1950-06-09

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Bater.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies of the first volume of the consolidation of statutory orders and regulations, which I mentioned in presenting the bill concerning future orders and regulations. I am doing so at this time so that hon. members who are interested may have an opportunity of seeing in what form these are to be prepared. I understand that there will be four volumes of these statutory orders and regulations. A fifth volume will contain as complete an alphabetical index and analytical table as we may find it possible to prepare.
Hon. members will see that these are lettered "A" to "D". The procedure that is being followed is to indicate the statutory orders an'd regulations under the statute which authorized the making of them. Whenever a statute authorizes the making, by order in council or by any other authority, of regulations having legislative effect, whether or not the power has been exercised, the statute is referred to and explanatory notes given. I believe hon. members will find that it is a serious attempt to make all these orders and regulations as readily accessible as possible to the courts, the bar, and the public generally.
I may add that as soon as the volumes are complete they will be distributed to all those who are on the list for the distribution of the annual statutes.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the Prime Minister when it is expected that the volumes will be completed?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The work has been completed, and it is now a matter of printing. I assume that, as soon as the session is over, priority will be given to the printing of the statutes of this session. There will be no avoidable delay in the office of the king's printer.
55946-216J


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it intended that these two volumes will be distributed now?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: No; there are not sufficient copies. Only a limited number of copies were run off, and I am tabling them now so that hon. members who are interested in seeing how the matters are being set up may examine them. As soon as the other copies can be run off they will be distributed to those who are on the list for distribution of the annual statutes.



FIRE AND FLOOD DAMAGE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sure hon. members will be interested in knowing that I have been advised by His Excellency the Governor General that he has received the following message from the Emperor of Ethiopia:
Addis Ababa June 6, 1950
Field Marshal Viscount Alexander,
Ottawa.
We convey our sympathy for the great flood losses and suffering in Manitoba. We would request Your Excellency to direct the distribution of Canadian dollars three thousand sent as a token of the cordiality and sympathy uniting the Ethiopian and Canadian peoples.
Haile Selassie Emperor
To this message His Excellency sent the following reply:
Ottawa, June 7, 1950
His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie,
Emperor of Ethiopia,
Addis Ababa.
On behalf of people of Canada, I thank Your Majesty for your kind and sympathetic message to the Manitoba flood victims and for Your Majesty's very generous contribution for their relief. Your generous action and expression of friendship will long he remembered by the people of Canada.
Alexander of Tunis
The governor general is arranging to have the contribution from the Emperor of Ethiopia transferred to the Manitoba flood relief fund.
I feel sure that I speak for all hon. members and for the country as a whole in expressing deep appreciation of this very fine example of human brotherhood.

Manitoba Flood



FLOODS IN SOUTHERN MANITOBA


Hon. Douglas Abboll (Minisler of Finance):: I wish to table a copy of a letter dated June 6, 1950, and attached memorandum addressed to me as Minister of Finance, and Hon. D. L. Campbell, premier of Manitoba, constituting a progress report of the joint commission on flood damage in Manitoba, which, as the house is aware, consists of Mr. J. B. Carswell, representing the dominion government, and Mr. D. Bruce Shaw, representing the government of Manitoba.
Perhaps I might add a few words. As the house is aware, I flew out to Manitoba on Tuesday afternoon. I had three purposes in mind. I was anxious to see a bit of the flood damage which had been caused. I wanted to discuss with the members of the commission and with the Manitoba government the progress which had been made in ascertaining the damage caused by the flood. I found that my visit was a most helpful one. The weather was such that I was able to fly down in the afternoon over the upper part of the valley. I found that the flood waters certainly had receded extremely rapidly, and it was quite clear that large areas which had previously been flooded were already clear and that seeding was taking place even in some of those areas. We flew at a low level. Some of the towns, particularly Morris, had suffered great physical damage to almost every building in the municipality.
The next morning I was taken to some sections of the city of Winnipeg, which I was informed had suffered the worst damage, and certain sections of St. Vital, and the Wildwood area. It is quite clear today; while it looked pretty bad, it was obvious that a week or ten days ago it must have looked a great deal worse.
In the evening I had an opportunity of discussing with members of the commission the draft of the report which in final form has been tabled today. Mr. Campbell, the premier of Manitoba, participated in those discussions. The following morning I had an opportunity of meeting the members of the Manitoba cabinet and, finally, in the afternoon, had a concluding meeting with the members of the commission and received their report in final form which I have tabled today.
I do not intend to discuss the details of the report. It speaks for itself. I just want to say that I do not think one can speak in too high terms of the way in which the people of Manitoba and of the city of Winnipeg have responded to the calls made upon them by this terrible disaster. I was greatly impressed

by the way in which individual citizens were setting to work to clean up their houses and to do repairs to their buildings. I had a chance to call at the offices of the Manitoba flood relief fund. They have done a magnificent job in raising funds voluntarily from all parts of Canada and abroad. The municipal government and the local government authorities seem to be working in harmony to co-ordinate the various services at the different levels of government. It struck me that the rehabilitation authorities, in the assistance they were giving to repair of the damage caused by this disaster, were operating very efficiently.
I reported of course to my colleagues yesterday, and placed before them this report. In the light of the facts disclosed in this report the government has decided to include in the supplementary estimates, which I hope will be tabled within the next week or ten days, an appropriation for $12,500,000 as an initial payment to the government of Manitoba to assist it in discharging the obligations which it will have to carry out as a result of the flood damage.
In addition, hon. members will see from the report that the committee has suggested that in the urban areas of Winnipeg certain, emergency diking measures might be developed in order to prevent a recurrence of these floods. As was the case in the Fraser valley, the dominion government of course would participate on the basis of 75-25 in the costs of such works, if it is decided to proceed with them; and in the supplementary estimates an appropriate amount will be included to cover an estimate of what might be required in that connection in the forthcoming period.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask the minister
whether it will be possible to have the progress report which he has tabled printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings, or to have copies made available, so that we may all have it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has been multigraphed. I
asked those doing the work to be sure that there was a sufficient number of copies to make it available to all hon. members. If they are not already at the distribution office, I will see that they are there within the next half hour. I think that might be sufficient.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.



FIRE DAMAGE AT RIMOUSKI AND CABANO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: -
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I have just this to add in connection with the Rimouski and Cabano

disasters. A report has just been received from the joint commission, composed of Brigadier Theriault and Mr. Edouard Laurent. There has not been time to discuss the terms of that report with the premier of Quebec, but we expect that some time next week it will be possible to table the report and to make a statement in connection with those disasters as well.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I may say that this is the first time that I have ever had reason to complain of inaccuracies in the press. But in this morning's local paper, under the heading "Members wallop press, 15-6, in annual softball tussle," there is this paragraph:
Conacher belted a pair of circuit clouts and a triple, while McDonald and Winters each hit one. George Hees, Liberal member for Toronto Broadview, added the last one.
I merely mention that matter, Mr. Speaker, because I knew that the government had great influence with the press, but I did not know that it went that far.



PRICE SUPPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: have two questions I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that he and his parliamentary assistant are both absent, I would ask him to take this as notice and answer as soon as possible.
Has any decision been made with reference to the continuation of the price support program for bacon after July 1, 1950? How much bacon has been purchased to date by the board for the purpose of filling the requirements of the Anglo-Canadian bacon agreement?



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: In
the absence of the Minister of Transport, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if any requests have been made by the provinces to stay the coming into effect of the new increases in freight rates which have been
Inquiries of the Ministry authorized? If so, has any consideration been given to the matter, and what are the results, if any?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Requests were received from the premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and those requests were considered by cabinet yesterday. Answers were mailed last night. If the hon. member is interested, I could have copies of the requests and copies of the answers tabled at three o'clock today.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you.



TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE REQUESTING SUSPENSION OF INCREASE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house I would ask to revert to motions so that I can table, as promised this morning correspondence with the premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, requesting that the government suspend the coming into force of the recent order of the board of transport commissioners increasing the freight rate, and the answers that were sent to the premiers yesterday.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE WITH RESPECT TO AGENDA

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there is some further routine correspondence with the premiers of the provinces concerning the agenda for the next dominion-provincial conference. It consists of letters written to the provincial premiers indicating the suggestions received from some of them about the agenda. Previously the correspondence has been printed as an appendix to Hansard, but since we are really operating as a post office to indicate to the premiers what has been received from the other premiers and asking them to make their own suggestions as soon as possible, I do not think that course need be followed.


Major James William Coldwell: They need not be incorporated in Hansard?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think hon. members would be interested in the text of these: letters. It is routine correspondence.



BANKRUPTCY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the
Minister of Justice now answer the question

Supply-National Defence I asked on Tuesday last in his absence with respect to the date of proclamation of the Bankruptcy Act?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I may say that we still have the target day of July 1 in mind, and I expect finally to confirm that date some time next week.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence forces-
202. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $579,301,670, including authority, nowithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $438,178,000 and commitments for future years of $141,123,670 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1950-51 will not exceed $384,932,304.


Mr. Brooks:: At eleven o'clock last night I was discussing the situation in our north country. I had asked the minister questions as to what was being done by Canada to train our native population in the north country to assist in our defences. I had pointed out that Russia, according to the reports we have received, was making great use of the Eskimos and other natives in northern Siberia and on the Aleutian islands, training them as scouts and patrols and for other work in that country. We also have reports that they have established many scientific stations in their north country, and that they are experimenting with the growing of crops and food1 so that the people of that area may be self-supporting. All this of course proves to us that Russia intends to keep that country in such a condition that if she should decide to attack she would be in a position to do so.
The reports also mention the necessity for the training of our soldiers in north country fighting, and contend that great attention should be paid to the defences of the Yukon and northern Canada.
It was very interesting after the Sweetbriar training exercise to read the United States papers. I may say that the United States is not only equally interested in the defence of the north country; I think she is probably more interested than we are, on account of Alaska, and also of the threat to themselves.
I should like to read from the Christian Science Monitor, the issue of March 16, which contains the opinion of that paper, and I think it also expresses the opinion of a good many people in the United States, as to the success of the Exercise Sweetbriar. The article is headed:	"Whitehorse tagged for


U.S. defence role". I may say that Whitehorse has been mentioned by the United States as the Gibraltar of the north. The article reads:
Divided Opinions
High Canadian and American military officials who attended as observers were inclined to be noncommittal when questioned openly about the success of Sweetbriar. OH the record, some expressed shock at the state of northern defences, while others optimistically believed that all will be well and that any deficiencies would be remedied as a result of the operation.
That neither the United States nor Canada is ready for Arctic warfare was made clear during the ten days in which a force of some 5,000 soldiers manoeuvred and fought with a so-called "aggressor" which had overrun Alaska and then threatened the whole continent.
I do not think that our department of defence, or the United States department of defence, believed that Sweetbriar would be a hundred per cent successful. By that I mean they did not believe that the equipment they had would be entirely suitable to the climate, nor did they believe that our soldiers were sufficiently trained in Arctic warfare. The success of Sweetbriar would probably be measured in the lessons that were learned, and also in a determination of the weaknesses of our northern defences. I am satisfied that our department learned many lessons, with regard to both the training of the men and the use of equipment in this barren and cold country.
I am sure we must all realize the great difficulties experienced in training men for warfare in a northern climate where there are deep snows, and where the temperature falls to sixty and sometimes seventy degrees below zero. I realize that it must be difficult for the equipment to stand up; I realize that it must be very difficult indeed for men to use the equipment. This test will be a great success if the defence department has learned the lessons of the difficulties in the north country and has tried to correct the difficulties and to prepare for the future.
I might suggest in this connection that one of the great problems that faces the Canadian army is training for these operations. Yesterday the leader of the opposition said that in connection with the training of our air force we have every facility in this broad country of ours for training airmen. We also have the facilities and territory for the training of our tank and other corps. For winter training also Canada is as well suited as any other country, especially Russia. I would impress upon the minister the necessity of more winter training; instead of having so much training of our men in the summer camps, our active forces and our militia should confine their training to a great extent to the wintertime. I do not imagine this would be a very

popular suggestion with the men in the armed forces, but looking toward the necessity of this type of training it seems to me we could and should devote more of our time to such training.
I should like to pay a tribute to our national research council. A few moments ago I said that our department must have found many weaknesses in the equipment used in the northern country. I have had the pleasure and the honour of being a member of the committee on national research. On several occasions I have had the opportunity of visiting the national research building, and I have seen for myself the work which is going on there. Without divulging any secrets- it is amusing to go through the national research council and be told that there are certain things which are very secret and that you must not tell anything about them- I am satisfied that not a single member of parliament who goes into the national research council could come out and divulge any of the secrets that he sees there. He does know, however, that in a general way great work is being done by the scientists of Canada for the development of some of these matters I mentioned that are related to our defence.
Another matter of great interest to the Canadian people is the dispersal of our munitions plants. This subject has been discussed before in the house on numerous occasions. There is no question that in a great country like Canada, with the possibilities of bombing in wartime, our munitions plants should not be centred in thickly populated areas. They should be scattered across the country. In the last war Russia was prepared to retire to the Ural mountains; she had behind those mountains munitions plants to supply her troops. We in Canada would make a great mistake if we concentrated the making of munitions in large centres which might be subjected to bombing.
I had intended to speak about civilian defence, but the matter has been discussed at some length already. From the minister's statement I would judge that we are following to a greater or lesser degree the plan being carried out in the United States. I am informed that over there state and federal officials are working together. For instance the minister said yesterday that it would take practically all the money allocated to our defence estimates to provide radar protection in this country. In the United States I understand that under their civilian defence measures they have made provision to train 150,000 aircraft spotters, to augment the seeing eye, or radar. I should judge that something like that is
Supply-National Defence planned for Canada. In the United States they also have training courses for the handling of radiation injuries, and they are issuing excellent booklets and other instructions in this connection. This of course is a great work, and if the same is being done in Canada I am sure satisfactory results will be obtained.
We have heard much about recruiting, and the debate has been interesting. However, as my leader pointed out yesterday, the mere fact of having a thousand names or five hundred names on a roll is not sufficient; it does not indicate to the house or the people in Canada the extent of the training. The number of men who are taken into camp would show what our training is, and would reflect the usefulness of our reserve and other units.
In the matter of recruiting I would say that we must have good feeling throughout the country before our efforts can be successful. The people must be sympathetic toward the armed services. They have not been getting all the information they would like, nor have we in the House of Commons. If recruiting is to be successful, the people must feel sympathetically toward the navy, the army and the air force.
There have been some developments recently which have not tended to increase the confidence of our people in our armed forces. One of these had to do with the marking of graves overseas. I was pleased to hear the minister say yesterday that this defect had been corrected, a result, I am sure, of the widespread criticism across the country that a great mistake had been made. That mistake is being corrected, I imagine at considerable expense.
There is also the matter of medals. This may not be strictly a defence matter, but it is connected with the army. There was and is today widespread resentment across Canada that the medals given to the soldiers who fought in the last war are not inscribed with the names and numbers of those soldiers, as was done after the first war. These may seem small matters, but they do arouse resentment and dissatisfaction.
A short time ago there was an announcement with respect to a change in the tunes and airs used in the navy. I am not well qualified to discuss this matter, but I do know that in many sections of Canada there is resentment over this change. The people who resent it most are those whose sons were the first to enlist in the last two wars, and who would be the first to enlist in the navy today should necessity arise. I refer particularly to the replacing of "Rule Britannia" by "O Canada". These conditions do not help in

Supply-National Defence recruiting, and the government and the department before making such hasty changes should give careful consideration to them.
Perhaps we did not need to pay much attention to it, but I did listen to the hon. member for Ontario last night defend the defence department and criticize all those who had criticized that department. I could not help remembering that that great defender of the faith, the hon. member for Ontario, was the man who suggested that the description "Royal" should be taken away from the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. However, as I said before, no one is taking seriously what he said. The government, I hope, does not take it seriously, and I am sure the same feeling prevails throughout the country. Such a change would give rise to so much resentment that it would have grave repercussions.
In closing I should like to make reference to two units in my own province. My own town of Sussex is the headquarters of the Princess Louise Hussars. We are very proud of this unit, of which the hon. member for Westmorland is second in command. I have been informed by the defence department that it is one of the best, if not the best trained militia unit in Canada. We also take pride in our Canadian Scottish regiment. It, too, is well trained. There is a feeling in the maritime provinces that we should have down there a permanent force unit, and I would ask the minister if he is giving consideration to the appointment of the Princess Louise Hussars as a permanent force unit, and if not whether he will do so.


