line outside Canada. I thought, too, that the incorporated companies went to the board of transport commissioners-so mention must have been made in the bill of the fact that the company proposed to build entirely within the dominion of Canada or within the province of British Columbia.
With respect to the Westcoast Transmission Company, I find the following information: Their bill was presented to this house in April, 1949, and the company was duly incorporated. On May 10, they filed an application with the board of transport commissioners pursuant to the Pipe Lines Act. On May 11, they filed a second application to build through Kingsgate, on practically the same route as that proposed by the company in this bill with which we are now dealing. On October 13, 1949, Westcoast filed an application for a new route through Kamloops and the Hope-Princeton highway. On November 15, 1949, the company withdrew its original application to build an all-Canadian route, leaving the application before the board for the route through Kamloops and the Hope-Princeton highway. Whichever company receives a charter, we hope that is the route that will be built.
May I reflect, sir, the feeling expressed by the member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter) when he spoke of fair play for this company. As a new member, perhaps I should be careful about what I say because hon. gentlemen who have been here much longer than I know better than I how the business of this house should be conducted. I do not concede that the gentlemen who have been in this house longer than I know more about the spirit of fair play and understanding. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these people should be allowed, as were those who presented bills during the last session, the right to have the bill stand on its own merits before a committee. Then the particulars of this company could be discussed.
[Stage Direction]

May I say that I am getting my information from exactly the same place as other hon. members who have mentioned some of the details regarding this company. The company has not presented one location for its pipe line, but has presented five different locations. They will tell the committee and the board of transport commissioners that those five routes will have to stand on their own merits. It is easy to understand that if a pipe line is built through the United States, as has been mentioned in this house, it is the cheap route from both a construction and a maintenance point of view. As a result, the natural gas which arrives in Vancouver will cost less. The company will say, too, that it has four other lines, each of which will cost more to construct and maintain. Depending upon which of the five routes is chosen, the gas will cost a different price in the lower mainland of British Columbia. That is the way it should be; that is what the other companies are doing and should do.
Anyone living on the west coast must understand the pipe line will cost something like $200 million, and that gas cannot be profitably sent into that part of the country with its small population, without the surplus being exported to the United States. It does not matter who builds that pipe line in British Columbia, the company will have to send the surplus to the United States. As a new member I believe I have the right to say to you, sir, and to the house, "Let us give this company fair play". I do not care who builds a pipe line into British Columbia. In common with my friends on the other side of the house, the hon. member for Yale and the hon. member for Kootenay West, I shall insist that an all-Canadian route be built. We will fight for that and will continue to fight for it, but that has nothing to do with giving the company mentioned in this bill fair play.
Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on this bill. At the outset may I assure you that before I sit down I shall endeavour as best I can to answer the charges and insinuations which were so freely dispersed in the house by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I am going to try tonight, if I can, to give the house a picture which everyone can understand as to what we are dealing with in this bill.
The natural gas which will go through this pipe line is, at the moment, produced altogether in the province of Alberta. I believe we should understand thoroughly one other fact, and that is that a capital expenditure of $125 million will be necessary. There is only a market in the western area for one pipe line; that is an economic fact which no

one with any knowledge of the matter at all can possibly deny. Now it is said, and correctly, that various interests should have an opportunity of bidding, so to speak, for that business because all of us say how much we abhor monopolistic practices. Let us remember, then, there is going to be only one pipe line built.
The next thing is that this pipe line shall be built on Canadian soil. Before I go further, perhaps I should make a personal observation. At one time, I signed one of the bills as a sponsor. I learned a good deal about the thing, and after that I asked to be relieved. The gentleman with whom I was dealing very kindly granted me that permission. I am quite sure I could have done it, but I would not have done it, of course, without their complete acquiescence. What are we dealing with? As I said a moment ago, the gas is produced almost entirely in the province of Alberta. The Pacific Petroleum Company did bring in one or two gas wells a few days ago in the Peace river section which lies within the province of British Columbia. I am anxious, sir, that the house should understand that the market will absorb 200 million or 250 million feet of gas a day, certainly in peak times. This means that in the winter when so many people are using gas, 250 million feet per day is no exaggeration. We are not talking, therefore, about one or two gas wells; we are talking about 1,500 or 2,000 gas wells. That is what will be required to take care of the market on the Pacific coast, that is both the Canadian and United States markets.
We can rule out immediately any idea of building a pipe line to supply only the city of Vancouver. It just is not possible. It would be silly to even contemplate such a venture. Of course, no one will contemplate it, let alone do it. Now then, what is the history of this gas?
Gas was first found underneath the city of Medicine Hat. On the only visit that Kipling made to western Canada, he described Medicine Hat as a city with all hell for a basement. That was about the situation at that time. There was gas there. Private people and private companies were operating and drilling gas wells right in their own yards and producing their own gas because that property, as to what is on the surface or what is underneath the surface, belongs neither to the provincial government nor to any other government.
So the gas was first used in Medicine Hat. There it is produced from the sand. To give you an idea of what that sand is like, may I say that it looks something like a rubber sponge that you might have in your bathtub;
Alberta Natural Gas Company but there is no oil in association with it. Then, in 1912, certain people who did not mind a hazard built wells in Bow Island, which is south and west of there, about midway between Medicine Hat and Lethbridge. That gas was piped to the city of Calgary and to the city of Lethbridge; and that also is what is called sweet gas. It comes from a sand similar to that which supplies the city of Medicine Hat. That gas was put into operation in Calgary. A distribution system had to be built, of course, but it was put in there in the year 1912. Supplies ran dangerously short, and about the year 1921, I think it was, the Imperial Oil Company drilled in No. 4 in Turner valley. That gas, as is the oil there, is not produced from a sand. It is produced from a limestone called the Madison limestone. In appearance it looks about as solid a piece of rock as you could get. While you cannot compress a liquid, you can compress gas; and nature compresses it to a state where it is roughly under a pressure of two thousand pounds to the square inch. The later discoveries, all those discoveries in the north and centering on the great and beautiful city of Edmonton, are found in what we call the Devonian limestone which is a later stratification of rock in the earth's surface. We must remember that many things happened long before you, sir,-and I say this with respect- were Speaker of the House of Commons. Nature has been operating for a long time. The Madison limestone, from which we get gas in Calgary at 6,000, 7,000, 10,000 and 12,000 feet, is the same limestone which is exposed away up in the air in those mountains which surround the town of Banff. It is the same strata, but with the tremendous heat generated in the earth sometimes these strata were thrown up high in the air-very high indeed. That is the Madison. They are getting it now, as I say, at a mile-and I think there are 5,280 feet in a mile-from the Devonian, which is a much lower stratification of limestone than is this Madison.
I mention these things for this reason. I wish to say and to lay it down as a basic proposition that gas piped in a pipe line is an entirely different matter from crude oil. Crude oil must go through a refinery before it is good for man for any purpose whatever. On the other hand, gas is power, and power which can be used; the minute you bore a hole through a pipe line containing it that gas can be used for many different purposes, and can be used immediately without preparation.
For example, just outside the city of Calgary we have an ammonia plant that was built by the dominion government. In that

Alberta Natural Gas Company ammonia plant, in producing ammonia, which is one of the chief factors for explosives which were used all over Canada and all over the United States during the war, the gas is not used for heating purposes. The ammonia is extracted from that natural gas as it comes into that plant; and it is now being used to produce fertilizer which is today being sold clear down on the gulf coast in the United States. I say this in an endeavour to impress upon this house just what a particularly useful item this product is.
Much has been said about the route of this pipe line. In the notice of one of these lines now before the house, the applicants were extremely frank indeed. Under our law you must give a notice that you are applying for a private bill. This group say that they are going to begin at a point at or near Calgary, go down through the Crowsnest pass to Kings-gate and thence into the United States. My position will finally be, and I will begin with it now, that I am opposed to the incorporation of any company unless in that incorporation which is now being sought in this House of Commons that route shall be set out on Canadian soil. That does not leave tremendous differences between us, because the sponsor of the bill has said that this particular company, the Alberta Natural Gas Company, has five lines to the Pacific coast, ending in Vancouver. Those five lines are marks on a map and nothing else, Mr. Speaker. I could draw ten without any difficulty, and I do not know anything about surveying.
The point I intend to begin with and to end up with is that in this or any other bill we should have and we must have a route showing, broadly speaking, the course which this line will take. The right hon. the minister has said that it lies largely with the province of Alberta as to whether or not the export of gas from that province will be approved. He also told us-and both of these statements are quite correct-that, under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, he must give his permit for gas leaving the Dominion of Canada. He assured us, and I have no doubt that he meant every word he said, that he would see to it that Canadian consumers were taken care of first. This is not the first time since I came to the House of Commons that we have had a new Minister of Trade and Commerce. Much as we respect the right hon. gentleman who occupies the position, I think that perhaps most of us will live long enough to see another-and I hope he also will be a right hon. gentleman-sitting in his place.
The only way to protect this position is to have it in the statute. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a railway company-and perhaps this is just as important as a railway


company-coming to this House of Commons and asking the right to build railways in the Dominion of Canada and giving nothing more in the way of detail? They would be laughed out of the House of Commons. Well, the parallel which I give you is an appropriate and very apt one.
This bill says nothing at all-in its notice the other one did tell the route it was going to take-as to the route it will take. The sponsor may tell me that if they have to they will build it through the Dominion of Canada. I have no doubt that the sponsor meant everything he said, but knowing something about sponsors of private bills in this House of Commons I think that they rather lose their authority once the bill is passed. They are not exactly the board of directors who are controlling the enterprise, whatever it may be.
The minister said that if this filibuster continued he would see to it that the government assigned days for the discussion of this particular bill. If the government want to make this a government bill let them do it. Then we shall all know where we are, because what he said means this:	"I say that
this bill is going through this house and we shall stop discussion or we shall assign hours to it so that you simply cannot talk about it any more."


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman has put words in my mouth. What I said was that hon. members were entitled to say whether this bill would pass or not, and that no small group of people were entitled to deny them that right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I admit that the minister is accurate in repeating what he said. I did not endeavour to repeat it word for word, but with the greatest respect and deference, the minister did by clear and plain inference indicate that this thing was going through the house willy-nilly with respect to those of us who oppose it. I am asked to read what the minister said. Let us both be accurate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do it in the same tone of voice, too.


Arthur Leroy Smith: This is what the minister said, as reported at page 1806 of Hansard:
I should like also to say a word about what seems obviously to be a filibuster in connection with these bills. The government will not permit any small number of members to prevent this house as a whole from voting on a private bill. If these bills continue to be talked out in the limited time permitted for private bills, the government will ask the house to suspend the rules and provide whatever time is required to finish the discussion and to obtain a vote on such bills.

Perhaps both of us will agree that I have correctly read what was said at that time. Let us carry this a step further. We as a house are entitled to consider private bills. What is the object of any member, particularly those who are not cabinet ministers and who perhaps have neither the opportunity nor the calibre to occupy that position, bringing in a private bill if it is to be treated by the government as a government piece of business? And that is exactly what is going on in the house now. May I add this? It might be thought by someone that I have other interests to serve. I want to correct that by this simple statement. I am prepared to vote for any gas-line bill which in the bill itself, which is the law, provides an acceptable route for the transportation of that gas. Having said that, I think I may be reprieved, or whatever the proper word may be, of the suggestion that I might have any interest in it.
The word "monopoly" is a hateful one. There is no doubt about that. But we do come to places where perhaps that is the only way that things can be done. I think of a number of government enterprises such as the Polymer Corporation in Sarnia, and some of these various things where the government itself has a monopoly. I am not quarreling with that. We may as well be realists in this business and look the facts of life straight in the face. I think something else should be done. When we as members of the House of Commons know that this market is capable of maintaining only one pipe line we should see to it in the bills themselves that there is no opportunity given to corporations, which not in this instance alone but in other instances may be brought here for incorporation by promoters with a view to selling shares to the Canadian people, that in the end result, if they are not the persons chosen to operate the pipe line, will be absolutely worthless.
These changes can be made. They can be made by the sponsors of the bill by a very simple amendment which can be easily brought in. So far as I am concerned I will not vote for any bill which has not got a Canadian t route. Why, the position is so absurd.
Remember this, Mr. Speaker: the minute a line containing gas crosses the United States border we have no control over that gas. It is controlled by the people in whose country it lies. One may readily say that if such a situation should arise we will, under the act which the minister controls, revoke the permit, and authority lies in the act for just such action if he cares to exercise it. Well, it is all right to put something down on a piece of paper, and to take another
Alberta Natural Gas Company piece of paper and sign something and say that is all off. That in effect, Mr. Speaker, kills the whole enterprise. Let us be realists again. This permission to export and to use elsewhere must continue to exist as long as there is gas to satisfy that situation. But remember, if the gas is cut off by the Americans, or they adopt some other method with respect to it, Vancouver will have been served. Vancouver, being at the tail end of the pipe line, is at the mercy of people over whom we have no practical control. That, I think, is the greatest argument for this line to be on Canadian soil.
Some people may think that in view of the attitude I took on an oil line perhaps I am being inconsistent. I did point out, and I repeat, the very great and distinct difference there is between carrying oil in a pipe line and carrying gas. I give you one illustration. In Calgary we have a plant using natural gas as its main intake product in the making of fertilizer. During the war, I think the right hon. minister will admit-and this is very much in his favour, because he built it-it was very useful. We do not quite know where the allies might have been, had it not been for the ammonia produced in the plant from which at least a very considerable portion of our explosives was made.
Probably I told the house that that plant today is shipping its product of fertilizer, with all the freight rates against it, and selling the major portion of it along the gulf coast of the United States. Let us assume for a moment that this line we are talking about went through the United States-and do not think I am talking a lot of nonsense. I know that is their scheme. I know all about it. Five lines on the map, it is true; but I have known this thing for the last eighteen months. I know where they want to go; they want to go through Kingsgate.
We hear stories about building it along the Canadian border. Did you ever take a look at the mountains they would have to carry it over along there? Even to mention the thing shows how extremely impossible, and even silly, it is. And so I come back to this, that I want to meet the objections everyone has made. I want to be relieved of any charge that I am favouring the West-coast Transmission Company, I think it is called-or some such name as that.
According to the minister-at least I draw this inference from what he said-his view was: "Let us pass this bill. Is a private bill incorporating a company to be stopped in the House of Commons?" Remember, Mr. Speaker, that this pipe lines bill was passed. Remember that up to that time anybody, any group of us from anywhere in this House of
1972	HOUSE OF
Alberta Natural Gas Company Commons, could go to the Secretary of State and secure incorporation of a pipe line company or any other kind of company.
So in this case parliament saw fit to say, "If you are dealing with pipe lines carrying oil and gas you must get a private bill through parliament." Otherwise anyone could get a bill and then go and make his own arrangements with respect to the land through which the pipe line passed, and so on.
It was a good act; I am all in favour of it. But it came to this parliament-and what for? It was to stop this business of simply getting a certificate from the Secretary of State that you were incorporated and ready to do business. The pipe lines bill was passed in order that this parliament could pass judgment upon it, and say whether or not it was in the interests of the dominion of Canada that such-and-such a charter be granted.
I think that completes everything I have to say, except this: We are told that if this goes through quickly it will go to a committee, and that there in that committee we may ask these people where they are going, what money they have and what the possibilities are of their carrying out the enterprise. It is there that I take straight issue with the sponsor and with the minister. If they will in their statute tell me where they are going, then I shall know how to vote. If they are going to go out of southern Alberta I will vote against it-and I don't care who the company is. But in the north the story is entirely different. There we have those great areas in Alberta and in British Columbia which will be helped -because gas is power. Power is the thing the world needs.
In our oil fields of Alberta today we are producing daily the energy of four Niagara falls. I mention that to give some idea of just what power means. This is oil, turned into gasoline and used for power. Here we have a product going through these lines which at your home, or yours, or yours, or anyone else's, can be tapped. Of course there must be some sort of reduction to bring it to your home, because you would get your gas at ounces of pressure rather than thousands of pounds. But it is there, and it is ready to be used.
And remember this, that it is utterly impossible for anyone to build a gas line without building a road-and a good one at that. Because over that road you must take heavy pipes and all the fittings and heavy equipment. Remember, this will be about a 26-inch pipe-certainly 24-inch, or more-and you


can imagine the size of that. You don't hook that on the end of your jeep, and carry it in. You have to have a road to carry it on.
It will mean more for the development of northern Alberta and northern British Columbia than any other factor of which I have yet heard, up to this particular time. And so I am not content with the assurance of anybody that so-and-so will be the situation, when in a few words the sponsor of the bill could put it in the bill. When that is done-perhaps I am hard to satisfy-then I, indeed, will be satisfied.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only two or three minutes-


James Sinclair: That will be new.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't spin it out by making interruptions-to answer the well-put but I still feel only plausible argument of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). The hon. member's plea was that we let this bill pass second reading and go to a committee.
I wish to remind him and hon. members of the house of the fact that on a good many occasions we have found to our sorrow that if there is a measure to which we are opposed and we fail to state that opposition at this stage, or if there is some provision concerning which we want positive assurance and do not get it on second reading we are sunk.
Last year one of the bills which went through the house after some debate was that concerning the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company. I cannot find that anything was even said about the route of that pipe line- not here in the house at any rate. But none of us knew then that it was going to go out of Canada, and down to Superior, Wisconsin. In other words, this is the sort of thing we are up against. Things happen after these companies are incorporated which we do not know about unless we receive the assurance at this stage-and in the bill itself, as my colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) reminds me, and as was suggested by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith).
I want to remind hon. members about another bill during the session of 1948, that concerning the Bell Telephone Company, which asked for certain rather substantial increases in capitalization. From the floor of the house we tried to get at this stage the assurance that there would not be any increase in rates. Appeals were made to us, just like the one the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has made, to let the bill go to committee, to let it have second reading, to be fair to the bill and fair to the company.