Mr. Claxton:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Royal has mentioned one or two points about which I should like to make some comment. He asked first whether we are training Eskimos and Indians in the far north. We are not endeavouring to give them military training, because in the nature of their living conditions they are fully occupied with survival. However, they are working very closely indeed with the armed forces in the north, and have been used extensively in transportation, construction, and the like. We have also borrowed to a great extent-from their knowledge of northern living conditions, the first thing that forces operating in the north must learn.
The hon. member suggested that we should emphasize winter training. I can assure him that that is being done more and more. At Wainwright, Shilo, Rivers, Churchill, Val-cartier and other places, both active and reserve force units are receiving winter training. To as large an extent as possible that is being supplemented by local training in week-end exercises carried out by units right


across Canada. More of that is being done than ever before, and certainly the experience of Exercise Sweetbriar was that only personnel who were highly trained in winter warfare can hope to operate efficiently in extremely cold weather.
I appreciate what the hon. gentleman said about the Princess Louise Hussars, which he said was one of the best units in Canada. I do not think it is desirable to contemplate making a reserve unit, which is carrying on so well, into a permanent force unit. I am sure the hon. member who is second in command would have something to say about that.
With regard to the remarks of the leader of the opposition last night, there are one or two corrections I should like to make. With regard to artillery practice, the hon. gentleman said that there was no firing practice, and he made reference to competitive firing. There are unit exercises; the units do go to camp as batteries, and there is competitive firing. The hon. gentleman is quite right in the impression he gathered that the Royal Canadian Artillery Association has not yet put up a cup for competitive battery firing. Reading the remarks of the hon. gentleman together, he is quite right, but there are unit exercises and competitive firing being carried on. We are putting emphasis less and less on battery competition and more and more on the work of the teams; but still competition is desirable, and I understand that battery competitions will be reinstituted this year.
The hon. gentleman referred to the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and on page 3396 of Hansard he is shown as having quoted the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. But those remarks should be supplemented by what the Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to say:
We do not yet know how It will affect the detailed responsibilities of any particular member of the alliance.
You will see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is referring not only to the position of Canada but to the position of the other eleven countries in the alliance. It is still too early to say how this principle of balanced forces will work. The minister went on to say:
As far as this government is concerned, in our defence policy we have already accepted this principle and have been trying to relate our policy to the defence of an area rather than merely to the defence of a country. We have been going on that principle and we will gladly do what we can to continue its application.
That was a point I made yesterday, and of course that is perfectly clear.

As reported on page 3396 of Hansard the leader of the opposition regretted, and I quote:
-we are not to be informed of any changes that are to be made in the organization of our defence forces in keeping with this ailocation of special tasks.
I cannot inform him of any changes, because no changes have yet been made, either here or in other countries. The principle has just been agreed to. What I say would equally be said by any of the defence ministers of any other country.
I quote further the remarks of the leader of the opposition as reported on page 3399:
I do earnestly hope that the minister will indicate there is some intention of examining our present structure so that there can be a reallocation of forces in keeping with the statement of the minister of external affairs only three days ago.
Our program and the progress we are making in connection with it is under constant review. That has been indicated before. Changes are made in the program as they may be considered necessary. Now that this principle has been agreed to, we shall of course co-operate loyally and frankly and completely with the other north Atlantic countries in causing the allocation of our forces, their nature and composition and equipment, to be examined, and we will accept for consideration the views of the other countries. There is no doubt about that. When I said yesterday that this principle would not cause any immediate change, by "immediate" I had in mind a change within the period covered by these estimates, namely, 1950-51. In the future it may result in change, or in many changes. It certainly will result in some, both in this country and in others. But in view of the nature of our role and of the forces we have, those changes are not likely to be of a drastic nature materially affecting anything that has been done in the past in the way of defence.
As I say, we have never considered our defence as a thing that is separate, as something to be undertaken by us separately; we have always considered it as part of total defence in a total war.
Just a further word in this connection. It must be evident to hon. members that the reason why we went into the North Atlantic treaty-indeed, we are one of the nations which first suggested it and strongly supported it-is that we felt it to be in our vital interest and in the vital interest of the freedom of all nations that this treaty should be formulated and supported. We mean to carry out to the full everything that is involved in our participation in that treaty, and from what we have seen we have every reason to believe
9, 1950	3411
Supply-National Defence that that is the view of the other eleven nations who are participating in it. We went into the treaty because of our national interest, and we will support the treaty because we have entered into it and because it is in our national interest to do so.
It was emphasized by the hon. member for Cape Breton South that this is a treaty for the defence of peace. Of course it is. That aim is out in the forefront of the desirable objectives to be attained by this means. I indicated before that the North Atlantic treaty organization has as its objectives to deter aggression, and if necessary to defend ourselves against aggression and to defeat the aggressor. It has been said repeatedly by other leaders in the North Atlantic treaty countries that they believe that this is possible. Did we not believe it to be possible, the future would indeed look dark. But it is our conviction that by working together along the lines that have been indicated we can achieve these results.
With regard to some of the specific questions asked by the leader of the opposition, there is certain information that is not available yet but I shall deal with some of the questions now.
The hon. gentleman said that he would like to have information as to the number of units in the active and reserve forces of the army, navy and air force, divided into the differennt types of units. As he must appreciate, there must be several hundred units in the active forces and well on to a thousand units in the reserve, with divisions into different types of units.
Then he asked for details of the equipment which they should have and what they actually have. There are two schedules of equipment, one for training equipment and the other for mobilization equipment. With regard to training equipment, I can tell him that all the reserve units have all the equipment they need. There are large reserves and pools of equipment for reserve unit training at the different commands across the country. If any unit can use additional equipment, it only needs to ask the local G.O.C. and the equipment will be made available. There is no shortage of reserve army equipment.
With regard to war equipment or mobilization stores, information as to this is contained in army form G1098. There is an equipment table for each type of unit in the armed forces. There are 400 different volumes like these, each one of them about the size of a small Eaton's catalogue, and of course they are secret. I do not know anything that the enemy would like to obtain more than the strength of trained personnel in each type of unit, so as to show our whole battle order, its effectiveness, and the establishment figures

Supply-National Defence for mobilization. There is a further reason why this is regarded as confidential, namely, that it would disclose information not only about our own establishment but also about the establishments of countries with which we are allied.
On the question of security I should add that often we would very much like to give information but we cannot do so because it is shared with other countries. There is also the fact that one of the things a prospective aggressor would like to find out is how accurate his own sources of information are, in order that he can check his own espionage and information services. Even though intrinsically the information may not be of great importance to a prospective aggressor, it is of great value in enabling him to verify the accuracy of his sources of information in respect of other matters.
I can give a figure as to equipment. Some time ago I asked for a statement showing the quantity of equipment it was estimated we would need during the first year of an emergency should it arise. For the army it totalled 171,381,981 different pieces of equipment. At that time we had in stores 119,336,386, which in numbers represents about two-thirds of the equipment needed for the first year of a war should it arise. I think that will give the hon. member substantially what he wants, in the way in which it can be made available.
The hon. member asked for the expenditure to be devoted to each branch of the services during the present year. As hon. members know, it is not the practice in this or in other countries to keep books by units. Equipment is not dealt with in dollar value per unit. It is dealt with on a physical issue basis. Army units are not accounting units in the sense of keeping books showing all costs in terms of dollars. Estimates in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom are not built up on a unit basis. To provide the hon. member with the information he wants would require the complete reconstruction of our accounting practice, and a complete review of every individual item that was issued or went to any unit. So that the information is simply not available.
The hon. member asked for similar figures with regard to headquarters, and the amount that is being asked for the maintenance thereof. The same answer applies. I have, however, obtained information which may be interesting particularly in view of the question put by the hon. member for Calgary East. He asked what progress was being made in reducing the proportion of the numbers in headquarters staffs to other units in


the armed forces. As at the 31st December, 1949, 9-1 per cent of the armed forces were in headquarters staff, and at other units 90-9 per cent. As at the 31st March, 1950, 8-7 per cent were at headquarters of all kinds and 91-3 per cent were with units, representing a trend in a desirable direction. In view of the nature of modern defence forces and the necessity for maintaining administrative and planning staffs to deal with very much larger forces should the need arise, I think the figures I have mentioned are not out of line. We will continue, however, to endeavour to put more and more personnel into operational units. Of course that is a very desirable objective.
In this connection I might mention two facts with regard to the navy, which will be of interest. I was asked to what degree the navy could be made fully operational in a short time. I think I can say to an exceedingly good degree at the present time, and that all ships in commission can be fully operational within a matter of hours rather than days. At the present time 41-5 per cent of the personnel of the navy are on commissioned ships, representing a very large proportion, much larger than any other navies with which we are familiar, and at least as much as we would want them to be.
We have made a similar comparison as to the air force, and we find that on the basis of man hours of flying per month the Royal Canadian Air Force compares favourably with other comparable air forces. At this stage of its development that seems to us to be as good a test as any.
I should say something as to a matter about which there has been some comment in the press resulting from the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I refer to the future role of the infantry. At page 3189 of Hansard for June 5 the Secretary of State for External Affairs had this to say:
This principle may come to mean . . .
Then I will omit certain words.
. . . and eventually, possibly, to the abandonment of the old concept of defence by great masses of conscripted infantry, the bulk of which would be reservists called up on the outbreak of war.
I have not had an opportunity to discuss this point with my colleague, because he has been away since I saw the statement. I have no doubt, however, from the language used, and from our common knowledge of the situation, that he has in mind possible developments, particularly on the continent of Europe, which might bring about that result. With the increased application of scientific techniques and increased1 mechanization, there would not be the same value in great masses of conscripted infantry, but I

should like to make it very plain that we in Canada do not envisage any considerable change in the role of infantry in the foreseeable future. I think it would be a great mistake for any such misconception to go out, because it might adversely affect people interested in the infantry, and recruiting for infantry reserve units. At the end of the second world war I believe experience showed that the infantry were just as important as they had ever been in the history of modern warfare, and probably more so. I believe that the trend of modern development in the immediate future will increase the importance of infantry, because there are developments coming in weapons and projectiles which will increase the defensive power of infantry against armour. So that while the concept of great masses of infantry may cease to be so prevalent, that does not reduce in any way whatever the great importance of the infantry soldier with his modern weapons-sixteen of them-in modern warfare. If he is fully trained and equipped with those weapons, then he may become the determining factor in the final stage of any such warfare.
Do not let what I have just said, however, in an endeavour to correct what may be a misapprehension, lead anyone to think I underestimate the importance of the other arms of the service or of the other services. They all have their roles, and they must all work together as a team. I must agree completely with the remarks of the leader of the opposition and others with regard to the role of the air force. Those remarks are completely in accord with the policy we have had. Certainly from the point of view of immediate activity in the event of an emergency, in a war as far away as we hope the centre of activities would be, the air force will play a big role. On that account we are putting the emphasis we are on the air force, as regards both organizing squadrons and equipment. At the same time it is much too early to say that that role can be played to the complete exclusion of anything else. As I say, defence is a team operation, and while we mean to support the idea of balanced collective forces between nations, the time when that is likely to produce major changes in the allocation of forces within Canada is not yet upon us. The matter is just receiving consideration at the international level, and while there will be changes in the foreseeable future which I shall be glad to discuss when they arise, they will be changes in the development of forces and the standardization of equipment, which will provide the partnership of the north Atlantic nations
Supply-National Defence with the power which is essential to the preservation of peace, or, if peace cannot be secured, the restoration of peace.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal immediately with one or two points that have been made by the Minister of National Defence because it seems to me they go to the root of the understanding of this problem with which we are dealing, the most important single departmental problem the government faces.
Referring to the discussion which took place last night about the competitive firing practice at artillery camps, the minister indicated that he has checked on the situation since then and has found that the view I expressed was substantially correct. But what disturbs me is that the answer he has now given is not correct. He states that there are exercises as units, and he says that there is competitive firing as units. Mr. Chairman, I say most emphatically that is not so.
The present plans call for no competitive firing by artillery units at Petawawa or the other artillery camp this year; nor do they have the opportunity for movement and training as units, which in itself is the basis of training for active service. I can only point this out, because unless we understand these things we do not understand what the state of training actually is, and what is being produced by the money that is being spent. As the minister has already indicated, the competitive firing that is done by the artillery is under competitions that are arranged by .the Canadian Artillery Association. None of that firing practice will be carried out this summer, unless there is a change between now and then, which seems unlikely, in view of the fact that the units will be starting to move into camp almost any day, and will continue to progressively move into camp at different times during the summer.
The procedure that is followed is that the artillery units send men from their own units. Those men are brought into training groups, and receive excellent training in special subjects. They do participate in firing; they do see the theory of firing explained and carried out in actual firing practice, but they do not operate as firing units. Artillery that does not operate as a firing unit is a long distance from being even near the point of readiness to prepare for active service conditions. That is true also of the infantry. At the infantry camp the infantry do not train as field units under field conditions. There again the members of those units are given excellent training in the details of infantry work. As a result of that training
3414	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence they will be able to go back and pass on that training to others with whom they will be associated in the training at the local armouries and elsewhere. There again, excellent though the training may be, the units are not getting that type of field training as units, with the use of their own fire power, in competitive contests. Such training is the basic qualification for obtaining real results.
As I believe the minister must know, the Canadian Artillery Association has indicated it intends to discuss this subject at its meeting in the last week of October, but that is for next year, not this year. So it is with the infantry. They are discussing this subject. Everyone recognizes the difficulties, but, in the name of common sense and in the name of preparation for real defence, let us not accept any explanation that is not in keeping with reality. If the minister was informed in accordance with the statement he made to the house this morning, I suggest that he ascertain exactly what training the artillery units will be receiving at Petawawa, Shilo and other artillery camps across the country, as well as what training the infantry will receive in the field, as units, under unit competitive circumstances.
Referring to the assumption of our obligations, the minister said that we mean !to carry out to the full everything that is involved in that treaty. I believe those are his exact words, or so close to them I feel he will accept them as a correct statement of the effect of the words he used. If the minister means just what he says, that we mean to carry out everything that is involved, then of course he means that it' is agreed this government will carry out what was described by the minister of external affairs as the new principle recognized by this recent London meeting. That principle is that if one nation can perform a particular task, then those nations which cannot do it so well will leave that task to be done by that particular nation. The minister of external affairs qualified that, in what was much the most important part of his statement, by saying that this principle carried with it the necessity of knowing that the nation which had that special type of equipment would use it. That of course must be obvious; because if one nation is to let another nation concentrate on fast land armoured forces and does not provide them themselves, they will then place themselves in a position of pitiful weakness and utter helplessness, unless their failure to supply those forces was compensated by the existence of forces immediately available and in a state of war readiness the moment the call came-not war readiness three months from now, or six months from now, but war readiness today.