Alberta Natural Gas Company
Well, the bill went to committee and a sort of half assurance was given in committee that there would not be any increase in rates. But where are we at the present time? The Bell Telephone Company is not only before the board of transport commissioners in a general application for a substantial increase in rates, but today it filed an interim application with respect to a surcharge. If it were in order I would take time out to protest strongly against it; but I note your objection, Mr. Speaker, and you are right, it is not. So I just register my protest. My point is that examples of that kind remind us, and rightly so, of the extreme importance of the second-reading stage of a bill. It is not a stage to be passed over lightly, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has urged. It is at this stage that we must get assurances with respect to points about which we are concerned, and that is exactly what we are trying to do.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express briefly my opposition to this bill on the same grounds as I opposed the bill we were discussing the other evening, the bill to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited. I am not going to take the time of the house to repeat the arguments I advanced on that occasion. I support the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and oppose this bill on the same grounds.
I want to make it quite clear that we do not make any distinction between these companies. We are opposing this bill because we believe that at least the approximate route of the pipe line should be indicated in the bill. We are opposing the bill on the principle that Canadian natural resources should be used first to serve Canadian interests and Canadian communities. Therefore, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones):
That Bill No. 66 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house further consideration of this bill should be deferred until the house has been assured that the route of any pipe line built by the proposed company will be laid out so as to serve Canadian requirements before any such pipe line leaves Canadian soil.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: I move the adjournment of the debate.


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

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


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask the minister one question in connection with the form of these estimates. I remember that

Supply-National Defence in 1945 the estimates were broken down, in much the same way as the estimates of other departments, into quite a large number of items. We had the equipment item for the army as one item, the pay item, and so on.
I have been wondering how long it would be before the items in the national defence estimates would again be broken down in that way instead of practically all expenditures being put under the large heading, "demobilization and reconversion".


Brooke Claxton: Certainly, the title "demobilization and reconversion" has been out of date for some time and will be dropped. Consideration will be given by the treasury officials to the point made by the hon. member for Calgary East.


John Lambert Gibson: Would the minister give assurance to the house that an adequate portion of the naval training is being carried out in Arctic waters? It just occurred to me that there have been several instances in which different jobs have had to be done in the Arctic, and the Department of Transport has let the contracts out to civilian contractors. Would it not be worth while training for the navy to undertake those jobs rather than let them to outsiders?


Brooke Claxton: I quite agree that the greatest emphasis should be on the operation and training in Arctic waters. During the second world war the role of the Canadian navy, until the closing stages of the war, was largely anti-submarine work, convoy work and protection of coastal waters in the north Atlantic, which is not so different in many ways from the Arctic. Towards the end of the war it became necessary for us to co-operate with forces in the Pacific. We had an aircraft carrier on loan from the British admiralty, the Warrior, which was not suited for use in northern waters. It was designed for use in the more temperate zones. This ship was exchanged for the Magnificent, which is a winterized ship, and since then we have been proceeding with the adaptation of our own vessels for winter use.
Last year the first operation into Hudson bay ever conducted by the Canadian navy was undertaken. The Magnificent went up as far as Hudson strait, and two destroyers moved on into Churchill. We regard that as an essential part of a training operation. In line with that, a contract for a naval icebreaker has been let, which will also be suitable for use as a transport. When it is completed it will enable us to do much more of the job up north.


John Lambert Gibson: I gather the icebreaker to which you refer is a shallow draft vessel.
[Mr. Harkness.l


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Mr. Wright:: Has the Department of
National Defence any idea of providing a base at Churchill at which naval vessels might effect minor repairs? At present there are no facilities in the port of Churchill for effecting even minor repairs to any vessel, and if Hudson bay is to be used at all by the navy some provision will have to be made for repairing vessels at that port.


Brooke Claxton: I am afraid, sir, it would be too costly and uneconomic to provide shore-based facilities for repairing naval or merchant vessels there. Naval vessels can make considerable repairs with their own equipment and skilled personnel.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the minister tell us what steps have been taken for the protection of those northern airfields, such as Whitehorse, Gander, and Goose? Are there any troops located in the immediate vicinity, and if so what troops are they? How long would it take the nearest forces, which are available and earmarked for the purpose, to move to those airfields if the occasion arose?


Brooke Claxton: At the moment, sir, there are virtually no troops in those locations for the protection of the places mentioned by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). At Whitehorse, there are some engineers and there is, of course, a good landing field. There are some air force personnel there. The exercise which is planned for the early part of February will be related to that problem.
There is a considerable force of air force but there are virtually no ground troops except army service corps and the like at Goose. There are small details of servicing units. There is only a small group of airforce men related to transport at Gander. There is virtually no provision yet made for the ground protection of these places. We hope that will be worked out in time, but it is not there yet.


George Randolph Pearkes: How far has the organization of the Canadian Rangers developed in the Yukon and Northwest Territories? Can the minister give us some idea as to how that organization is equipped and how many companies have been formed?


Brooke Claxton: There are a considerable number of companies and new companies are being authorized from time to time. The total authorized strength of the corps is 5,000, all ranks.


Howard Charles Green: How many have been
recruited?


Brooke Claxton: I have not that information. The organization of the corps is proceeding, and it is definitely related to the sort of problem the hon. member mentioned in his earlier question, though the real defence of important military establishments must of course be done by other units.


George Randolph Pearkes: Can the minister say how the Rangers are going to be armed?


Brooke Claxton: With a rifle, a bayonet, a belt and ammunition.


Mr. Hatfield:: The minister told the member for Peterborough West that the department was receiving mechanized equipment faster than covered storage could be provided for it. Can the minister state how much equipment is in covered storage and how much is in the open?


Brooke Claxton: There are approximately
20.000	motor vehicles in the armed forces, and of that number there must be approximately
6.000	in open storage at parks and mobilization centres. Then, a considerable portion of the motor vehicles issued to local units, particularly the reserve forces, are stored in the open. There is less than half, but quite a considerable proportion.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is this new equipment?


Brooke Claxton: This is largely equipment that was in Canadian hands at the end of the war and was not disposed of because it was kept for issue to the active and reserve forces or in mobilization stores.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is none of it new equipment?


Brooke Claxton: Some of it is new, yes. We purchase equipment from time to time, but the only new equipment that would be out in the open would be equipment which is regularly kept in the open such as scrapers, road-making equipment, blowers and that kind of thing.
I can give the hon. member the information he wanted about the Rangers. Nineteen companies have been organized.


Mr. Thomas:: Have the frigates in the Canadian navy been equipped with turbine engines? If not, has any consideration been given to doing that?


Brooke Claxton: My information is that no frigates in the Canadian navy were equipped with turbine engines, although the later-type frigates were equipped with higher-speed reciprocating engines. We are not contemplating the equipping of frigates with turbine engines. What we are doing is starting the construction of a new type of anti-submarine vessel, with turbine engines. That will be a high-speed, anti-submarine vessel of considerable power and speed, and
Supply-National Defence of a new type which is being designed in Canada, largely on Canadian plans, but using adaptations of British and United States plans. Our idea is that, in order to cope with the submarines we fear an enemy might have, it would require vessels with greater speed than the frigates would have, even if equipped with turbines, and with quite different characteristics of draught, vibration and equipment.


Ray Thomas: That is what I wanted to know, Mr. Chairman, because in the latter part of the war we could not catch up to the submarines.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was perturbed today by a short piece I read in the Financial Post which is dated November 19; apparently they are a little bit ahead of themselves in publication. I should like to ask the minister about it. It reads as follows:
When the Post began probing this situation,-
That is, the expansion of the national film board; the article is headed "Film Board Monopoly Facing Major Test?"
-it found that the Department of National Defence no longer uses the film board on "classified" (i.e. secret) work for security reasons.
As a result, films "classified" for security reasons are being placed by the Department of National Defence with outside commercial organizations.
This is actually now happening.
It is a terrific blow to N. F. B. pride and prestige; shoots the government movie monopoly full of holes so far as this department of government is concerned.
Apparently there is no chance of this policy being reversed until R.C.M.P. authorities "screen" the N.F.B. staff; declare them Okay so far as national security is concerned.
N.F.B. officials openly declare their intention of breaking through this barrier; insist that they must again be given a monopoly of national defence movie business, but there is presently no indication elsewhere in Ottawa that this policy will be changed under present conditions.
That is the end of the quotation. I should like to ask the minister if that is correct, what films are given to the national film board, what films are given to private film organizations, and who are the private film organizations that get these films. If this is indeed the case, it seems to me that it is an extremely serious situation so far as the national film board and staff are concerned.