One fact that should be in the mind of every member of this committee is that when we are discussing the figures before us now we are not in a position of war readiness with regard' to any part of those forces in any number that could be recognized as substantial fulfilment of the agreement that was entered into in London. We are not within six months, at a minimum, of being able to carry out our part. That fact applies not only to the fulfilment of our part in any joint enterprise overseas, but also to the fulfilment of our part within our own country to meet the type of force that we would be called upon to meet if that force were brought to our shores by air or by sea; but presumably the threat would be by air.
In discussing these matters let us not regard the statement of what the realities are as a challenge either to the quality of the forces we possess or the earnestness of the effort that they are making. We have in our forces men and women doing their utmost to bring those forces to the highest level of training efficiency possible. One of the tragic stories of the democracies in a considerable part of this century is the lulling of the people by the assurances that they are ready when that term "readiness" is taken to mean readiness by our standards, not by the standards of readiness of the enemy we are called upon to face. Do not let anyone today forget the reassuring statements that were made before this last war; and do not let anyone forget the knowledge of everyone who participated as to the time it actually took to bring our training to the state that we were assured it possessed in the months and years before this last war.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has pointed out, this situation calls for immediate action. We cannot hope to have time to build up behind the ramparts of the sacrifice of other people. We must be prepared to take our part the moment these forces are needed. It will be the knowledge that we can do that and that other nations can do it that will be the one assurance we can ever have of peace.
As to the question of the changes envisaged by the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, there was a statement carried by Canadian Press and extensively published throughout Canada, on June 6, the day after the Secretary of State for External Affairs made his statement. I think that the first four paragraphs of that reported statement are of value-and I am quoting in this case from the Montreal Gazette-because they indicate statements that were made here to the Canadian Press. When the Canadian Press says that officers of the Department of National Defence made those statements, I

accept their word for it-and I feel sure that the minister will accept their word for it- that such statements were made. I quote from this report as follows:
Atlantic pact arms developments in the next few years hold a strong possibility of working big changes in Canada's forces and in plans to send overseas a third expeditionary force mainly composed of infantry in any new war, informed quarters said today.
Within five years, they said, the use of massed infantry could easily be obsolete. Such military efforts as the tight, tough land battles in Italy and the D-day landings in Normandy would be ruled out by the violence of mass destruction weapons.
This trend is of obvious and vital importance in view of Russia's stress on land forces, her almost unlimited ability to reinforce them and her relative immaturity in the scientific and technical fields.
Then may I emphasize these words which I am now quoting, still from that Canadian Press report:
Defence officials here said scientific advances now are moving towards push-button warfare at a pace which has defence headquarters constantly examining plans and revamping them.
That is a statement by the Canadian Press, based, according to that report, upon the statements of officials of the Department of National Defence. When I spoke last night of the concern that must be felt that we have no statement as to what the new plans are in relation to the situation envisaged by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his statement last Monday, I referred to this very word "revamping". What I had hoped to hear, and what I think many other hon. members had hoped to hear, was a report on what revamping will be done and what rationalization will be done in accordance with the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to the effect that each nation is going to perform, as part of this great team of free nations, the military task which it can best perform. His statement, if it was not specific in that regard, implied that the masses of infantry would be found amongst the teeming millions on the European continent which are being armed by the United States so largely today; and that we at a greater distance would And and train the harder hitting, more compact, mobile fighting forces in the air and on the land which could be quickly transported to any threatened area. In the light of that statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the light of the situation disclosed, and in fact in the light of the difficulty that the minister has in dealing with individual problems, even with officials of the department in front of him-as indicated by the explanation given in regard to artillery training-I think we should' have the details before us.
Supply-National Defence
The Minister of National Defence says that his books contain the records of a thousand infantry units. Certainly they do. But that fact presents no difficulty. There is no difficulty in putting down in a statement that there are so many infantry units, divided into active and reserve, and that there are so many artillery units. That just takes one line. Then there is no difficulty in putting down whether there are one hundred or two hundred, or whatever the number may be, active and reserve; and under each of these, the personnel of establishment and the personnel actually training; then under other headings, the units of the air force, active and reserve; machines in their possession; machines called for by establishment. The same with the navy; the number of ships, the number of units active, the number of units reserve, and the equipment they have-that would not take any volumes of books as was suggested by the minister. It is the kind of information that is available with regard to other departments of infinitely less importance than this one.
Even with what he said today, I still hope that the minister will agree to prepare a statement showing in simple and graphic form, first of all, the division of our defence areas into five commands, the inclusion under those commands of the armoured units, the ordinary infantry divisions, and the component units of those divisions, and the allocation of men to those units, so that we may have in front of us, in simple, graphic and understandable form, exactly what it is we are dealing with. Then, to take the case of the active units, of what use is it to us to be told that there are 40,000 men, or whatever the number may be? What we need to know is how many of these are in headquarters, how many at command headquarters, how many in permanent tasks that are not part of the active force, how many in the active force ready to go into service if they are called upon to do that. The relationship between the number at headquarters here, at command headquarters, at the various points throughout the country where there are detachments of this kind in relation to the number actively training, will give us the kind of picture we need.
In dealing with these remarks at this point, and in dealing with what the minister said about the state of training of the artillery, I simply have risen, first, to point out to him again the information that I have received from what I am satisfied is an entirely reliable source in regard to this; and second, to urge him once again to give us information which involves no measure of secrecy, but will

Supply-National Defence make clear to us the structure that we want to understand when we are putting up this money.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make plain the position as to artillery training. It is as stated by the leader of the opposition, and I do not think that what I said at the outset was any different, except that he, having been the former president of the Canadian Artillery Association, attaches very great importance to battery competitive practice. No doubt his own battery and regiment won the competition. I think that is so. However, emphasis is not placed by my advisers on that type of training at the present time. The note on this which I got since I came into the house is I believe substantially correct, and is in accordance with what both the leader of the opposition and myself said. Reserve force artillery units go to camp as units. Training is conducted there either on a course basis or on a unit battery basis. Battery training is now on the increase, and it is expected that several units will be trained that way this summer. Royal Canadian Artillery Association has not yet reinstated the pre-war competitions, but is considering a similar program to be instituted shortly. Initially competitive shoots are likely to be on a troop basis.
The oral information I had when I came into the house was that it had been decided to institute competitive shoots this summer. Apparently it is still being considered. It is a matter outside the control of the department; it is within the control of the association. I think what the leader of the opposition said and what I said are substantially in accord and in accordance with the facts.
With regard to the assurance of readiness, we have been very careful, and I think accurate, in giving any assurances. Admitting that everything the leader of the opposition said is true, and a great deal of it is, then that is every reason for our pressing on with training and equipment with a view to making the active force as militarily operational as it is possible for it to be, and for the reserve forces to approach just as rapidly as possible the standards we want to have for the active force.


Mr. Green:: There are one or two thoughts I should like to place before the minister and the committee this morning. But before doing so may I say that I realize the difficulties of the minister's position and of his department. Probably no one in the house would have thought it possible two or three years ago that within less than five years of the end of the fighting Canada would be faced with the necessity of appropriating at least half a billion dollars in any one year for defence purposes. That necessity of course arises

because of the unfortunate trend world affairs have taken, a trend which has resulted in the world being divided into two blocs, the peoples of each bloc worrying about war and discussing appropriations for defence in their respective legislative chambers. It is a very sad situation, but of course it is a situation that Canadians must face.
I do not think it will be questioned that if there should be another war it will be fought on a world-wide basis, though primarily in the northern hemisphere; and that the two chief participants will be the United States and Russia. These are facts which are perfectly obvious to everyone.
I believe that because of the North Atlantic treaty, and the steps that are being taken under that treaty, Canadians do not have to worry as much as they formerly did about warfare in the north Atlantic area. I am hopeful that that is the situation. While it may take some time, there is little doubt that eventually the nations which have signed that treaty and set up the North Atlantic council will be able to build up exceedingly strong defence forces which it would be very risky for Russia to attack.
However, as a member representing a constituency on the west coast I am very much disturbed by the attitude of the Minister of National Defence with regard to the Pacific. Just a few minutes ago he referred to Canada as a country as far away from the centre of activity as we hope we will be in the event of another war. I hope he is right, but I think that statement was absolutely unrealistic in view of the situation around the shores of the Pacific ocean.
In dealing with the defence for Canada on the Pacific coast yesterday, the minister used these words, as found at page 3380 of Hansard:
It is obvious that we are in the fortunate position of being well to the east of lines of defence which include Japan and the islands to the south and the Hawaiian islands, and Alaska in the north. We are not in the same exposed position in the Pacific as we are in the Atlantic.
Once again I fervently hope that he is right, but I believe that statements of that kind by the Minister of National Defence of Canada are very unfortunate because they will have the effect of lulling the Canadian people into a false sense of security with regard to the position on the Pacific. Statements of this kind are unfair to the Canadian people. I know the minister did not intend to be unfair. I think his intentions were perfectly good, but, in the final analysis, statements of that kind are unfair unless there is absolutely no doubt about their accuracy. Personally I believe that never in her whole history has Canada been in as

dangerous a position as she is today in the event of war. We are vulnerable on the Atlantic; we are vulnerable across the Arctic, and we are vulnerable on the Pacific.
As I said a moment ago, the two nations most directly involved in a third world war would be Russia and the United States. It is only reasonable to expect that one of these nations, sooner or later, in order to win will have to get at the other one. Russia's main objective in any such war would be to get at the United States. She could not possibly win a third world war without attacking the United States; and whether she attacks across the north Atlantic, across the Arctic or across the north Pacific, she must cross Canadian territory. That means, just as surely as night follows day, that in the event of a third world war Canada will be in the position of Belgium in the first one.
It is the duty of the members of the House of Commons to make it perfectly clear to the Canadian people that this is so, in order that there can be no misunderstanding of what Canada's position will be. The minister has said that we are safe behind the United States line in Alaska. Well, on April 1, General Dwight Eisenhower, the famous American leader, had this to say with regard to Alaska:
Strengthening Alaska and its major airfields against surprise airborne attack, by a permanent force of well-trained and equipped ground troops and a radar screen to detect and warn against air forays.
He stated that as one of the three main defence programs that should be undertaken by the United States. Two weeks later, General Omar N. Bradley, chairman of the United States joint chiefs of staff said he believed that Alaska is the weakest link in the United States military defence. The article goes on to say:
He added Alaska air bases must not fall into enemy hands since they could be used as long range bomber bases for attacks against the U.S.
Earlier, on February 22, we find this heading from San Francisco:	"U.S. sets up air
defences on west coast". The article goes on to say:
Establishment of a civil air raid warning system for U.S. western states was announced Tuesday.
The system is expected to be in operation within weeks. It will extend east to the rockies.
Special telephone communications will be set up within the entire western area. Civilian centres will be warned in less than a minute should the defence centre receive word that air attack is imminent.
Modern weapons and long-range aircraft were cited as a reason for the warning system.
And then a dispatch from Los Gatos, California, dated April 7, states:
Atomic-powered submarines may lead [DOT] attacks which would turn U.S. coastal cities into world war
Supply-National Defence three Pearl harbors, Vice-Admiral Charles A. Lockwood predicted here Thursday.
Admiral Lockwood, retired wartime commander of the Pacific submarine fleet, warned that Russia "probably" has entered into a race with the U.S. to build the first "A-sub."
Admiral Lockwood predicted atomic-powered submarines would be "miracle warships" with an almost "unlimited" surface cruising range and capable of carrying atomic guided-missiles to U.S. shores completely undetected.
He pointed out that even the conventionally-powered Russian subs "can make a round-trip to the west coast, deliver guided missiles and return without refuelling."
This means of course that Russian submarines could stand off the Canadian coast and use guided missiles against our west coast Canadian cities, just as easily as they could against the American cities. These are some of the very serious possibilities we must face.
I have a statement from our own naval chief of staff, Vice Admiral Harold T. W. Grant. It was made in Victoria on April 28 of this year, and is reported in this way:
He reviewed the west coast defence picture and said it is becoming more important in view of the cold war and conditions in China. However, there were no plans to augment the Esquimalt-based fleet with ships from the east coast.
Then of course we had Exercise Sweetbriar, in the Yukon Territory and Alaska, which was based on the hypothesis that the Russians had taken Alaska. The exercise was to work out methods of stopping them in the vicinity of Whitehorse.
Yet I am afraid the situation is that Canadians, from the Minister of National Defence down, are still European-minded- or perhaps I should say Atlanticmninded. There is good reason why that should be our outlook as a people. We stem from European stock, and the first world war was essentially a European war. The last one was primarily European. Our thinking in regard to war naturally turns to the Atlantic and to Europe.
I remember so clearly the difficulty we had in the early months of 1942 in convincing the government that there was real danger on the Pacific coast. That was several months after the Japanese had struck at Pearl Harbor. On the coast we had practically no defences. It turned out later that we did not have as many aircraft on that coast as would have been carried by one Japanese aircraft carrier, and many of the aircraft we did have were very much out of date.
The Vancouver Sun took an active part in demanding that some steps be taken to defend the Pacific coast. Indeed, they took such an active part that they were dragged into police court by the defence department and fined because of some of the articles they had published. Members of the House of
3418	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence Commons from British Columbia also took a determined stand and went after the then minister of national defence pretty hard. At that time it was Hon. J. L. Ralston, who, incidentally, was one of Canada's greatest sons.
Those of us from British Columbia were much concerned about the situation. Our families and our people were out there, exposed to attack. The Americans had suffered at Pearl Harbor, and we knew there was no way of stopping the Japanese if they chose to invade the west coast. A day or two after I had attacked the defence department with considerable bitterness, the late Colonel Ralston called me out of the chamber, took me into room 16, and, in his friendly way, said, "Green, you are very much worried about the west coast. I can see that now. What is the trouble?" I tried to tell him, giving him my point of view. He said: "Well, you may be right; and if I could get one of my staff to agree with you I could do something about it. I'll tell you what we will do; we will go down and have a talk with the chief of staff. You can put up your side and he can put up his. I Shall just sit and listen; and we shall see what happens." Next day Colonel Ralston took me down to defence headquarters, where the late Lieutenant General Kenneth Stuart and I had a debate on the need for defending the Pacific coast. By the way, General Stuart was another great Canadian whose services to his country have never been fully appreciated. He gave his life for his country, just as did Colonel Ralston.
I think it would be most fitting that there should be placed in the halls of this building a statue of Colonel Ralston. He was a great battalion commander in the first war, commanding the 85th Nova Scotia Highlanders. His men loved him, and would follow him anywhere. During the second great war he served in a much less spectacular way by working here fifteen, eighteen and twenty hours a day doing a wonderful job. There is no doubt in my mind that his work during the second world war brought about his untimely death. I know of no Canadian more worthy of having a statue in his memory placed in the halls of this building than the late J. L. Ralston.
It was not long before the Japs took Kiska and to the south had a fleet on the way to invade either the Hawaiian islands or the west coast. Fortunately that fleet was defeated in the battle of Midway by the United States fleet air forces. Had it not been for that defeat, the west coast of Canada and the United States might well have been invaded. After taking Kiska the Japanese


started out to take Dutch Harbor, the next great United States base in Alaska. Fortunately they were turned back because the United States flyers flew out behind them and came in from the west, deceiving them into thinking there was a United States force behind them, and the Japanese turned back.
Canada then was inclined to be European-minded, and I am afraid that is still the situation. It would not be so bad if we were not so vulnerable on the north Pacific. Russia is a much tougher opponent in the Pacific than Japan ever could be, because Russia has Siberia. For years she has had a Siberian army able to carry on as an independent fighting force. That was the position in the recent war. The Russian Siberian forces were able to carry on, even though the European forces had been defeated.
Siberia reaches to within a few miles of Alaska. Russian airmen by the hundreds flew the route to Edmonton in order to take United States planes back to Siberia during the war. The Russians are accustomed to warfare in northern climates. There has been some discussion in this debate about the need of Canadians having training in Arctic fighting, and I think the defence department is realistic about that need. However, the Russians have been carrying on that type of training for years and are accustomed to fighting in cold weather. Added to Russia we now have China, with over 400 million people, the biggest reserve of manpower in the world today, and under the domination of Russia.
That is the situation we find in the Pacific area. Just the other day there was a dispatch in the Vancouver Sun dated May 31, just nine days ago. It is entitled, "Expansion in Asia Russia's main goal" and is from Warsaw by Daniel De Luce, Associated Press correspondent. The articles reads:
Some Poles within earshot of Moscow assert that this is the Russian planning for the next decade:
1.	Defensive consolidation in eastern Europe.
2.	Dynamic expansion of influence in Asia.
And again:
They say the Russians have more to fear than the western powers from a shooting scrape in Europe. It is Asia that's a soft touch, not the Rhine-with others to do the fighting, not the Soviet army.
They make this comparison of power:
American guns face Soviet frontiers in Germany and Austria. But where are they on the Asia mainland?
A hard-boiled communist is his own boss in Yugoslavia. Where is another like him in the Far East?
Marshall plan dollars continue to pour into western Europe, stronger industrially than ever in history. Where is the effective help for a weak Saigon or Bangkok or Rangoon?

The following is the substance of what I heard in Poland on a visa granted by the foreign ministry to encourage interest in a trade fair:
"You westerners don't see further than the end of your nose. You seem oblivious to the inner stresses and strains in our eastern bloc. You underestimate your strength in Europe. You are purblind to your weaknesses in Asia. Russia is winning there without having to fire a shot."
I have some suggestions to make to the minister with regard to the north Pacific. We should have there an air force ready to fight, with airfields adequately defended. There should be a coastal patrol able to deal with submarines. So far as I know there has never been any emphasis placed on Canada developing an air coastal patrol of that kind. It is essential for the defence of the cities, in fact for the defence of the whole west coast of Canada.
With regard to the army, I suggest that the permanent armoured brigade should be kept up to fighting strength and ready to strike at a moment's notice. That was the promise made to us in 1945 by the then minister of national defence; and I quote from page 1131 of Hansard of October 16, 1945, where the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is reported as having said:
This formation will be maintained as a trained field force, fully equipped, ready to meet whatever commitments may arise.
Such a force is essential for the defence of Canada's territory in the northern Pacific area.
I suggest also that there should be at least a division of the reserve army trained to the point where it could take the field in a short space of time. We older soldiers can think only in terms of divisions. It may be that we are out of date and that a division is not the proper unit under present conditions. In any event I believe there should be a substantial group in the reserve army told that they would be the first part of that reserve army to get into the fighting, and they should be trained and equipped accordingly.
This would be much on the basis of the selection of the first division in the recent war. In British Columbia there was only one regiment taken into the first division, the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, a regiment of which we are justly very proud. There were other excellent regiments in British Columbia, but the Seaforths were picked,
I believe, well in advance of the fighting, as the regiment from British Columbia to go with the first division.
In depending on the reserve army as a whole-we were told in 1946 it would be six divisions-to back up the permanent brigade, we are not being realistic. We should have some designated force prepared to take the
Supply-National Defence field within a very short period of time if trouble comes. Incidentally it would be interesting to know how long the minister thinks it would take for Canada to field a division or similar body of men under present conditions.
With regard to the navy, I submit that there must be an adequate number of ships on the Pacific coast to deal with submarines, and that steps should be taken to protect our harbours. Now is the time to make the arrangements necessary for the protection of the harbours on the Pacific coast. I forgot one suggestion about the army which I had intended to make. There should be an expansion of the Canadian militia rangers. I do not think the minister has mentioned them so far in the debate. As hon. members know, there was set up during the last war on the west coast a body known as the Pacific coast militia rangers. They were not very popular with the army staffs, because they were woodsmen and men accustomed to the sea, first-class outdoor men, but they were not of the disciplined type. It took quite a while for the army staff to get the idea that this force might be of some help if the Japanese invaded the west coast. The morale of the force was excellent. I have never seen anything finer since the days of the Canadian corps in the first war. They were in all the hamlets up and down the west coast and right into the interior. They were very proud of the part they were playing, and if there had been an invasion they would have been of inestimable value to Canada.
Eventually arrangements were made to carry on an establishment of that type in peacetime. I do not know what the strength is at the present time, but I think the Department of National Defence might well consider expanding that force and setting up units not only in British Columbia but also in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. They would be excellent leaders in any guerrilla type of warfare.
I believe also that steps should be taken on the west coast without delay to set up a civil defence system. I read to the committee an extract indicating that the United States have been doing that since early this year, and I believe a beginning should be made as quickly as possible on the west coast of Canada.
Looking a little further afield in the Pacific area, I believe Canada has so much to gain, and nothing to lose, from a Pacific defence pact that no time should be lost in bringing it about. The people on the Pacific coast will suffer most if there is another world war. If there is trouble we are going to need help
3420	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence badly from all our friends on the shores of the Pacific. I am afraid that Canada hangs back too much on this question of a Pacific defence pact. Yesterday I saw a dispatch from Canberra, Australia, in the Ottawa Journal indicating that Australia would join the United States in a Pacific pact. The article reads:
Percy Spender, external affairs minister, said today Australia is ready to join the United States in a Pacific defence pact even if no other countries go along.
If there should be trouble, Canada will need the help of Australia, New Zealand, and other Pacific countries. Our two sister nations are not members of the North Atlantic council. They were not asked to sign the treaty, and there should be the same kind of arrangement for the Pacific.
Another sign which makes me wonder whether the Canadian government is being realistic about the Pacific is the delay in getting a statement about southeast Asia from the Minister of Fisheries who has just returned from Australia. I do not blame him. He made statements when he was in Sydney indicating what he was going to recommend to the Canadian government. It was stated that Canada would likely be making some contribution to help the countries of southeast Asia. On different occasions we have asked for a statement, but there has been delay. Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries said he would have to wait until the estimates of external affairs were under consideration. I hope the difficulty is not that he has met opposition in the cabinet, that there are some members of the cabinet who are taking the position that no help is needed, and that Canada need not become involved in that area.
From what the Minister of Fisheries has said I am convinced that he is in favour of Canada taking action. The same applies to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because one need only read his speech made earlier in the session, reporting on his trip to the Pacific, to be reassured with regard to his attitude. I urge the Minister of National Defence as strongly as I possibly can that he support these two ministers in cabinet council in urging that Canada announce quickly what she is going to do to help those countries which are trying to stand off communism. I urge him that he see to it that there is an estimate put through the house before the end of the session. If that is not done I do not see how it will be possible to give a great deal of help. I am sure that members of the house would approve such an estimate, but I am worried about the delay. I am afraid that time is of vital importance in the Pacific; that the sands are running out against


us in the Pacific area, and that in the event of trouble Canada will be the nation to suffer most.
As I said in opening, these suggestions are placed before the minister with a pretty clear realization of the difficulties he and the Department of National Defence are facing so soon after they have been through the second world war. Nevertheless that is the position. They, the members of the house and the Canadian people can only meet these sobering problems with courage. I am sure that will be the attitude of the Canadian people as a whole.


Brooke Claxton: I should like to say that I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I know he wants to ,be fair, and I should like to assure him that I never said and did not wish to imply that I thought the Pacific coast was safe in the sense that he has ascribed that to me.


Howard Charles Green: I quoted exactly what the minister said yesterday.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. gentleman also said that I had said it was safe, and I did not say that. I was referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops, who had compared the forces on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. I referred to the two situations very briefly, but I would not like the impression to go out that we do not have regard to the Pacific situation and its needs, which the hon. member has expressed so well.
As to the Canadian rangers, we have twenty-one companies organized. I have seen the locations of the various groups of of men, and I can assure the hon. member they cover every place in the north all the way up to the extreme Arctic as well as in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and northwestern Ontario where there is more than a handful of people.


Howard Charles Green: How many did the minister say?


Brooke Claxton: Twenty-one companies.


Howard Charles Green: During the war there were far more than that in British Columbia alone.


Brooke Claxton: Now they are in larger groupings.	.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. Fraser:: Will the minister inform me how the Royal Canadian Air Force calculates the charges made to another department for the special use of a plane? What is the cost per mile for the use of a North Star non-pressurized plane?


Brooke Claxton: The amount charged includes the cost of the oil and gasoline, and what are called running spares. The cost of the oil and gasoline is the actual cost averaged, and the cost of running spares is the actual cost averaged. I would have to get the information as to the charge per mile. I believe it is calculated by the hours flown, and not per mile. I rather think we have that information here.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to have that
information, because of an. answer given in the external affairs committee referring to the charge to the external affairs department for a special plane. The R.C.A.F. absorbed half the cost because they felt it was a flight that might help them in the future, and charged the other half to external affairs. I wondered how they calculated the total cost as $16,000 for the Colombo flight, because that is less than a dollar a mile.


Brooke Claxton: I shall have to get that information for the hon. member.


Mr. McLure:: I should like to ask the
minister a further question with regard to one I asked him yesterday, to see if I can get more definite information. My question related to the bombing range off the north shore of Prince Edward Island. The reply I received appears at page 3390 of Hansard, and is as follows:
As to bombing range, we are working with the Department of Fisheries and the people on the spot to try to secure an area which will be adequate for bombing and firing practice, and which will not destroy the best fishing territory off the maritime provinces.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Will it be within the three-mile
limit or without the fourteen-mile limit?
It is the latter question to which I should like to have an answer. I believe the fishermen in that locality deserve some assurance on this point. If the Department of Fisheries is not able to give the minister full information about the territory, I am his humble servant and shall be glad to give all the details. I hope to have some assurance from the Minister of National Defence to give the people.


Brooke Claxton: Since the hon. member raised this question yesterday I have been informed that the Department of Fisheries and the Department of National Defence have completed discussions. A bombing range area has been picked out as suitable for use should the need arise for it. It is not proposed to proceed further with it at this time. I can assure the hon. member that the fishermen, and the fish, are both safe in that area at the moment.


Mr. Higgins:: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions concerning an item which
Supply-National Defence appeared in the Montreal Gazette this morning, datelined Washington, concerning the United States bases and an expenditure of approximately $6 million. The part of the item to which I refer reads as follows:
The navy was allotted $3,193,000 to construct permanent communications facilities, family quarters and utilities at Argentia, Newfoundland.
The air force got $3,050,000 for fuel storage and refining facilities at Goose Bay airport, Labrador.
In that connection I refer the minister to the exchange of notes in 1944 between Canada and the United States. Paragraph 4 of the Canadian government note reads as follows:
It was subsequently agreed between the two governments that, in addition, the Canadian government should assume the cost of permanent air installations elsewhere in Canada and at Goose Bay (Labrador) built by or on the account of the United States government, the cost of the telephone line from Edmonton to the Alaska boundary-
Well, that does not come into the picture. The agreement reached is contained in paragraph 6, which reads as follows:
It is my understanding that the following has been agreed as a result of these discussions. The Canadian government will pay to the United States government the following amounts in United States dollars for construction carried out by the United States government:-
In that list we find the airfield at Goose Bay, Labrador, at a cost of $543,000. Then in paragraph 8:
The costs incurred by the Canadian government on United States government account which the Canadian government will assume pursuant to the decisions reached are as follows:
. . . Airfield at Goose Bay, Labrador, $9,950,000.
On that basis what will the situation be at Goose Bay?-because this would almost suggest something of a permanent installation that the United States government are building. Can the minister enlarge on that, or is it the proper place to ask it? Can he tell the committee something about it?