Brooke Claxton: In accordance with the policy announced in the house some time ago, employees in government departments and agencies handling classified material are examined for security. Earlier this year the national film board was included among those departments in connection with the production and processing of service films containing classified material. That examination for security is still being proceeded with.

Supply-National Defence


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think the minister has really answered the question, Mr. Chairman. Am I to take it that it is correct that the Department of National Defence refuses, for security reasons, to place certain filming in the hands of the national film board? Is that correct?


Brooke Claxton: That is correct; until the film board, like any other agency, private or public, has had its employees screened for security, we will not place with it classified material for reproduction or processing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I know that this film board is not in the minister's department, but I should certainly think that whatever minister has that department should forthwith see that these people are properly screened so that that department of government would not be cut off, for security reasons, from making films for the defence forces. It seems to me that that is a most anomalous situation.


Brooke Claxton: I can assure the hon. member that the minister has that matter in hand.


George Alexander Drew: What type of film would be made that could raise any question about the affiliations of any member of the film board?


Brooke Claxton: Films that have to do with secret processes, films that have to do with research, new weapons, new training methods and so on, some of which may originate in Canada and some in other countries.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister tell us what has been the cost in the past year of films for the national defence forces? I should also like to know what the cost for advertising has been, and particularly what the cost of advertising has been for the recruiting campaign which has been carried on during the past year.


Brooke Claxton: The cost of recruiting advertising for the last year was: for the navy, $236,246; for the army, $324,573; and for the air force, $282,931. The amount spent on films would partly be included in those figures, because some of the films were used for recruiting purposes. But the services use films now to a great extent in training work. Such films of course do not enter into recruiting expenses at all. The total amount spent on training equipment and films for 1948-49 is $238,737, of which a very small proportion would be for films.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Has the minister the figures broken down to show how much this recruiting advertising works out at per man recruited? It works out in the total, I can see, to about $700,000 or a little better.


Brooke Claxton: It works out at about $65 per man. We have also of course again compared


that figure with recruiting expenses in other campaigns and other countries; and I find that it is not out of line.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does that include the people recruited in the reserve forces?


Brooke Claxton: Just for the active forces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: For the active forces only?


Brooke Claxton: I am glad the hon. member corrected me because at the same time we have recruited a larger number as well for the reserve force. Related to the active force recruits it works out at something like $65 a man. Related to the two, active and reserve, it works out at much less than half that.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I was startled by the minister's statement that certain films were not being entrusted to the employees of the national film board but were being entrusted to employees of commercial firms. What screening has been done in regard to these particular commercial firms' employees? If, as appears on the face of it, the minister is prepared to entrust these films to commercial people but is not prepared to entrust them to employees of the national film board, I should like to have some explanation. I may be mistaken in my understanding. It does not seem logical to me.


Brooke Claxton: I do not suggest for a second that it is logical, but apparently it was practical because these film companies who were charged with the job of doing larger processing work had small processing units, or relatively small processing units, that were not engaged in the same type of creative activity as the film board, and therefore it made it easier to screen their particular employees; I am told that the difficulty in connection with the film board, when this was discovered as it was this year, when the question of using agencies for processing films came up, was that with the number of employees concerned with the film board it would take some time to screen them.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am to understand that the employees of these particular commercial firms have been screened in connection with the work they have to do for the Department of National Defence, whereas the employees of the national film board have not been so screened.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When the matter was up before, I asked the minister who these companies were who are now working on what might be called secret films or films which might require security personnel for their production. Perhaps he forgot to reply and I did not remind him immediately.


Brooke Claxton: Crawley, an Ottawa firm, is one; and another, subject to confirmation, is the Associated Screen News.


Mr. Fleming:: I think the remark of the Minister of National Defence on this subject is the most telling kind of indictment of a government agency that we have ever heard from the lips of a government minister or a member for a long time, directed, in this case, to the national film board. It will come as a shock to many Canadians to be told that the Department of National Defence did not find itself in the position to entrust to the national film board the making of films for the purpose of the Department of National Defence because the employees of that government agency could not be entrusted with it on account of doubts as to their trustworthiness on security grounds.


Brooke Claxton: From our point of view-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not so many years ago, Mr. Chairman, that there was strong criticism levelled at the national film board because one Freda Linton, a notorious communist, had been a very active and prominent member of the staff of the national film board. I think most of us in this house had hoped that after that unhappy experience steps had been taken by those responsible in the government and in the national film board for directing affairs of the board to see that that type of employee was eliminated from the national film board. We are told tonight by the minister that the Department of National Defence was not prepared to entrust the making of films for the use of the department to the national film board because of lack of screening of employees of that board. I do urge upon the minister-he has indicated it is not his department-and upon the government that no time should be lost in carrying out such an effective screening of the national film board as will qualify that board to make films of the kind sought by the Department of National Defence and do similar duties for the government of Canada as may be required.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When did the Department of National Defence start the policy of not employing the national film board to make these films?


Brooke Claxton: The policy was not started from any specific date. From our point of view it was not a question of doubt, but rather the fact that the screening which was necessary in dealing with processing and productions of this kind had not been completed. It has not yet been completed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think that answers the question. I presume at one time the department did have films of this nature taken
Supply-National Defence by the national film board, and then at some period it ceased to have this done because of security reasons. What I wanted was the date that they ceased to entrust this work to the national film board.


Brooke Claxton: Subject to correction, the department did not stop entrusting any particular class of work to the national film board. During the war this kind of thing was done to a considerable degree by other agencies, and some of it was done within the department itself. We have not given work of a restricted nature to the national film board because their screening has not been completed.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I think that there should be a clarification of the position in regard to the subject, because it is one that goes beyond the national film board. When the minister's attention was drawn to the article in the Financial Post he indicated that the report was correct, that certain specified films are not being entrusted to the national film board because of the fact that they are being screened. We know what that means. It means that they are being screened for possible communists in the organization. That is the reason for the screening. That was announced in this house. The minister has explained to us that this is in keeping with the policy that was announced in the house. The policy in regard to the screening of the departments of government was one that was announced comparatively recently; whereas the statement made by the minister just now is to the effect that these outside agencies were employed for the purpose of making films, and that that practice has not been discontinued. These two statements do not go side by side. They do not hit each other. Either there has been a discontinuance of the use of the national film board for certain specified purposes because of the fact that they are being screened, or there has not. If there has been, then it is proper to ask when that action was taken, and when the activities of the film board in that respect were suspended.


Brooke Claxton: I am afraid that the leader of the opposition and the hon. member who spoke before are going beyond the information I now have. My information is that there was no discontinuance, because this job was not done by the film board before; but that when the question came up of its being undertaken by the film board it became necessary from our point of view to have the film board regarded as an agency of the government which must be screened, and that process is still going on.


George Alexander Drew: When did it start?

Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: My recollection is that it would be in May, 1949.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps we could get at this matter from another direction. I wonder whether the minister knows who screened these other people, Crawley and the Associated Screen News, and when that was done?


The Chairman:: Carried?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I want an answer.


Brooke Claxton: I would have to get that information for the hon. member. I was not there myself, I can assure him. I know of only one agency in the government service that does this screening, and that is the R.C.M.P. I cannot say it was the R.C.M.P., because I have not seen their reports. I would assume however that it was they, because it is the only agency I know of that does this sort of thing. These reports would be dealt with by the appropriate officials who, when satisfied, would proceed to place the business. The hon. member may take it that it was the R.C.M.P.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In addition to that, it seems to me the minister or some of his officials must have the date when these others were screened by the R.C.M.P., and when the Department of National Defence was assured that it was all right to have them make these secret films. I think if we got that date it might tie in as being the same date they ceased using the national film board. Will the minister get that information?


Brooke Claxton: Perhaps we had better pass on to the next question while I try to get the information on this one.


Mr. Gillis:: This is a matter which in my opinion the minister will have to clarify tonight. We have members of the press in the gallery, and it would appear rather ridiculous if the public were to read in tomorrow's press, particularly after all the emphasis we have been putting on communism in the debate during the last few days on external affairs, that we have a department of government with an appropriation in the estimates of some $2 million that cannot be trusted to do some work for the Department of National Defence.
The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is in the house, and I believe the national film board comes under his jurisdiction. It is strange that employees who are taken on by the civil service, who have written the examinations and whose character and background have been checked, should be in question. Their honesty and integrity so far as Canada is concerned are checked before they are actually hired.


It is most important that this matter should not be let drop tonight. I should not like the people whom I represent to think that I sat here and passed an estimate for national defence while in a state of mind in which I was wondering what we are going to defend, or who was going to defend what. Is it a fact that we have a huge branch of government entrusted with practically all publicity of a visual nature which goes out throughout the country, and into other countries, but which the Department of National Defence cannot trust to make films for them?
Surely this is within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, who is responsible for that department. It it is suspect, he should know something about it. If it is not, then he should clarify the matter tonight in the house so that the press may have a clear picture to give to the people of Canada tomorrow.
I cannot understand how a minister can tell the house that we cannot trust a branch the employees of which must have been carefully screened before they were hired, and still can go out to private agencies in this city. Apparently he knows very little about how they were screened and who vouched for them. Yet he cannot trust his own branch. Surely the matter requires clarification. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply presides over the national film board. I have always had considerable respect for the board, and I suggest he should have something to say tonight about it.


Mr. Quelch:: This seems to me an amazing situation. I would ask the minister if it is the intention to give this work to the film board as soon as this screening has been completed, and how long he expects such screening to take.


Brooke Claxton: We would be glad to give the work, such as it is-and it does not amount to much-to any agency that can satisfy the requirements laid down by the government with respect to the screening of its employees. From the review I have made of the file while the debate has been going on, I would suggest there has not been any sharp, hard-and-fast decision of the kind that might be imagined. As we moved from the period of war to the post-war period we naturally had many films, and then we began to produce some new ones. Most of these were not of a restricted or classified nature. Some of them were done by the film board and some by other agencies.
It was only with the announcement of the government's policy with regard to the screening of agencies of the government and employees of the government, and the general tightening of security regulations which.

took place more than a year ago, and which have gradually been overtaken and overhauled, that such questions as dealing with films which might be classified as confidential-and that does not mean in the top secret class-came up for consideration.
When that arose, the question also arose as to the possibility of dealing with the film board in sections so as to facilitate the speed of screening. Apparently there was some difficulty about that, and there was a good deal of correspondence as to how it should be handled. During such time, and until the screening is completed, there has not been any classified material handled by the film board. That is the position.
I am sure the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply will say that the screening is being proceeded with, and as soon as it is completed satisfactorily the film board will deal with films of a restricted nature.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With ail due respect, I do not think the statement the minister has just made has helped his previous statement one bit. The fact remains

and it is as bald as any fact can be-that last May, because they were not prepared to entrust the making of these films to the national film board on account of security doubts in reference to the film board, the Department of National Defence discontinued the making of films through that source, and turned to some private concern.
That was six months ago. This is November. How far has the screening process gone? The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is in the house tonight, and it is under his department that the film board falls. In the intervening six months, the minister must have become aware that the Department of National Defence were withdrawing that work from the national film board. Has he taken steps to press forward with the work of reviewing the records in the film board, to make sure that those doubts are removed, and that all security problems have been resolved within the board?
This is a serious matter. I have already referred to the very serious question raised in times past about certain individuals in the board. I mentioned Freda Linton. Surely that is one place where this screening should have started. The minister has indicated that this started six months ago and I think the committee is entitled to know from the minister of reconstruction what progress has been made during that time in screening personnel in the national film board. The committee should be told if after that time it is
Supply-National Defence considered that the national film board is now in position to justify on security grounds the making of films for the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Winters:: My estimates are not before the committee, but when they are I shall be glad to discuss the affairs of the film board. Certain questions have been asked as to whether steps are being taken to satisfy the Department of National Defence and any other department that deals with the national film board as to its security. I should say that the mere fact that the Department of National Defence asks for a screening does not imply that that department is or is not satisfied with the security which it considers should prevail in the film board.


Brooke Claxton: It is quite automatic.


Robert Henry Winters: The department is simply asking that the employees be classified. We have asked the R.C.M.P. to press forward. In reply to the specific question as to whether or not we are pressing forward, the answer is yes. We have urged the authorities to press forward as quickly as possible. As hon. members will understand, it is not easy to screen people on a relatively large scale. There is not information in the R.C.M.P. files on everybody; perhaps that is a good thing and perhaps it is not. I am sure the Minister of Justice would have more to say about this subject. But again in reply to the question as to whether we are pressing the matter, the answer is yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When I asked the minister a little while ago about screening I thought his ans-wer would refer to the R.C.M.P., but there is another thought in my mind. During the war we had a reasonably good intelligence corps, and I suppose we have a reasonably good one now. I am wondering if it was because of the recommendation of that intelligence corps that it was decided it was better not to have these films made by the national film board.
I know that some people may think that the defence intelligence should not be digging into such matters, but personally I take the reverse point of view. As far as I am concerned, if the Department of National Defence thought that the national film board were not the proper people from the security point of view to make their films I would commend them for their intestinal fortitude in standing up to what is described in the Financial Post article as a virtual monopoly as far as government film business is concerned. What part did the national defence intelligence service play in this?
1980	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: As the minister of reconstruction said, it was not a case of having found out anything; it was simply a case of having a job undertaken by the R.C.M.P. and pressed forward as quickly as possible. When a report is received from the R.C.M.P. or from the Department of Justice with regard to the security of any person in a "vulnerable" department, it is examined by the department concerned. In the case of the Department of National Defence, the examination in the first instance would be by the intelligence officers.
I can assure my hon. friend that they are just as strict and stern about such matters as he would wish them to be. In fact they sometimes advise me in ways which he himself has felt might be a little excessive.
When reports are received from the Department of Justice they are examined by the directors of intelligence of each service, with reference in the case of special instructions and directives in difficult cases to the joint intelligence committee or the joint intelligence board.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, I think possibly I should say a few words of explanation. This matter came to my attention when I was Secretary of State for External Affairs. Hon. members will realize that we have a number of exchanges with other governments and there are different classifications of the material we send out and receive. The question arose as to what precautions we were taking to secure secrecy in such matters as might be considered secret or confidential, and there are various classifications. At that time the matter was considered carefully and it is still being considered carefully.
At times there have been what might be considered as leakages, not in connection with external affairs but in connection with our own domestic matters. Sometimes we read in the newspapers speculative stories that come near to what has been discussed in secret cabinet meetings. Then there are leakages of information in the sense that something sometimes becomes public before the agreed time when it was to become public. Because of that and to satisfy ourselves and those from whom we received and to whom we sent material it was felt that we should have a system that we could look upon as being secure.
When we went into the matter we came to the conclusion that this security should extend, not only to the Department of External Affairs and the Prime Minister's office but to the other departments to which documents of these various classifications were sent. It was felt that all those who were
[Mr. Harkness.l

to have access to this material should be vouched for by the deputy head of the department.
The statement is made that the screening is done by the R.C.M.P. The R.C.M.P. does not make any decision about any individual. The R.CM.P. obtains a factual report and communicates it to the responsible deputy head of the department where the man is employed. Then the deputy head or the minister of that department must take the responsibility of saying whether or not that civil servant can be entrusted with classified material. That system has been extended to the Department of National Defence as it has to other departments that have access to material thus classified. Until the responsible head of a branch of government is prepared to say that he takes the responsibility for having secret documents entrusted to so-and-so, it is not done; and that process has not been completed with respect to the film board.
Hon. members will realize that we have to be careful. We do not want to do anything unfair relative to any individual. This is not a snooping process to undermine the character of anyone. It is being done in order to place the responsible head of each department in a position where he personally can vouch for all those who have access to the confidential material coming into his department. The R.C.M.P. were very reluctant even to go about securing the information, and it was found necessary to say to them, "Well, you will not have to make the decision. You just get a factual report and submit it to the permanent head of the department concerned. He will make the decision as to whether from that factual report he is satisfied that he can vouch for the person concerned." Not a large number of the personnel of the R.C.M.P. are engaged on that work, because it is rather disagreeable to anyone to have it said that he is being investigated. So it is being proceeded with in a discreet manner that will enable a responsible official of the mounted police to say, "This is all we can find out about this man." Then the responsible head of the department has to say whether that is enough for him to take the responsibility of entrusting that man with classified material. That is being done in connection with all those who in the normal course of the exercise of their functions would have access to confidential material.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the remarks of the Prime Minister I think it would be appropriate for us to be told if there are any

other departments which at the present time are having outside agencies do the work they ordinarily would do because any branch of those departments is being screened in this way.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know of any other; but I do know that it is not everyone in my own office, as it is not everyone in the Department of External Affairs, to whom confidential material is entrusted. It is to those who have been screened, those for whom the head of the department feels he can take the responsibility of saying that it is not unfair to those who look to us to maintain proper security that the documents be entrusted.


Brooke Claxton: In reply to the leader of the opposition I think it should be made clear, too, that there has been no switch from the film board to the Crawley firm or to Associated Screen News. When the work of postwar organization was being proceeded with it was felt at a certain stage that the film board came within the class of government agencies which should be screened, and that work is being proceeded with. Mind you, the Department of National Defence, the Department of External Affairs and all government agencies concerned with restricted material are screened in this way.