Brooke Claxton: The United States air force has asked permission from us, and we have given it, to provide for some permanent construction at Goose Bay on the Canadian base. I have no means of knowing, without inquiring from Washington, what is covered by the $6 million to which the hon. member refers. I can make inquiries, and no doubt our American, friends, as a matter of courtesy, will give us the information.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The paper says there is $3,050,000 for fuel storage and refining facilities at Goose Bay airport, Labrador. The other item is for Argentia, on the naval base. Would that be of any assistance?


Brooke Claxton: With regard to fuel storage and refining facilities, at Goose Bay the arrangement is now that we provide the fuel storage facilities for our own Canadian air

Supply-National Defence force and also for the use of naval aircraft that may use the base, on a repayment basis; and the United States air force provides its own fuel. This is to cover the cost of tanks, and, I suppose, of the ultimate refining of it, in effect filtering, certainly not a large-scale commercial refinery.


Gordon Francis Higgins: This would look like an abrogation of the notes exchanged in 1944. These appear to be permanent installations at Goose Bay; I do not know.


Brooke Claxton: We are not making any arrangement with the United States with regard to their having permanent rights in Canadian territory. But we have indicated to them, in consideration of various concessions that they may make to us, that at Goose Bay they can put up permanent or semi-permanent constructions on parts of the base we will make available to them under a limited-term lease.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I have just three questions more, and then I shall be through. What is the present condition of the negotiations with respect to the base? What is the position with respect to command in the event of war? Does the Canadian officer in command still take over? Do the United States still have the right to take any land in Newfoundland they may deem necessary in the event of war?


Brooke Claxton: The state of the negotiations is that in consequence of the matter having been dealt with between representatives of the governments and by the permanent joint board on defence, the basis for an understanding has been arrived at. But that has been reported for consideration by each government by its section in the permanent joint board, and that consideration is being given now. I believe it is likely to produce an agreement; but I am not in a position to say yet that an agreement has been made or what its terms are. The negotiations have been conducted in a most friendly and cooperative way, and we look forward to being able to make at an early date an announcement which I hope will be acceptable to everyone.
There is no understanding with regard to command in the area. The ordinary rule would be that in Canadian territory a Canadian officer would be in command. In the event of an emergency, however, or in anticipation of an emergency, we would certainly work with the United States to ensure that the best possible method of dealing with the situation was followed by both countries. For example, with regard to air operations which involved major forces of the United States and included territory outside


Canada, it is possible that in the sector concerned we might agree to an American commander being in, charge; but that would have to be in consequence of our agreement. It is interesting to note that, in connection with Exercise Sweetbriar, we agreed to there being an American officer in command, Lieutenant General Chamberlin. The American forces and the Canadian forces were roughly equal, but the operation was planned to conclude in Alaska, which was its object. That arrangement worked out very well indeed. Canadian and American officers worked together, at every level, so that sometimes you would have Canadians in command of Americans and vice versa. There was no difficulty at all. That was one of the valuable experiences of the exercise.
With regard to the American right to occupy or take any land outside the leased base area, that is one of the matters which is under negotiation.


Mr. Blackmore:: If I might, Mr. Chairman,
I should like to discuss with the minister for a while the question of military morale. In the course of the discussion I might depart considerably from orthodox methods of carrying on debate in the House of Commons, but under the circumstances I believe that what I shall endeavour to do will be justified.
I believe that all hon. members will agree that in order for a nation to fight effectively, it has to have faith: faith in itself, faith in its cause, and faith in its country's future. What I have to say pertains to the development of faith in our people. We are living in an age in which men, in many cases, are losing faith. A large number of the people with whom I speak find themselves bewildered and disheartened. If I might contribute to some extent to the rejuvenation of some of their courage I would consider it worth while, and I believe that you, Mr. Chairman, would also consider it worth while.
We hear a good deal of discussion about where the next war is going to be fought. We had a measure of attention given to that matter this morning. Many hon. members, justifiably I believe, are gloomily forecasting that in all probability Canada will be the cockpit of the next war; in other words, that Canada will be the Belgium of world war III.
It is difficult, Mr. Chairman, to say whether or not the war which we fear is about to come on us is going to be the last great war referred to in scripture.
They tell me that years ago the bible used to be quoted often in the House of Commons, although I have rarely heard it quoted since I came here fourteen and a half years ago. Maybe it is about time we quoted it again. Suppose we turn to the bible and see what

the bible says is going to be the location of the next great war, granted that that war is the winding-up war, or the final one, which it may be. May I direct the attention of hon. members to Ezekiel, chapter 38, verse 21, in which we find these words:
And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord God: every man's sword shall be against his brother.
The "him" to which reference is made, as those who have read Ezekiel 38 will realize immediately, is Gog, which most people take to be Russia of today. The meaning of this passage, taken with the rest of Ezekiel 38, would be that the last great battle will be in Palestine, centred around Jerusalem. Hon. members who desire to read into the matter to some extent can read Ezekiel 38 and 39, and also Zechariah 12 and 14, where they will find considerable evidence in support of what I am saying.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members and of the minister to the words which occur last: "Every man's sword shall be against his brother." I am not quite sure whether that refers to civil war or not, but I am rather afraid it does. Civil war would be the natural result of the communist propaganda which is being circulated so industriously all through our country, and against which many hon, members, including the leader of the opposition, have declaimed during the last year or so.
What can we do to offset this evil propaganda and give our people generally faith? I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Royal brought to the attention of the minister his recent action in abolishing "Rule Britannia" from the Royal Canadian Navy ships. The hon. member for Royal did the house and the country a service when he said that there was great unhappiness throughout the country today by reason of that action. He spoke in completely moderate terms. Except for just a few people of a certain particular class, I have not met a person who is not saddened because of the ministers' action-not a person.
People will say: "That is a foolish thing; that is funny; why is that?" The important thing is that people do feel unhappy about it. I should like to discuss this question briefly and in a perfectly friendly and mild way. Although the hon. member for Royal raised it the minister overlooked it when he came to make his answers. This matter is one which I believe requires earnest and calm discussion. It is not altogether a matter of sentiment. It is a matter of both sentiment and sense.
I wonder why the minister could not have merely authorized the use of "O Canada" on
Supply-National Defence the ships, so that they could have gone on with the playing of "Rule Britannia" and "O Canada" just as we have our carillon player here play "O Canada" and "God save the King". I do not see why in this way the minister's purpose might not have been accomplished quite as well.
I have been casting about ever since the announcement, wondering what it was that caused the minister to do that thing. Does he feel that the Royal Canadian Navy failed to do the best that it was capable of doing in the last war? Does he feel that it lacked morale, and something like the abolition of "Rule Britannia" would help to restore that morale and bring the navy up to the peak of achievement which the minister desires? I wonder whether that was in his mind. I wonder what he felt might be achieved by abolishing "Rule Britannia."
The minister must have known that in making that change he would certainly give comfort to our enemies. Has the minister taken time to consider what the effect on a certain man named Joseph Stalin would be of the announcement that Canada had abolished "Rule Britannia" from her ships of the Royal Canadian Navy?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: This is not an occasion for levity. I am just about as intelligent as the hon. members who are scoffing at this matter, and I think you will find that I am just about as well informed, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Granted.


John Horne Blackmore: I think you would be surprised at the rejoicing that went on in the camps of the communists when that occurred. I am afraid the minister would feel shocked on learning that he was playing into the hands of the communists in making that move.
There are several international forces that have been seeking the destruction of the British commonwealth for centuries, three of them at least. I am not going to name them. My judgment is that in the ranks of every single one of these three organizations there was nothing but rejoicing on the announcement that Canada had abolished the tune "Rule Britannia" from her ships. This is a matter which requires careful consideration.
I should like to ask what any one of these international forces has ever done for us that would make us want to kowtow to them, or play into their hands, or seek favours from them. They have done nothing

Supply-National Defence but seek our destruction over hundreds of years. Anyone who is well informed knows that.
On the other hand, what did the move do to our friends? Did it give any comfort to them? Before I read what I am going to read I wish to throw out some protection, because I am going to read from the remarks of Churchill. Five years ago we hung upon every word of Churchill. He was standing between us and destruction. Well, he has not lost any of his intelligence and judgment since that time.
An. hon. Member: Just an election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two elections.


John Horne Blackmore: On May 22, when in Worcester, England, he received the freedom of that city, Reuters carried the following report:
Winston Churchill, receiving the freedom of Worcester city, Saturday publicly expressed his distress that "Rule Britannia" had been abolished in the Royal Canadian Navy. The Conservative party leader said:	"It was with a bitter pang that I read
in a newspaper that the Canadian navy had abolished 'Rule Britannia' as the tune to be sung on Canadian ships.
It seems to be a very great pity to sever links with the past so full of lustre as that expressed by the words 'Rule Britannia'."
There be those, and I have heard some say it, who say: "Well, it was none of his business whatsoever to interfere in Canadian affairs." I submit that he was not interfering in Canadian affairs. He was just indicating his own feelings to his own people. It was an involuntary cry of pain from Britain-Britain, always our surest guard, our surest recourse in time of danger, ever since we first began to be.
Men in our time are likely to underestimate the importance of spiritual values. We are engaged in a desperate struggle between belief and non-belief, between belief in God and atheism.
Atheism suggests communism. We have had a number of members rise in this house and cry out against communism. May I suggest that one of the ways to offset communism is to teach people to believe in God. I have never heard anyone suggest in the house up to the present time that that ought to be done. I suggest that it is time that we did it.
Internationalism tends to atheism. There will be those who believe in internationalism who will be shocked by that remark. As evidence that internationalism tends to atheism, I suggest that you read the records pertaining to the San Francisco conference; read the whole United Nations documents;


read the accounts of Bretton Woods, Dumbarton Oaks; read the accounts of all the trade conferences; read the accounts of the Atlantic pact. Do you find any reference in them to God? After reading these documents you would think that we had managed to divorce God from the universe.
You rarely hear anyone in our house refer to God when he rises to speak. If I may say so without casting any reflection on hon. members, I would ask how many of them seem to consider it worth while to come in here and listen to the beautiful prayer which is offered by the Speaker every day, calling for the assistance of Almighty God to be with us in our endeavours to cope with our problems. I will not say anything about it; I will just let hon. members come in and count them for themselves a week or two and see just what the situation is. I do not think it indicates very much attention to the important factor of God in our affairs.
I am not a colonialist; I am not an imperialist; I am merely one who desires to preserve the precious heritage of our British people's past-and no people in the world today has anything like as glorious a past as have the British people.
May I read "Rule Britannia," which was abolished from our navy. As I read these words hon. members and the minister himself can say whether they are glad that we turned our backs on these sentiments.


An hon. Member:: Sing it.


John Horne Blackmore: When Britain first, at Heav'n's command.
Arose from out the azure main,
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang the strain:
"Rule, Britannia, rule the waves;
For Britons never shall be slaves."
Well, does it offend the minister or anyone in the navy or in the army to have the origin of our nation attributed to the divine, to heaven's command? Does it offend any of them to know that guardian angels are taking care of the land and looking over us and our affairs? Does it offend any of them to think that we are aiming at freedom and that Britons never shall be slaves?
Then let us take the second stanza:
The nations, not so bless'd as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish, great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
Does it offend the minister to think that Britain shall flourish great and free, and with her the British commonwealth? Does it offend him to think that Britain shall be the dread and envy of them all? I wonder

if the minister would not be rather pleased, as well as other members in the house, if at the present time the British empire were standing as the dread and envy of Stalin? It would save us plenty of anxiety and headaches just now if she were so standing. And she could have been, if there had been just a little more wisdom used after world war I, and if so many people, ourselves included, had not been so ready to defer to the United States in international affairs. Still more majestic shalt thou rise.
More dreadful from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that rends the sky Serves but to root thy native oak.
Does it offend any member in the defence department or in the naval organization to think that Britain might actually become stronger from every stroke that she sustains? And the last verse:
The Muses, still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! with matchless beauty crown'd.
And manly hearts to guard the fair.
Surely there is no reason why the minister should be sorry that freedom goes back to Britain. I do believe that if we look the world over today and endeavour to find that land in which freedom is freest, we shall find that condition existing in Britain.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that as that hymn stands there now, that hymn "Rule Britannia," every time men of the navy, men of the army or people of the country play it or sing it, it constitutes a challenge to communism, a challenge to every manifestation of the antiChrist in our day. It is a challenge to all atheistic forces.
I have not found anyone yet who, for any reason, is able to refute what I have said.
Let us examine the meanings of "Britain", "British", and "Britannia". We have been for forty years the victims of skilfully concocted and subtly disseminated propaganda which has sought to weaken the attachment of our people to Britain.
Let us examine these words:
What does "Britain" mean? "Britain" means "covenant land". What does "British" mean? It means a covenant man. What does "Britannia" mean? "Britannia" is the personification of what Britain stands for throughout the world and throughout the British commonwealth.
Why may Britain be called the land of the covenant? Why are British covenant men? Just by way of a simple illustration, let us turn to the lion and the unicorn in our coat of arms. Where do v/e get the lion and the unicorn? They came down out of the past, a past that is very remote-indeed so remote that we have no record whatsoever of the
Supply-National Defence ultimate origin of the lion and the unicorn in our emblems. Yet there they stand, fighting for the crown, part of the emblems, part of the coat of arms of each and every British nation in the world.
What do they stand for? Well, the lion stands for Judah. The unicorn stands for Joseph or for Ephraim. Judah and Joseph were the two leading tribes among the children of Jacob, who became the children of Israel.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: These two emblems take us right back to the 48th and 49th chapters of Genesis. They go back to the whole of the Old Testament. As they stand in our coat of arms they represent to us the Old Testament, the sacred bible, the word of God.
May I read into Hansard some pertinent passages from the bible. I direct the attention of hon. members to Genesis 12/3, where the Lord speaks to Abraham and makes a remarkable covenant with Abraham. There is where the covenant which gives Britain its name apparently originated. This is the verse:
And I will bless them that bless thee,-
And this is God speaking to Abraham.
-and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
If we are descendants of Abraham-and we are; every person in this House of Commons at the present time I believe is a descendant of Abraham-then, there is the beginning of the covenant that makes us covenant men.
Now may I turn to Genesis, chapter 49, verses 22 to 26. Here Jacob, before dying, is blessing his son Joseph. We read:
22.	Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall:
23.	The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him:
24.	But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone is Israel:)
25.	Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb;
26.	The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.
There is scarcely a member in the house today who is not a descendant of Joseph. In other words here is a blessing which pertains to us, to our race, to our nation, French speaking and English speaking.
3426	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
I turn now to Genesis, chapter 48, verses 14 to 20, which read:
And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.
And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.
And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.
And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.
And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.
I venture to say that there is hardly an hon. member of this house who is not a descendant of Ephraim. In other words, this nation of ours, this Canada, is young Ephraim. But what does it mean? First of all, may I point out that in the verses which I read a promise is made to Ephraim that he shall become a multitude of nations. Will hon. members tell me where in all the world's history there is anything which comes so near to fulfilling that prophecy, that his seed shall become a multitude of nations, as does the British commonwealth of nations? Yet there are people in this country, and apparently in the minister's department, who would destroy that wonderful fulfilment of the promise given to Ephraim.
I think I shall take a few minutes to show something of what it means to us that the British commonwealth is Ephraim. I turn to Jeremiah, chapter 31, verse 9, where the Lord speaking, says:
They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them; I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble; for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
In other words those Ephraimite people who constitute the British commonwealth of nations are the firstborn, the Lord's especially chosen people. In abolishing "Rule Britannia" I wonder if it was intended that we should turn our back on all these wonderful blessings, which the Lord, in the passage of Jeremiah which I have just read, implied for us? Those who want some source of comfort for the days that are to come should


gather a great deal from that passage. I should like now to quote Jeremiah 51, verses 19 to 21 as follows:
The portion of Jacob is not like them; for he is the former of all things: and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: the Lord of hosts is his name.
Thou art my battle axe and weapons of war: for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms;
And with thee will I break in pieces the horse and his rider; and with thee will I break in pieces the chariot and his rider;
There is a remarkable promise. We have seen abundant evidence of its fulfilment in world war I, in world war II and in the wars of the nineteenth century. Why are we not trusting the Lord in the times yet to come? Why should we abolish the hymn "Rule Britannia"?
I turn now to one more passage of scripture. Jeremiah 30, verse 11, reads:
For I am with thee, saith the Lord, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.
Tell me where there is a nation on the face of this earth that has a finer promise than that. That promise is made to the British people concerning whom "Rule Britannia" was written. Do we want to participate in that promise? I think we do.
May I turn briefly now to some recent British history? Everyone will recall that the Israelites went out of the land of Egypt into the land of Palestine. They remained there for some time and finally they took Saul as their king. They went on to develop under Saul and David and Solomon. After Solomon there was a rebellion, as the result of which Israel was divided into, two kingdoms. The first, consisting of ten tribes, was in the north; the second, consisting of two tribes, was in the south. The tribes in the north took the name of Israel or Ephraim because that was the name of their chief tribe; those in the south took the name of Judah as Judah was their chief tribe.
In 721 B.C. the northern kingdom was carried away into Assyrian captivity, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh being among them. Later these tribes went away into the north and became the Lost Tribes. Ephraimites and Manassehites in considerable numbers found their way into Britain and Britain grew from them. Probably there will be those who will not accept that story, but I think the evidence upon which it is based is dependable. I would be glad to talk it over personally with anyone who is interested. Thus we have a summary of the history of the British. Several times we have had people agitate in this house for the abolition of the union jack from our flag.

Let us see what these people want to abolish from our flag. I should like to go briefly into the scientific background of the whole subject of the union jack so that we shall be able to see that those who cling to old British traditions are not mere sentimentalists.
What is the meaning of the union jack? Well, the expression "union jack" means the union of Jacob, it means Jacob's flag, the flag which would be flown by the Israelites, by the descendants of Jacob.
What does the union jack consist of? It is made up of three Christian crosses. Many of our French Canadian compatriots, for whom I have the highest degree of admiration, have risen in their places in this house and asked that the union jack be eliminated from our flag. In doing that they are asking that these three Christian crosses be eliminated from our flag. This is the only flag on the face of the earth that is made up entirely of Christian crosses. It is the most Christian flag on the face of the earth. There is no gainsaying that statement. The next time they want to abolish the union jack from the flag of Canada it would be well for them to remember that fact, and also some of the things I am going to suggest to them.
There is a fine scientific treatment of this whole matter to be found in a book entitled "Tracing our Ancestors" by Frederick Haber-man which was copyrighted in the United States in 1934. The book is published by the Kingdom Press of St. Petersburg, Florida, U.S.A. Here is a passage taken from the frontispiece:	.
Ancient pattern for the Union Jack and the Star Spangled Banner.
The Topez of the Sachi:
A rock carving near Bhopal in India of the 4th century B.C.
Taken from Roberts "British History Traced." (See Chapter XI.)
These words are taken from under the picture on the frontispiece of the book. Some hon. members will be astounded to know that in Bhopal, India, there is a big stone, upon which are carved drapes of the union jack and the stars and stripes, the date of the stone being 450 years before Christ. At the bottom of the picture is the unicorn and the lion!
A good many members will find it bard to believe that our history goes back as far as that. The information is taken from Roberts' "British History Traced", chapter 11, according to Mr. Haberman.
The book "Tracing our Ancestors" is respectfully dedicated to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in these words:
In the hope that it will help him in guiding our nation through this period of chaos and transi-55946-217
Supply-National Defence
tion-by explaining the true origin of our race, our mission, and our destiny.
Anyone who desires to be much enlightened on all matters pertaining to Great Britain will do well to read this great work, "Tracing our Ancestors", several times and also to read "Israel-Britain" by Adam Rutherford 1939. May we turn to certain aspects of the union jack? First of all take the transverse cross of St. Andrew of Scotland. This flag, when it stood alone, consisted of a white cross on a blue background with the transverse cross shaped like an X. Where did it come from? What is this transverse cross that the Scottish people loved so dearly? At page 46 "Tracing our Ancestors" has this to say:
It is by means of this battle axe or hammer that Thor, a Gothic deity spoken of also as Indiri the Divine, overcame his enemies and the devil. Thor's hammer is shown to be composed of four bolts and reference to those bolts is also made in the Indian Vedas, where we read:
With thy Spiky Weapon, thy deadly Bolt,
O Indra, thou smotest the Dragon in the face.
Much information concerning this whole matter is given in Professor Waddell's fine book, "Aryan Origin of the Alphabet". Professor Waddell further shows that the name of St. Andrew, the patron saint of the Goths and the Scots, is derived from the word Indra or Indara. Thus the story of St. Andrew and his typical X-shaped cross or weapon is simply a legendary form of the story of Jehovah. In other words, the white cross on the union jack against a blue background is the emblem of Jehovah himself. That white cross represents the weapon with which he beat the dragon. It is one of the crosses composing the union jack!
St. George's red cross, the upright cross representing the cross on which Christ was crucified, also has a most interesting history which I am not going to go into in detail. My object now is not to be exhaustive but merely to give enough detail to suggest that there is some sense behind the attitude of many of us towards Great Britain and the union jack. It is not all sentimentality. The stories of St. George's cross and St. Patrick's cross are just as interesting, just as impressive and just as faith inspiring as is that of St. Andrew's cross. All three are combined in the union jack.
Let us contrast the union jack with the hammer and sickle. Ranged on the side of Great Britain you are ranged against such a mundane emblem as the hammer and sickle which stand for materialism pure and simple. Those people who are so active in their efforts to design a new flag for Canada should take their new designs and contrast them with the union jack with all it signifies over thousands of years of history. Contrast the union jack as an emblem under which to fight, under
3428	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence which to live, under which to die and under which to lie in your grave, with any other flag on earth today, or any other flag you can conceive! You will not find any other flag to compare with the union jack.
"Rule Britannia" recalls the British flag, the union jack. In abolishing it we are turning our backs on the union jack, not of course overtly but by implication.
Great Britain has always been the champion of freedom. Parliament originated in Britain. In 1215 the British fought and won Magna Carta from King John. We have plenty of trouble right now maintaining the rights that were guaranteed under Magna Carta. We bring in a wide variety of high sounding recommendations about human rights, fundamental freedoms and all the rest of it. They won habeas corpus and trial by jury in 1215. Since that time Britons have insisted that they enjoy those rights. "Rule Britannia" recalls the great achievements for freedom made by Great Britain. The very words "Britons never shall be slaves" emphasize that.
"Rule Britannia" suggests Britain's future. We do not know what it will be except from what the prophets say. We have already established the fact that the British are Israelites and Ephraimites. The quotation I have given from scripture indicates what the Lord is going to do with them. He says, "Though I make a full end of all nations, whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee".


The Chairman:: The hon. member has now spoken for forty minutes. Has the hon. member leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Adamson:: I was hoping that the hon.
member could continue. I was very interested in what he had to say about a Canadian naval song because it is apropos of what happened when a Canadian squadron of corvettes left the Mediterranean during the recent war. As they sailed through the straits of Gibraltar a famous signal was sent by the admiral to the Canadian squadron. I have not been able to look it up in the recent book sent to us by the minister, but I think it was something like this:	"Good hunting and good luck to
you, Canada. You have been a breath of fresh air to this hot and murky sea." I was talking to the yeoman of the signals who took that signal down, and he told me that the garrison was at a loss to know what national song to play as a salute to the Canadian navy. He said that, as a most acceptable and peculiarly Canadian naval song, they struck on the


Brooke Claxton: May I ask the hon. member what questions he is referring to that I have not answered today?
3430	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Agar Rodney Adamson: The questions that are
given-


Brooke Claxton: What questions?


Agar Rodney Adamson: The question of the cost of the North Star.


Brooke Claxton: I have that right here. It is the only question I have not answered that was put to me today. I have the information.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The question of the cost of Magnificent.


Brooke Claxton: That was given.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, with very considerable discrepancies in cost.


Brooke Claxton: No.


Agar Rodney Adamson: One senior officer gave one answer and the minister gave another.
The whole problem of national defence is something that cannot be dealt with secondhand because it is so involved and so technical. If there is the question of the use of a new weapon, if there is the question of the use of the air arm, if there is the question of the expenditure on, shall we say, atomic warheads, the proper people to have that information are the technical advisers in the defence services. The minister gets the information from his advisers. He gets it secondhand. He must get it secondhand because no minister, no single person, can carry that information in his head. It is impossible. The question of national defence is so involved that, even in dealing with the one question of uniformity of the code of discipline that this bill dealt with, we had no fewer than five persons to answer various questions put to them by the committee. They were in constant attendance while the committee was sitting. That was efficiency. That was not having a question asked and the minister asking his experts in front of him. They have a great deal of the information, but they cannot give as detailed and as factual information as could the actual staff officers who will have to deal with the operation of the department and probably with the use of the weapon in question.
An example of that was given this morning in the question of the value of various appreciations of artillery fire and artillery competition. I am not an expert in artillery, but there was certainly left in the minds of the committee some considerable doubt as to the value of these various types of competitions. If we had a senior artillery officer who could answer the questions immediately and give the factual details about the problem facing modern artillery, it would be to the advantage of all. The minister cannot do that. The minister must get his information secondhand. The minister could go and see artillery being


fired; but with all due respect, I submit that he does not know as much about it as the men and the officers who are actually doing the work, using the weapons.
To deal with a matter such as this we need the best possible advice. There is no question of secrecy. If there are new weapons on the secret lists, that fact can be stated. Mention can be made of the fact that they are on the secret list, and, as in the national defence committee, nothing further will be discussed in regard to them. But I do want to say again that on this matter of national defence the greatest single item of governmental expense, the thing which may make or break our security and on which our whole life depends, requires the most efficient and effective treatment that this house can possibly give it. I think the other hon. members of the national defence committee will say that the efficiency and the effectiveness of that committee could be copied by this committee of the whole house, and that a great deal of good would come from it.
Unfortunately, I was not here yesterday. In reading over the discussion in Hansard I could not find anything being said about preparation for submarine warfare. I am not now referring to antisubmarine warfare, because that is one of our principal tasks. Today, whether we like it or not in any future conflict, no matter what the new weapons and weapons of mass structure are, one of the jobs that Canada will have to do will be the job of transportation, We will have to continue to keep the sea lanes open between ourselves and our allies, particularly on the Atlantic. Today the air arm is being stressed, but with the new weapons the underwater arm, the submarine arm, has assumed almost equal importance with the air arm. With the tremendous speed of the modern submarine, with the enormously improved hitting powers of the modern torpedo, with the tremendously increased distance that can be travelled at very much greater speed, the submarine is not only an offensive weapon of the first magnitude, but a defensive weapon of equal power. We are vulnerable with an enormous sea coast, vulnerable in our harbours, vulnerable also to the atomic weapon used under water. We have apparently decided not to embark on the construction or bringing into force of a submarine arm of the navy at all. I mentioned this before. I still feel that the submariner is one of the most important warriors of the future.
I should like to ask the minister whether it is on account of costs, whether it is on account of our shipbuilding industry, or

what are the reasons that we have not embarked upon this type of warfare. The major countries of the world, including Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom are concentrating more and more upon the submarine as a weapon. Apparently however that is not the policy of this administration. Perhaps there are good reasons for this; perhaps we have not embarked upon it because of costs. But the submarine nearly beat us in 1916-17, and came even closer to beating us in the last war. It seems to me that to neglect this weapon, which so nearly destroyed us, is not realistic. I should remind the house that the first submarines to cross the Atlantic were built in Canada. We cannot train, we cannot build, we cannot produce a submarine force in a short time. It is expensive, as are all matters connected with defence. But if we are met with this problem after war has broken out time will be our enemy. Now time is on our side, and I would therefore ask the minister what consideration has been given to this matter and what are the reasons for failing to embark upon this particular phase of naval warfare.
We do not know whether the weapons of mass destruction, particularly the hydrogen bomb, can be produced. But from every authority, including the Secretary of War in the United States, it seems pretty well established that the hydrogen bomb can and will be produced. There is no need to be unduly depressing; but if these can be released and can be detonated-if that is the correct term when speaking of fissionable material-then whole tracts of country and hundreds of thousands or even millions of people will be destroyed, not by the explosion itself but by the radioactive effect left on the contaminated ground by this new weapon. That is something to which consideration should be given. Just how far the matter has been considered, I do not know. Perhaps the minister will say what has been and what is being done in connection with atomic warfare. This is something in which the civilian population will have to take part. Let us not fool ourselves: there will be no scruples on the part of any enemy to refrain from using the weapons of mass destruction.
In the United Nations we pass pious resolutions about genocide. Believe me, there will be no adherents to that resolution if another war breaks out.