George Alexander Drew: I could not help overhearing one hon. member remark that this was making a mountain out of a molehill. It is not. This is a most unusual situation. The Minister of National Defence has just explained that there has been no withdrawal of work on this particular type of film from the national film board but that it is a continuation of work which was being done by two outside firms whose names he has mentioned, who are well known and highly reputable business concerns. If that is the case it is difficult to understand how this situation is related to the screening process which was undertaken a year ago, and which the minister has already given as the reason for the fact that the national film board is not doing this particular task.
Again, it does seem this is the sort of thing on which we should have a perfectly clear understanding. Either this work is not being done by the national film board because the national film board is being screened, or that is not the case. The last explanation given by the minister is simply to the effect that work is still being done which at an earlier date was entrusted to these two outside agencies. I think we should know whether or not some action has been taken in relation to this screening.
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: Both statements are correct, and they are not irreconcilable. The work is not being done by the national film board because it is being screened, and the work is continuing to be done by outside agencies which have been screened. The amount of work in question is very small indeed, which is probably one reason why the matter did not come to the fore earlier.


George Alexander Drew: That is one reason why this is a subject which should be thoroughly discussed while these estimates are before the committee. It will be recalled that one of the recommendations of the Mainguy report was that greater use be made of the national film board for the purpose of films to be used in the naval service. Every hon. member of this committee remembers the ancient Chinese adage that one picture tells a more complete story than a thousand words. That is perhaps even more true in the case of the moving picture than the still picture. Not only from the point of view of entertainment and recreation but from the point of view of instruction the moving picture film is of immense value. If the national film board is not being called in, or this work done by outside agencies has reached any substantial proportions, then I should say very definitely that here is one detail in connection with our national defence preparations which is not being properly carried out. There is no way by which many of the details of instruction can be better brought to the personnel of the army, the navy or the air force than by motion pictures, particularly in the case of parts, equipment and things of that kind and the placing of them together. By means of slow-motion pictures a very clear explanation can be given of all the details.
I do think this should not be left in the vague position it is in at the present time, because it raises another question in the mind of everyone here. If the fact that the national film board is being screened is the reason why it is not being entrusted with the taking of pictures which the minister has stated are not top secret but are at the secret level, then how can he explain the fact that other agencies of government which also are being screened nevertheless are carrying on their normal activities? As far as this committee is aware no other branch of any other department has been withdrawn from its ordinary functions, because of being screened, as is the case with the national film board. Either there must be some special reason in this case, or this whole system of screening may well create difficulties in different departments which had not been anticipated at the time it was announced.

Supply-National Defence
I would point out, as the Prime Minister said, that in his department as in every other department naturally there are certain people who would be particularly designated to carry out certain highly secret or important discussions. It would seem that it would not be a very difficult thing to designate a limited number of employees of the national film board to carry out this particular type of work, in any case where there is some measure of secrecy. I think the explanation just does not hold water, and we should know what the facts really are.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I believe the hon. leader of the opposition is under a misapprehension. We are told by our security committee that it will be necessary to have all those employed by the film board who could possibly have access to confidential material screened, before it will be proper to entrust that board with the preparation of classified material. Because it is felt that it would be the proper thing to have all this work or as much of it as possible done by the government agency, this screening is undertaken. It is intended to have the film board certified to be in a position, or have them get into a position, where the classified material can be entrusted to them.


Percy Ellis Wright: This seems to me to raise a serious question, when one department of the government cannot be trusted to do certain work and private firms can be trusted. I should like to know what steps the government has taken to screen those private firms that are doing this secret work. The employees of those companies are not the employees of the government, and the government has no control over them. If this work is of such a nature that the film board cannot be entrusted with it, I should like to know how these private firms can be trusted and what screening of these companies has been done which gives the government the confidence that these firms can carry out the work without any danger to our security.


Brooke Claxton: I can answer that question in a way that will help to make this clear. During the war the national film board had a great deal of work to do in connection with war information. As hon. members know, it produced all sorts of films of an informational character. The type of film that we are talking about here, the restricted or secret film, was handed to other agencies than the film board, not for reasons of security but for reasons of convenience at that stage. That situation still continues. The film board still does the great bulk of the work for all government agencies, including the armed forces, work of a training character, an informational character and publicity character.

With regard to this relatively small restricted class of material, the arrangements which existed during the war are being continued, pending the clearing of the employees of the film board for security.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister has not yet answered my question as to the method used by the government in screening the employees of the private firms. How do you screen the employees of the private firm?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The answer is that the firm takes the responsibility for certifying that secrecy will be observed, whilst in the government department a deputy head takes the responsibility for certifying that so-and-so, whom he knows personally, is well enough known to him that he does not have to be screened. There are others about whom the deputy head has not sufficient knowledge to take the responsibility of certifying to us that he can be entrusted with confidential documents. With respect to those people, we asked to have a report made by an investigator of the R.C.M.P. and submitted to the deputy head. On that report the deputy head can say whether or not he will take the responsibility of vouching for that member of his staff.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I understand the Prime Minister correctly, his remarks have given us a considerably different picture. The Minister of National Defence told us that the film board people were being screened, and that he would receive information about the employees of the private firms who were also being screened by the R.C.M.P. If I understand the Prime Minister correctly the R.C.M.P. did not do any screening at all; they merely got information about certain people-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is what we call "screening".


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then, that information was turned over to the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Public Works or whoever it may be. It is then up to that minister and his officials to make a decision as to whether or not those people should be entrusted with any secret work. If that is the situation, then so far as I can see the R.C.M.P. must have turned in to the Department of National Defence information in connection with certain persons in the film board, and as a result of that information the defence department people said, "No, we will not have those people do any secret pictures for us." That is the situation as I see it at the moment. Is that correct?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is only partially correct. It is not as a result of having seen reports that were unfavourable; it is due to

the fact that enough reports have not been seen to say that the whole board is certified for security purposes. In the story the hon. member read from the Financial Post, you have an example of the fact that there is leakage. It was not intended to publish this, and I do not think it is in the public interest that it should be published and discussed here. It is something that we would have preferred not to see published, but it has leaked out. How, we do not know. Where the newspaperman got his informaion, we do not know. We are inclined to believe he did not get it from the officials of the R.C.M.P.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the Prime Minister not agree with me that this is the sort of information that members of parliament should be given, if there exists a department of this government to which another department is not willing to entrust secret work? It seems to me it is a matter which calls for some parliamentary discussion. I can hardly see the Prime Minister's point that matters of this sort should be kept from us, and of course, generally speaking, from the people of Canada.
If it happened to be such a matter as perhaps should not be made public, then I would suggest once more that the committee for which we have been pressing would have been the proper place to give that information.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: We seem to be getting away from these commercial firms. It would banish some confusion and certainly in my own mind if the minister would say whether, in putting the work in the hands of these commercial firms, there was any other consideration except that of secrecy?


Brooke Claxton: I believe, sir, at the time the work was first put there, it was put there because this was work-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am not speaking of wartime when everyone was very busy.


Brooke Claxton: Since then the work has been put there because we were continuing to follow the patterns established during the war.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A few moments ago the Prime Minister expressed the view that the government would have preferred not to have this matter discussed and publicized in this way, but he admitted it is now out in the full view of the public. It seems to me that the matter becomes worse as the discussion continues. Is the Prime Minister willing to leave it to the press now to say that the government is prepared to accept the word of the heads of private film organizations that there is no danger to security in employing them, but is not prepared to trust its own film board? It boils down to that, as the matter now stands.
Supply-National Defence


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: No, that is not the situation. It is known that these private firms have been doing work of that character for a good many years. There has been no suggestion that absolute secrecy was not being observed. The question arose as to whether the work should not be taken away from them and all be given to the film board. The decision was that that would not be done until the minister responsible for the film board had had reports that satisfied him that for security purposes we could vouch for the film board.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think, Mr. Chairman, you will see some of the difficulties which the minister experiences with this policy of unification, because I now want to discuss quite a different subject, that of the air force.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Before the hon. member passes on to that subject, may I just add a word. I am saying that I regret that this matter has become public, not because it is embarrassing to the government but because I think it is unfortunate that there should be any impression-and there will be such an impression-that those who are in the employ of the board are under a cloud. I think it is unfortunate that they should be under a cloud. We were endeavouring to proceed in such a manner as to obtain certification without anyone going under a cloud. This premature publicity, before we are in a position to make a positive statement that each one has been examined and that we are prepared to vouch for each one, is unfortunate; it is unfortunate that any cloud should be resting on the group.


Victor Quelch: Until the Prime Minister made his statement, I thought I understood the situation. The Prime Minister now says that work is given to firms where assurance is given that secrecy will be maintained. In other words, screening is not required. But earlier the Minister of National Defence said that this work is given to firms whose employees have already been screened. Can we say definitely that firms that are doing the work today have screened their employees? The Minister of National Defence said that they had; the Prime Minister says no; that they only required an assurance.