Brooke Claxton: I am sure my hon. friend would not like to convey the impression anywhere that we would break any resolution we passed, and be the first to do so. It is important that that impression should not go out.
Supply-National Defence


Agar Rodney Adamson: Atomic weapons are those which produce the mass destruction of a population. In the terms of the resolution they must be genocide producing weapons. Believe me, if these are used against us, as they will be, we will certainly retaliate. We must be realists about this thing; there is no use passing pious resolutions. We have got to be prepared to fight with the weapons that have been discovered, and the whole question of our defence depends upon the effective way in which those weapons are used. It is just idle talk to assume that a conference of the United Nations or a resolution passed anywhere will stop any enemy of ours from using these weapons against us. That is one of the horrible things we have to consider.
I suggest again that the whole question of defence requires a treatment similar to that it receives both in the British House of Commons and in the Congress of the United States. We are inescapably woven into the same defence mechanism. I feel that our people in Canada must be told the facts-and told the facts in as great detail as possible. There is no way of having security in the world today except by being adequately prepared. I feel the Canadian people must have an opportunity of getting the fullest possible details as to that preparation.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member apparently crept up to the suggestion that parliament should deal with the matter of defence in some way other than that in which it is now being dealt with. In that respect he was out of order, but he took some time to arrive at that point and only came to that conclusion at the end of his remarks. Otherwise I would have felt it necessary to raise the point. I shall not follow him in being out of order.
With regard to the suggestion that we should have one or more submarines in the Canadian navy, I remember the hon. member made the same suggestion when the defence estimates were under consideration in 1949. I indicated to him the objections we had to that. The submarine is a very specialized type of vessel and its crew require special training. It simply is not economical for a navy with a strength of approximately 10,000 to divide its forces so that there are one or two units of each type. To have a single submai'ine would require equipment and stores, highly trained technicians and personnel, all of which would be exceedingly expensive and would not bring about any results that we cannot obtain under the existing arrangement by which we borrow

Supply-National Defence submarines when we need them from the United States or the United Kingdom. That works out very satisfactorily.
With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Peterborough West and also replying again to the hon. member for York West, I think it is the only question so far put to me today that I have not answered. The hon. member was inquiring about the trip of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his party. It should be remembered that he had with him members of the delegation going to the conference at Ceylon and to the other places which were visited. The cost was based on $115.74 per flying hour for 130 hours and 50 minutes, and amounted to $15,142.65, of which external affairs share was $7,571.33, which they paid.
The R.C.A.F. took the position, which seems to be quite justified, that this was a valuable training exercise. There were two complete crews and they had the advantage of circumnavigating the world, the first R.C.A.F. aircraft to do so. Flying is one kind of military occupation Which you can learn only by doing. It is of great value to fly in every part of the world and familiarize yourself with weather and landing conditions, airfields, geography and the like.


Mr. Harkness:: I was surprised at the statement made yesterday by the minister as part of an answer to a question of mine. This is to be found on page 3377 of Hansard, where the minister is reported as follows:
I might say, since the hon. member has expressed interest in it before, that at the present time we have more trained paratroopers in Canada than landed in the low Countries in the German invasion in May, 1940.
I find it extremely difficult to accept that statement. At the time of the invasion of the low countries by Germany in May, 1940, the general idea spread about by the newspapers was that there were many thousands of paratroopers landed there. As a matter of fact, I think most people are still under the impression that there were thousands.


Brooke Claxton: Twenty-two hundred.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact, the picture was considerably exaggerated. The actual number of paratroopers and airborne troops that were landed was discovered after the German capitulation when the commander in chief of the German airborne army was interrogated. The details of that interrogation are to be found in a book by Liddell Hart, who was chief military commentator for the London Times before the war and is one of the best known military experts and writers on military matters. In his book called "The Other Side of the Hill" he gives details of the interrogation

which show that the actual number of German paratroopers landed in Holland was 4,500, with another 500 being landed in Belgium, making a total of 5,000 for the low countries. In addition- one airborne division of 12,500 men was landed.
As I say, I find it extremely difficult to accept the fact that we have 5,000 trained paratroopers. That would be more than the number of men that would be trained as paratroopers in our mobile brigade group if that brigade group were completely up to strength, which it is not. The people trained as paratroopers are chiefly infantry men. There are infantry battalions in our brigade group and if all the men were trained-I know they are not-you would have a total of only 1,800. In addition to that there would be signallers, engineers, a limited number of artillery men who would act as forward observation officers, and other personnel of that sort. If the artillery is to be landed and is to be effective it must be from gliders or planes, and the same thing with the armoured corps people. Under those circumstances I find it extremely difficult to accept the minister's statement.
Statements of that sort do a great deal of damage. I know the minister has no intention of deliberately misinforming the house or the country, but it so happens that that particular statement has been given wide publicity in the newspapers and over the air. To put out the idea that we have more trained paratroopers than the Germans dropped on Holland and Belgium in May 1940 is just ridiculous. It creates a false impression as to our defence situation.
This is the type of thing-I think it is unintentional in most cases-which the minister does quite frequently. This morning the leader of the opposition brought up the matter of artillery training. There are two or three other incidents which I shall refer to later, but I simply wanted to point out that it is absolutely useless, as far as giving information to this house is concerned, to make statements such as that.
The general public do not know just how many paratroopers the Germans did drop, but the general idea is that it was tens of thousands. Therefore the statement is misleading from that point of view. I am quite convinced that we do not have over 5,000 trained paratroopers and I doubt whether the minister will maintain that we do have that many. My remarks would apply also to statements setting out percentages, to show that the percentage of personnel in the navy was greater than in any other country. That gives a wrong impression to the general public who do not have any detailed

knowledge of these things. I think it is time we got away from statements of that kind and were given some definite information which would outline the picture as it is. I wish the minister would comment on the paratroop statement which he made yesterday.


Brooke Claxton: The information I have is that the total number of airborne troops that were landed is 2,200. The hon. member has referred to Liddell Hart's book. I have no means of verifying the accuracy of that but it would seem to me that the discrepancy would probably be explained by the fact that the men concerned would certainly land more than once in successive operations. The number I have in mind, which is the number I was given, is 2,200.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the source of your information?


Mr. Ferrie:: It is not general so why should you have it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am asking the minister what is the source of his information as to the 2,200 because if he has taken a figure of 2,200 which he picked up any place the statement he made is all the more misleading to the country. It is all the more reprehensible to have a statement made along that line. I do not know of any better source of authority than the interrogation of General Student, who was the commander in chief of these men, when he was in allied hands after the war, as to the number of people dropped. I do not know where you are going to get anything more accurate. I would refer the minister to the book if he wants to look it up for himself, but I can assure him those are the figures that are there.


Mr. Fullon:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer again to questions which have been asked concerning the effect upon this country of recent and other decisions under the Atlantic pact. I must say with regret that I am not satisfied yet with the minister's answer. That brings immediately to the fore the statement the minister has made with reference to our complaint about the difficulty of getting information. That matter was referred to last night, and after the hon. member for Greenwood had spoken, the minister, with a considerable display of heat for a time, replied that no question asked in committee of supply on his estimates went unanswered, and that the only questions he had ever failed to answer were two or three concerning details of strength and so on which for security reasons it would not be proper to answer in the committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I just asked him one and he has not answered.
Supply-National Defence


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Calgary East points out that another question has just been asked now which has not been answered. Referring to this matter the minister said, as reported at page 3388 of Hansard for June 8:
I feel that this committee is entitled to get everything possible, and that has been my view right through. If there is anything that we can give that we have not given, tell us so that we can give it and not keep on saying that you have not information that you have never asked for.
I say we have asked for information, Mr. Chairman, as to the effect of the Atlantic pact and the various decisions made and conferences held under the pact on Canada's defence policy, and that we have not yet had an adequate answer to those questions. The only answer we have had in this debate is that the treaty and these decisions have no immediate effect upon Canada's defence plans. At page 3375 of Hansard for yesterday the minister said:
. . . our defence has never been envisaged as the defence of Canada alone but the defence of Canada as part of a continent, and indeed the defence of Canada as part of the defence of the western countries which would all be involved in the event of a war for our freedom.
A little further down on the same page the minister said:
But we do not believe it will have any immediate or very considerable effect on our own defence forces, because our defence planning has envisaged the operation of our defences in conjunction with other nations at all times.
At page 3376 he is reported as saying:
... I told the house then, as I tell the committee now, that we have not.
That is, no specific military commitments.
I am not too sure that the North Atlantic treaty organization will ever develop in a way in which there are specific military commitments. That remains to be seen. It remains to be worked out.
I point out to the minister that the statements by the United States military authorities are at variance with the statements made by him in discussing the effect of over-all defence strategy under the Atlantic treaty and similar mutual defence arrangements. Taking the minister's statements that I have just quoted and analysing them, it surely must become obvious that there is an effect or ought to be an effect on Canada's planning because if we have envisaged the operation of our defence in conjunction with other nations at all times, we have reached the stage now where the other Atlantic pact nations with whom we are associated are assuming certain definite responsibilities themselves with respect to the elements of the joint force they are going to contribute. If they are doing that then surely we are in a position, and certainly should be, of making up our minds as to the elements of the joint force that we

Supply-National Defence are going to contribute, and particularly making plans as to the role in the over-all strategical concept which Canada must discharge.
Looking at the white paper on defence we find we are in the very humiliating position of referring at length in our statement on defence policy to what the Americans have said is their concept of the role of the United States in the mutual defensive arrangements which are being made, and at the same time we have no indication of what is Canada's role under these mutual defensive arrangements. We have to look to the pronouncements of the United States chiefs of the joint staffs to find any indication as to what arrangements have been made and what responsibilities have been accepted by any of the members of the mutual defensive arrangement with regard to the problem of joint defence. I think it can and should be said that the minister's statements in answer to the questions in the CQurse of the debate yesterday are at variance with his own statements in the white paper on defence published last November because in that paper he said at page 8:
It is still too early to spell out the consequences of the pact in terms of men and dollars. One thing must be emphasized: the North Atlantic treaty is a pact for peace. Its final result will not be to increase the expenditures which every nation on our side must make. By pooling resources, the effect of the pact should be to reduce the total expenditures which each of the twelve countries would have found necessary for their security had there been no pact. However, that result is some distance off and in the meantime, Canada will have to make such modification of her plans as may be found necessary to meet the situation. While the North Atlantic treaty makes for security, it will only be effective in so far as it represents a pooling of strength rather than a dilution of strength.
We are told in the high sounding statements which have been made in the house with respect to the communique after the joint meeting in London that decisions of vital and far-reaching importance with respect to the over-all defence planning have been taken. If that is the case, then surely we are entitled to take the words at their face value. But assuming that those decisions are what they are said to be, decisions of far-reaching importance, and that progress is being made in the planning of joint defence under the pact, then the answer the minister made last night, that it has no effect upon our defence strategy, is at variance with his earlier statement in the white paper that the Atlantic pact will have an effect in reducing the total expenditure which each of the twelve countries would have found necessary if there had been no pact.


This white paper goes on to analyse the defence implications, and those are the words used, with respect to the Atlantic treaty. It says:
At the meeting of defence ministers on October 5 the north Atlantic nations requested that the regional groups should complete their organization early in November.
That is eight months ago.
Strategical planning will then be undertaken by representatives of the nations in each group. Those plans will be co-ordinated by the military committee standing group composed of representatives of the chiefs of staff of France, the United Kingdom and the United States. In this way there will be prepared an over-all strategical plan with an indication of its requirements and how they will be met. Requirements of equipment will be referred to the military production and supply board. Reports on progress will be made at the second meeting of the defence committee.
I wish particularly to emphasize the words, "In this way there will be prepared an over-all strategical plan with an indication of its requirements and how they will be met." Canada, as a member of the North Atlantic treaty, must obviously, in view of the statements which have recently been made with regard to collective security and balanced forces, be prepared to meet certain requirements when those requirements have been laid down. Again, unless we are being told that the decisions taken at London were not of such importance as has previously been indicated, then we can only assume that decisions along the lines of what would be the joint requirements have been taken, and we are therefore entitled to be told what their effect is upon Canada's defence strategy.
Then the white paper continues:
While the strategy of the north Atlantic powers has not yet been formally stated, our participation in planning for the defence of this continent and of the western union gives a clear indication of the main lines of strategy though they may not have been put into words. Our planning has been flexible and can be adapted to any responsibilities we may assume.
This passage clearly indicates that the western union, which is another name for the north Atlantic alliance, will have a definite strategical plan, or has one. Canada, as part of that alliance, must undertake certain responsibilities with respect to carrying out that strategical plan. We want to know what the effects of that are upon our defence planning at home.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that immediately following this section in the white paper outlining the defence implications of the North Atlantic pact, there is a lengthy statement quoted from General Bradley's testimony before the foreign affairs committee of the house of representatives on July 29, 1949. His statement was made during the hearings on the Mutual Defence

Assistance Act of 1949. Is it important to realize where this comes in the context, because this statement of General Bradley is quoted immediately following the purported analysis of the defence implications of the North Atlantic treaty. It can only be taken therefore, as indeed is obvious, as implying that General Bradley's statement on the Mutual Defence Assistance Act is immediately related to the over-all strategical plan under the north Atlantic alliance. The minister tells us that he cannot say what the effect of the Atlantic treaty on Canada is. He cannot outline any responsibility which we have assumed, or any commitments which we may be prepared or preparing to consider. It is significant that General Bradley goes into clear and concise detail as to the responsibilities which the United States might have assumed under this over-all defence set-up. It is significant to note that General Bradley gives his outline to the foreign affairs committee of the house of representatives. He stated:
In our approach to this arms-aid program, the joint chiefs of staff have followed the principle that the man in the best position, and with the capability, should do the job for which he is best suited.
Further, our recommendations-
That is the recommendations of the joint chiefs of staff to the government of the United States.
-for this program have been predicated upon this basic principle, and the following assumed factors:
First, the United States will be charged with the strategic bombing.
We have repeatedly recognized in this country that the first priority of the joint defence is our ability to deliver the atomic bomb.
Second, the United States navy and the western union naval powers will conduct essential naval operations, including keeping the sea lanes clear. The western union and other nations will maintain their own harbour and coastal defence.
Third, we recognize that the hard core of the ground power in being will come from Europe, aided by other nations as they can mobilize.
Fourth, England, France, and the closer countries will have the bulk of the short-range attack bombardment, and air defence. We, of course, will maintain the tactical air force for our own ground and naval forces, and United States defence.
Then he goes on to outline other considerations and specific undertakings or responsibilities assumed by the United States in connection therewith.
I want to close by saying that General Bradley, who is head of the joint chiefs of staff committee, has indicated clearly the responsibilities of the United States under this overall defence arrangement. In Canada we have had no such indication. In the United States, General Bradley gives his evidence before a committee of the house of representatives. We are told that this committee of the whole is the only committee we will have, so we cannot 55946-218
Supply-National Defence be given such information because apparently Canada has not been prepared to assume any responsibilities. That is the meaning of what the minister told us yesterday. If his statements were correct, the inference is that we seriously lag behind the United States in assessing our responsibilities, and apparently in our preparedness to assume those responsibilities. I for one am not content to believe that is the case. I am therefore more dissatisfied with the minister's failure to make a clear statement to this committee in answer to our questions as to the effect upon Canada's defence planning of the recent decisions taken under the North Atlantic pact.