Mr.   SI Laureni@: No, I do not say that they have not been screened; I say that I do not know. I say that, as far as I was concerned, that work was continued because it had been done during the period of the war and no untoward incidents that I know of had happened at that time. I cannot say that every individual employed by those firms has been screened. As far as I know, we were relying on the firm and not upon a decision of our own; whilst with respect to the film board,

Supply-National Defence we will look to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to say to us that he has satisfied himself that we can vouch, to those from whom we get and to whom we supply secret material, that all those having access to it can be trusted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister said that there is no evidence that they know of any untoward incident-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -on the part of employees of the private firms.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Nor of the film board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the question I wanted to ask.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Nor of the film board.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the Prime Minister
through?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I apologize for having broken in, but I thought it was only fair to these employees of the film board that f should endeavour to put the situation as right as it can be put at this moment.


Victor Quelch: Will the Prime Minister say why, all of a sudden, the government has ceased to trust the employees of the film board? He says that nothing has come out, that nothing has been divulged. Why do they suddenly not trust those employees?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Up to the present time they have never done any of this confidential work. The question arose as to whether they should not be required to do it instead of our continuing to have it done by the firms which had been doing it. Before coming to that conclusion, we want the minister responsible to say to us that he has satisfied himself that we can vouch, to those who send us confidential material and to whom we supply confidential material, that all the members of the film board can be trusted with confidential material. That investigation has not yet been proceeded with to the extent that our colleague is prepared to take that responsibility to us, and we are therefore not prepared to take it with those with whom we are associated in exchanging this confidential material.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am obliged to change the subject, and I think the Prime Minister will agree that we have discussed long enough the one to which our attention has just been directed.
Under section 97 of the white paper, the strengths of the reserve forces are given, and the figure of 3,086 is given for the air force. I was going to ask the minister

whether those 3,086 personnel are divided between the ten squadrons of the air force auxiliary and the radar units of the air force auxiliary as shown under section 117.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, plus a certain number of air force reserve called up to receive pay on a full-time basis. This would permit us to consider the figure of 3,086 on precisely the same basis as the corresponding figures for the numbers of naval reserve divisions or for the army reserves effective.
Mt. Pearkes: Can the minister give a breakdown of that 3,086, as to how many are in those air squadrons, how many are in the radar unit, how many of those are called up from this general reserve and also how many are flying personnel and how many are ground crew?


Brooke Claxton: That is a breakdown into categories that are complex, and I shall have to get the information for the hon. member. The great majority are in the ten squadrons. There are some 250 in the radar unit, and a relatively small proportion are in the reserves that are called up. I can give the hon. gentleman the exact figures and also the division between air and ground crew.


George Randolph Pearkes: Thank you. Are those reserves which are called up serving with the auxiliary squadron?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: They are not a separate branch?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then when we come to the active air force, the figures given are 16,356. Can the minister give a breakdown of that figure showing how many are flying personnel, how many are ground personnel and how many are administrative personnel not taking part in flying operations?


Brooke Claxton: I have that breakdown. I can give it to the hon. gentleman later.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am anxious to get that information because I think it will show, far more clearly than the mere total numbers, the number of flying personnel that we have. That is the point I want to get at.
From what the minister has just told us, the reserve air force is not a reserve at all, except that it is allocated to auxiliary fighter units. What organization is there for replacement of flying personnel in the active units should hostilities break out and operations

take place, and should it be necessary-as it would be if there were operations-to replace a large number of the flying personnel?


Brooke Claxton: The first source of replacements-they really would not be replacements, they would be additions to the air force flying personnel-would come from auxiliary units themselves. Then there are a number of classifications of air force reserves, six in number. No great effort has been made to recruit these up to large strengths, because they are all available in the event of an emergency, and no great advantage would be gained in taking on the extra paper work to keep in touch with them. But included among them, of course, are the members who served in the R.C.A.F. or R.A.F. from Canada during the war, in the course of which some 71,000 air crew of Canadian origin were trained. A number of them are still available, and with retraining would be available.
Then in the universities at the present time we have some 679 in training. It is hoped that that number will be increased with the increase of training facilities. This represents a small proportion of what would be needed in the event of war, but we are proceeding with the training as rapidly as possible.
In connection with the figure of 3,086 for the air force auxiliary, I might mention again the figure I gave today from a return in the United Kingdom where the corresponding number, at the 29th of September, was 5,350; so that in proportion our figure is measuring up rather well; but it is still far short of what we would need.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think, Mr. Chairman, that from what the minister has said I had ample justification for being concerned as to where the replacements for the active air force flying personnel would come from. It was suggested by the minister just now that the first line would be to deplete-he did not use the word "deplete"-or to draw from the auxiliary squadrons.


Brooke Claxton: "Draw through", I think, would be a better term.


George Randolph Pearkes: Draw through the auxiliary squadrons. I presume that would be drawing untrained people because I do not know where they exist now except that they are the ex-R.C.A.F. personnel and ex-R.A.F. personnel who are in Canada. These people are getting on in years, and that is not creating an organization. From what the minister has said I see no organization where he has any men in training coming up as a big reserve of trained men, except those 600 from the universities.
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: On that again we have doubled within one year the number in the auxiliary and the number in the university or training plans.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am glad to hear the word "doubled". I hope that he will double it again very quickly because I think it is the Achilles heel of the defence force.


Brooke Claxton: It is certainly a very important factor, and again it is one which depends on the use of resources. As the hon. member knows, it costs a great deal of money to train air crew, and they are available for an effective service life of limited duration. We are pressing on with another category which I should mention, and which I omitted before, namely, men training for short service commissions; that is, men who are taken on to the air force regular strength, with educational standards generally equivalent to senior matriculation. They are given a period of service of five years. Then they are eligible, if they are selected, for continuation in permanent commissions, but that method of augmenting air crew has been extended during the last two years-


George Randolph Pearkes: Where would these men be shown? Under the 16,000?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, under the 16,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: So the 16,000 active force includes a lot of people who are temporary.


Brooke Claxton: Who are in training for air crew but are not there temporarily in the sense that it is just for a matter of weeks, but who have joined on for periods of five years in order to provide a larger number of air crew for the period of active flying life. They are part of the active forces.


George Randolph Pearkes: They are in reserve outside. They can hardly be considered as replacements. The minister will be able to get me a breakdown of this figure, showing how many are flying personnel and how many are ground crews.


Brooke Claxton: Oh, yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Regarding radar units, which the minister spoke about, can he tell us the policy regarding these radar units? Are they all going to be stationed in the north, or are they all going to be stationed around industrial centres, or are they going to be organized and are they all going to be manned by the R.C.A.F., or will some be manned by the army in co-operation with perhaps antiaircraft units, and some with the navy? What is going to be the organization? Is there going to be a special corps set up, a radar corps, or what?

Supply-National Defence


George Alexander Cruickshank: Send it to Russia. They want to know all these things.


Brooke Claxton: As I said in the house the other night, there is no intention on the part of the department or the government at this time to set up anything of the nature of a radar screen or grid that would effectively cover Canada as Britain or Germany was covered by radar during the war. That is quite beyond the resources of Canada. Even the most effective radar screen is successful only in detecting a certain proportion of the enemy planes. Then there is required a communications network, backed by interceptor planes to bring them down. Canada is so big that it is not susceptible of defence in that way, and it is no part of our present plan to defend it in that way. If we were to set about defending it in that way we would be spending so great a proportion of our national income on static defence that we would not have any money left for any other purpose whatever in the way of defence, and consequently that is not the idea.
What we plan to do is to have a number of radar stations located at various points, which are regarded as useful from the point of view of intercepting any enemy on a likely course, and which are regarded as useful also from the point of view of affording protection to a limited area. At the beginning that area will be very limited; but we hope that means may be forthcoming to extend it. This work will be done by permanent forces, the air force at the more isolated centres, supplemented by air force reserve units such as the first one established at Montreal, which is making very good progress under the really first-class leadership of Squadron Leader Patrick. It was that unit which took part in the Exercise Metropolis, when some two or three hundred members of the regular and auxiliary air forces brought mobile equipment to New York and assisted in the detection and interception of aircraft there.
The radar unit in Montreal we hope will be followed soon by one in Toronto and in other principal centres where we can draw upon officers and men with either air force or radar experience, or having particular interests in that field of work through being engaged in the electronics or electrical industry.


Frank Exton Lennard: I wish again to make an appeal on behalf of the personnel of the reserve forces and the officers and instructors of the cadet corps across Canada in connection with their pay being subject to income tax. The minister knows this matter has been discussed on other occasions, and he mentioned this afternoon that it was under consideration.


I am wondering who is holding it up, because it has been under consideration for several years. I feel sure the minister is not, but it must be either the Minister of National Revenue or the head of some other department. This is a grave injustice to these personnel. I know from personal experience, when I had something to do with sea cadets during the war, that while I did not receive pay at that time the amount I was called upon to spend to keep the thing going was far more than anything I would have received in the form of pay. I know that is the position today, and it is a grave injustice being forced upon this personnel who are devoting their time, in addition to their other regular activities, to the defence forces of Canada. There should not be any further delay in considering this matter in favour of those chaps who in some cases are giving all their spare time toward improving the defence forces of this country. Then these additions are made to their incomes, and they are taxed on it. In my opinion this is most unfair.


Brooke Claxton: I appreciate what the hon. member has said. What is holding it up is the provision in the Income Tax Act. What is needed is a formula whereby the pay of reserve and cadet officers shall not be considered as income. If the hon. member can invent that he will have solved the problem.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would like to suggest a formula to correct this situation. I agree entirely with what has been said by the hon. member for Wentworth. We heard the other day, from the Minister of Finance, a formula through which we are going to beautify Ottawa. You just take 80 per cent from 60 per cent and add 4 per cent, and find out how old your mother-in-law is, and then 'phone for Einstein-and you have it. I am entirely in accord with what the hon. member has said, and it is high time the Minister of National Revenue, or whoever is responsible, gave us some action in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Douglas Scott Harkness: For the benefit of some hon. members who are calling "carried" let me say I have eight more questions jotted down, so they might as well save their breath.
My first question has to do with the navy. Under the heading in the details which deals with equipment and things of that nature there is an item of $26 million. How much of that is for ship construction? The item also includes the purchase of trucks and other types of equipment.


Brooke Claxton: It is broken down as follows:
Signal and wireless stores	 $ 2,957,140
Ammunition and bombs	 3,730,449
Armament stores	 867,514
Mechanical transport	 395,000
Operating costs of mechanical transport	 153,100
Acquisition and construction of ships
(portion payable this year)	 6,100,000
Acquisition and construction of aircraft	 668,000
Repair and upkeep of ships and aircraft	 7,447,934
Naval and aircraft stores	 3,909,458


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is this $6 million for ship construction and acquisition chiefly for the three new subchasers being built? Would a portion of their cost come under this, or is it for other than that?


Brooke Claxton: These will be first payments on the following:
Minesweepers	 $ 700,000
Antisubmarine vessels	 1,650,000
Gate vessels	 900,000
Tooling and miscellaneous charge ...	750,000
Icebreaker	 1,500,000
Miscellaneous vessels	 100,000
Carryover from 1948-49 regarding icebreaker	 500,000


Douglas Scott Harkness: This afternoon and last Friday we had a general discussion as to the proportion of forces in what I would call actual fighting units as compared with those in command and administrative posts. In that connection, and to get down to something more definite, can the minister tell us how much of the money in these appropriations is for the reserve brigade group (army) and how much is for the operational squadrons of the air force, so far as the air force is concerned?


Brooke Claxton: There is no possibility of making any such breakdown without going through every item of defence expenditures from start to finish, because the expenses of headquarters staffs, R.C.E.M.E. workshops, ordnance corps, ordnance corps stores and so on are not kept in books that relate to the ultimate consumer. The portions of the overhead and the like are not related in that way. There is no way of giving that information from our figures.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the minister cannot give us a breakdown along that line, could he tell us where the shortages of manpower in respect of the establishments he hopes to have in a reasonably short space of time are to be found? In other words, are those shortages in the army, in the reserve brigade group or at headquarters staff, or are they in the army service corps supply units, or where are they?
Supply-National Defence And, so far as the air force is concerned, are those shortages of manpower in the establishment of operational squadrons or in some of the administrative positions?


Brooke Claxton: They are scattered through. The greatest shortages proportionately are in the occupational groups requiring the highest educational standings, senior matriculation and the like. I think that applies to both the army and the air force. As I say, the navy is up to strength in other ranks personnel. It is divided between various units. As the various units are filled up the opportunity of joining those is not extended to men applying for recruitment; if they want to join the army their choice is limited.
The proportions of the brigade group left to be filled up is made up in part of men who are already in the training stream in the various corps schools and who will be posted to units in the brigade group so that the shortage there should be filled relatively speedily.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do I understand that when the present recruits whom you have taken in and who are now undergoing training are posted out the brigade group will be pretty well up to strength?


Brooke Claxton: To about 70 or 75 per cent, something of that character.


Douglas Scott Harkness: From the details I notice that the vote for the reserve army is approximately $200,000 more this year than it was last year. The minister told us earlier that they hoped to get a considerable increase in the reserve forces and that a considerable increase had already been secured for last year and he hoped it would be increased still further. I am wondering how that considerable increase in the numbers in the reserve army is going to be looked after when there is only an increase of $200,000 in the vote. Did the minister and the department estimate that there would not be much of an increase and therefore did not budget for any more than $200,000 extra?


Brooke Claxton: We hoped for a large increase and the increase has been considerable. If the money available for the reserve forces as set out here is inadequate and there is money available in other votes, it is possible by application to the treasury board to secure an allocation to meet the additional cost. The reserve force vote last year was larger than was required and that is why it is only $200,000 larger this year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The details on page 198 show the biggest reduction to be in pay and allowances, from $6,300,000 in 1948-49 to $5,701,000

Supply-National Defence for the current year. That would seem to indicate that the department had estimated that the reserve army would be smaller this year.


Brooke Claxton: It is exactly the reverse. The estimate for 1948-49 was larger than proved to be necessary and therefore it was not necessary to increase the estimate proportionately with the additional numbers and activity that we anticipated. Because we underspent on this item in 1948-49 it was possible and proper to put in the smaller increase which is here, but that is not on account of reduced activity.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I take it that, as far as last year was concerned, the number of people you thought would be in the reserve army and the amount of training you thought would be required was considerably less than had been estimated?


Brooke Claxton: The cost was.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, the recruiting scheme was comparatively less successful than you had budgeted or hoped for last year?


Brooke Claxton: We have been trying to build up the army reserve steadily and have done everything possible to assure that. In consequence of the interest shown we hope we may be able to get an extra 10,000 men. Nevertheless, last year we enlisted 12,000 men in the army reserve.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I thank the minister for the explanation he has given. I thought it peculiar that he was budgeting for a smaller amount for pay and allowances and for the training of these reserve force soldiers. I notice that the item covering personnel supplies and services, which includes food supplies, is up approximately $10 million just for the army. The number in the army is not very much greater comparatively now than it was last year and I was wondering why this item should be so markedly or sharply increased?


Brooke Claxton: The increase is largely due to the increase in the strength of the active army. As I pointed out, each extra man means an extra $2,600. I have the increase broken down into the various details. For one thing, the ration scale was increased, which increased the ration cost as from January, 1949.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The reason given by the minister would not seem to be applicable. This increase is for food, clothing and things of that sort and the total number in the

regular forces has increased by only a few thousand. That increased number certainly could not increase the vote from $8 million to $18 million. I think the explanation given by the minister must be wrong and that this increase is not due to the greater amount of food and clothing required.


Brooke Claxton: I can give the hon. member the actual number of the increase which would be multiplied by $2,600, the cost per man. An additional $2,198,000 was required for food. An additional $743,000 is to be paid to the Department of Veterans Affairs for hospital services. The increased requirement for consumable dental stores reflecting using up of stocks from wartime surpluses, increased replacement of obsolescent dental equipment was $64,000. The increased requirement for purchase of cloth for manufacture of undress blue uniforms, purchase of Arctic clothing, bush type summer clothing, airborne stores, was $4,204,000. The increased provision for stoves and refrigerators for C.M.H.C. housing development, provision for Arctic barrack stores, provision for expendable materials, and lumber for ordnance depots, R.C.E.M.E. units and depots, provision for items of barrack and hospital stores, was $2,889,000. They provided the houses but we are to provide the stoves and refrigerators. Then there is an offsetting item reducing those additional items by $150,000, representing a reduction in laundry and dry cleaning. I think that accounts for the difference.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: On Monday we will take up the resolutions concerning the trans-Canada highway. I mention this because some time ago I consulted the leaders of the different parties, who gave me a list of the bills or resolutions they considered important, and this was one of them. So Monday morning at eleven o'clock we shall take up that resolution. The second item will be the second reading of Bill No. 149, respecting bankruptcy. I am told the motion for second reading will not involve much debate, and it is the intention to refer the bill to the committee on banking and commerce immediately second reading is given. Then we shall proceed with Bill No. 142, to amend the National Housing Act, which is in the committee stage. If we have time we shall take

up Bill No. 63, respecting the inspection ol fish and marine plants. That has been through committee, also.


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

[Stage Direction]
General services-
239.	Grants to military associations, institutes and others, as detailed in the estimates, $227,150.
Business of the House
240.	Miscellaneous maintenance and adjustments (war of 1914-18), $32,275.
241.	Battlefields memorials, $54,605.
Pensions and other benefits-civil pensions-
242.	Robert Allen, $193.
243.	Walter Pettipas, $516.
244.	Florence Walker, $360.
245.	Michael Mountain, $420.
246.	Mrs. Alice Smuck, $480.
247.	Mrs. Mary Whittington, $200.
248.	Mrs. Eleanor F. Nixon, $1,288.
Militia Pension Act-
249.	Government's contribution to the permanent forces pension fund, $9,046,347.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 21, 1949