Brooke Claxton: I have already dealt with those-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have not; you have evaded it.


Brooke Claxton: -in every possible way that plain English could be used. This is an extremely important principle which was declared at London, and the announcement of that declaration was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this house on June 5, 1950. I have said, and I repeat, that this involves no immediate change in the composition of our defence forces, and we do not envisage it as involving any change in the immediate future-and by that I mean within the period covered by these estimates, 1950-51. However, I gave the leader of the opposition, in reply to his question, the assurance, which certainly would not be necessary because I have made it quite plain before, and it makes common sense, that Canada's position will be considered and is being considered in the light of changing circumstances, and of this new principle. I would point out to the hon. member and to the committee that in the statement he read from General Bradley reference is made to the special role of the United States with regard to the provision of strategic bombing. Canada has no such special role. We are not going to do any strategic bombing, as that term is now known. That is one of the special roles for which one country is earmarked. He did not mention any other special responsibilities of the United States, but of course there is one. The United States is making a substantial contribution towards the re-equipment of the countries of the North Atlantic treaty. Canada has not to date felt it possible so far to make that kind of contribution but the situation is constantly being examined and will continue to be examined. I cannot state that the situation has changed until a change occurs. However, that it will produce changes in our defence planning is likely; but from the nature of our defence forces I do not believe that there will be major or drastic changes.

Supply-National Defence
As the hon. member referred to General Bradley, I should like to quote a statement made by him which is important not only because he is chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of the United States but also because he is chairman of the standing group under the North Atlantic treaty. This is from a speech he gave at Chicago on April 14 in which he said:
The defensive plans made at The Hague and submitted to our government need not change the balance of forces nor decrease the appropriations requested from congress for the armed forces this year.
This statement indicates that the position taken by General Bradley at that time is exactly the same as the position taken by myself. No other position is possible, because the agencies of the North Atlantic treaty which are considering requirements and ways of meeting them have not yet met to deal with the changed situation since the declaration made at London in favour of balanced forces. There simply has not been time for these agencies to meet; and that should be perfectly clear to the hon. gentleman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish to say just a word or two in reply to the minister, Mr. Chairman. In, the first place, there are some omissions from and inaccuracies in what he has just said. He said that, in the statement of General Bradley to which I referred, General Bradley outlined only one special commitment or responsibility of the United States and that was with respect to strategic bombing. That is not the case at all. General Bradley referred to a second responsibility of the United States:
Second, the United States navy and the western union naval powers will conduct essential naval operations, including keeping the sea lanes clear.


Brooke Claxton: That is not a special responsibility.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is obvious that the United States has assumed the responsibility of making a substantial naval contribution to this mutual defence force in addition to the strategic bombing force to which the minister made reference.
The minister says that no change can be forecast, as a result of this Atlantic treaty and the decisions taken under it, that will have any reflection or bearing upon the estimates which are now before us. Therefore his answer, he says, is correct, when he says that they have no immediate effect upon Canada's defence force. I think his words were "no effect within the time within which these estimates are forecast".
That seems to^me to indicate the unreality of this method of proceeding because these estimates are forecast upon building up armed forces of a certain composition: so many men


in the navy, so many in the army and so many in the air force, with, so much equipment for each of these three components of our defence forces. It is not realistic to say that we should not look beyond the end of this year in dealing with the estimates that are now before us. Our whole point is that we want to know whether or not we are spending this money efficiently; whether we are in fact spending money now to equip with good weapons forces which may be thoroughly efficient forces in the abstract, when in a year or two from now, or less, we are going to have to change the relative composition and components of our forces. It would be a shocking waste of money to spend millions now upon building up any one of the components of our defence forces when in a year or two's time that component will be reduced possibly quite substantially, relative to the others, as a result of some joint agreement with the other Atlantic pact powers. That is why it is impossible and unrealistic to expect us to confine our attention only to this year and to say, "Do not look ahead beyond the end of the fiscal year and the estimates that are now before you." That might, and I think it would, involve the most shocking and disastrous waste of public money.
Then as to the other point which the minister made, with regard to the further statement of General Bradley on April 14, I think he said it was where the general was quoted as saying that the decisions under the Atlantic pact would have no effect or make no change in the amount of money that congress was asked to authorize for the United States forces. That is perfectly natural because, as we have already seen, the United States has accepted certain responsibilities with respect to the forces that it will provide under this mutual defensive arrangement. Those responsibilities are already known and were known last November. In fact, they were known in July of 1949 when the statement which I have read was made by General Bradley. Therefore the composition of the United States forces for this year, which he was discussing in his later statement referred to by the minister, was determined on the basis of those responsibilities which had been accepted under the mutual defensive arrangement. Therefore, of course, no change will be effected in the United States forces by these decisions, because their responsibilities were already outlined; but apparently Canada's were not. We therefore may be in a position where a change in the composition of our forces will result from decisions under the Atlantic pact. That is the point that we

make. That is why we are so insistent upon being given the fullest information as to the effect it will have. We are reluctant to vote money for building up forces which may not be required when the joint defensive arrangement is concluded.


Brooke Claxton: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman in his last statement. If he or anyone else could indicate that any part of our forces was not required at the present time, I should be glad indeed to get that information, consider it with the officers of the department and act on it. But he cannot give that information and he cannot give that advice. He refers to the responsibilities of the United States being known. If by that he means the same thing, then, as I have said time and again, our role in naval operations is definitely known by all Canadians and certainly recognized by the House of Commons. It is antisubmarine work, largely in the waters across the north Atlantic and coastal protection on both coasts, something which I have s'tated ever since 1947 and which I do not think anyone has ever disagreed with. That role has been recognized by us and acted upon by us; and it corresponds, I would say, closely to what he says General Bradley said was the role of the United States navy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But the minister never said that. That is the point. The minister has never indicated that that is our role in the north Atlantic alliance. That is the sort of information we want.


Brooke Claxton: I have indicated that the existence of the north Atlantic alliance has not so far changed in any fundamental way our role as we have already conceived it, stated it and are acting on it. I never suggested for a second that we should not look ahead. Of course we have to look ahead. That is what we are doing, constantly revising programs and implementing policies. This new and important principle of course will be a very important factor to be taken into consideration. We have been looking ahead so far as it has been possible to do so, myself and officers of the department, in anticipation of the meeting of the agencies of the North Atlantic treaties, but that is no indication that we should stop any part of our defence activities right where they are and change them for anything else. There are no factors which would lead us to take that course of action at the present time.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to tell the minister that I feel he is handling the situation well. I have listened carefully to the questions. I think the Conservatives have done a good job in questioning the minister and I believe he has done a good job in 5594G-218?.
Supply-National Defence answering. My own feeling is that our defence is in good hands and being taken care of. The minister has my confidence in that respect. I am sure he will justify it.
Before closing my remarks a bit earlier in the afternoon I wanted to make one or two comments that I do think are important at the present time. I wanted to say that whereas there are a great many people who believe that our security is to be found in international agreements I do not concur in that view. I think we shall find that the more we rely on international agreements the greater will be our disappointments and frustrations in the end. I may be wrong in that. But I want to urge upon the minister that while he co-operates with international organizations such as the Atlantic pact, which thus far could be all to the good, he take the very greatest care to see that nothing is done which will cause Canada to surrender her sovereignty in any respect to any agency which is set up under the Atlantic pact.
The other day we had a discussion of the estimates of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If one-tenth as much of Canada's sovereignty had been required by Britain even in the war of 1914-18 there would have been a scream that would have rent the skies and torn the stars down. But we calmly accept the most extravagant suggestions as to what we are going to agree to do in obedience to some single individual appointed by the Atlantic pact!
Now, Mr. Chairman, that is serious. I happen to know that for over 75 years certain definite international forces have been aiming at the destruction of the British commonwealth and the establishment of a world state under which no nation will have sovereignty.
I can find on record statements that are unchallengeable, which will prove that such has been designed. I have strong evidence to show that world war I was deliberately designed by these men who aim at this objective. All during that war they carried on their manipulations, their machinations, with the aim of bringing about their objective; and as soon as world war 1 was finished they began to plan world war II with the same object in view. They by that time started talking openly about what their aim was, as I pointed out the other day in the debate on the external affairs estimates, they started telling us about what they were working for as early as 1941 and 1942, and the evidence can be found in great United States magazines. The handwriting is too clear for us to disregard, Mr. Chairman.
If our greatest security, economically, politically and in every other way were to
3438	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence be obtained through such measures I should not find it bad enough; but there is no guarantee whatsoever that that security can be secured or will be secured by such measures, or that the object of these men, who are aiming to build up this world organization, is to provide security. Rather the appearance is that the very opposite is their aim, namely, not to provide security but to make us take what they want to give us and make us like it.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that when the objective of these gentlemen is achieved it will be too late to get up and talk. We shall have given over our sovereignty. That is one reason why I am talking as I am today. I see a genuine danger.
I wish to urge on the minister that while we are ready to co-operate with any person of good will or any number of persons, we are not prepared to surrender one jot of our sovereignty any more than this parliament would have been prepared to surrender any of our sovereignty to Great Britain in 1934 or 1935 when the need for preparation was tremendous, and Great Britain was prepared to offer leadership, but we were everlastingly worrying about how much of our sovereignty we were going to surrender. Let us worry just as much about how much of our sovereignty we are going to surrender to these international people, no matter how high their position may be.
I say again to the minister that while he may work and co-operate with all of these people, I wish him to give careful consideration to this possibility, that the finest organization that we can possibly have, looking toward our political security, our economic security, and every other kind of security that the heart of man desires, is an organization based on the pattern of the British commonwealth, in which there is complete unification of action, but in which there is no surrender of sovereignty whatsoever. The effectiveness of such an organization was amply demonstrated in world wars I and IX, and the effectiveness of such an organization was demonstrated in 1932 when the representatives of the various members of the commonwealth met here in Ottawa and signed the Ottawa agreements as the means of offsetting the economic adversities that were swelling around us.
Why depart from a thing which has served us so satisfactorily on so many occasions during past years? Therefore, I say, let us do everything that can possibly be done to liberate the members of the British commonwealth so that they may be free to act together effectively, and then encourage them so to do. Then let us teach our people that


there is hope in co-operating with the British commonwealth. The quotations which I gave this afternoon, if hon. members find interest in reading them, will be sufficient to show that our faith in the British commonwealth is based on very solid considerations.
We already had autonomous communities within the British commonwealth under the Balfour declaration of 1926. Every hon. member is familiar with what was said. There is no need of repeating it. But while we were completely autonomous communities and Canada, Australia, New Zealand and any other part of the commonwealth was equal in status to Britain, yet we were bound together by considerations of common allegiance to the crown. Not only will a common allegiance to the crown provide a means of binding us together. We can be bound together by such considerations as our common ancestry, which I mentioned this afternoon, and which constitutes one of the reasons for the talk I gave this afternoon. We realize that members of the British commonwealth are blood brothers, in a very real sense. We have a common heritage, which I hinted at this afternoon but barely touched upon. We have a common aim. We have common ideals. We have a common sense of the need for each other's aid in defence and in general economic security. We have a common destiny.
What more do men and nations need to impel them to act together in unity? If we bring about a united nations through the means of the British commonwealth we shall have everything that can possibly be offered by any other group of united nations, and we shall safeguard everything which our race has fought for through thousands of years. I say let us act. Let us British people not barter away our precious birthright, our hard-won heritage.
I should like to commend the Minister of Labour in this connection for the most excellent contribution he made to the debate on June 2, as it appears at page 3151 of Hansard. I do not know when I have heard a more genuinely British speech, and at the same time a more downright Canadian speech, a more genuinely common-sense speech than the one he delivered on that occasion. I wish it could be read into the record right here, in connection with what I have to say.
I suggest to the minister that as the days go by he take steps to restore "Rule Britannia" to be played on the ships of Canada-but not to displace "O Canada". I do not have to be any less an Albertan to be a Canadian. As a matter of fact, generally speaking, the more loyal and passionately devoted I am

to Alberta, the more loyal and passionately devoted I am to Canada; because they are one. We do not have to be any less devoted to Canada in order to be devoted to the commonwealth and the motherland, and to play "Rule Britannia". Let us play them both on the ships.
I suggest to the minister that from now on he resist every effort to have Canada or any other British country surrender any of its sovereignty to any agency outside the British commonwealth, or inside the commonwealth. Everyone says that we do not want in the empire centralized control. What astounds me is that we will turn from making a remark like that and favour centralized control with a lot of people with whom we have in common hardly anything whatsoever. Let us see that we do not do that kind of thing.
I suggest to the minister that he take every step he can take to disseminate knowledge and understanding among our armed forces as to the meaning of these great things we have, our ancestry, our flag, our emblems, our institutions, our ideals. All we have to do is to follow up the kind of study I was indicating this afternoon, and we shall get our armed services to understand that there is a great scriptural and prophetic background behind this British race. They will know then that there is a glorious destiny prophesied for this race, and that it is a wonderful and a joyful thing for all of us to co-operate to attain that noble destiny.
I suggest that all men in our time should be constantly on the alert lest they put forth unhallowed hands to desecrate sacred things.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in order to keep the record straight I should like to give a figure I placed on record a little while ago in connection with the number of men, according to General Student, who were dropped in the low countries in May of 1940. The way I had the figures made up I misread them. The figure of 4,500 includes the 500 dropped in Belgium. The total is 4,500.


Brooke Claxton: My information was received at a meeting of a very considerable group of staff officers. They had been in western Europe and in England at the time, and I took their information to be correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister said before, I believe, that he had taken the figure of 2,200.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I take it from that that the number of paratroopers we have trained has a strength of possibly just over that figure. Otherwise there would not be much point in taking that particular number.
Supply-National Defence
I would ask the minister, instead of taking a figure like that, which practically no one except himself would understand, to give an exact figure. If the figure is 2,250 to 2,300, then I submit it is very much better to give that exact figure than to give one as he has given it which could mean all things to all men. To the general public it might mean tens of thousands. I suggest it is an extremely bad way to give comparisons.
I should like next to refer to a question I asked the minister yesterday in connection with the percentage of officers and men employed in administrative duties, desk jobs and the like, as compared with the number in the fighting units. The minister partially answered the question this morning. He said that some time ago-and I did not get the exact date-there were 9 * 1 per cent of per-.sonnel on headquarters staff, and that on April 1 of this year the figure was 8 [DOT] 7 per cent. In other words he indicated that there had been a reduction in the percentage of officers and men in headquarters staff,
That is all to the good. It is carrying out one of the recommendations in the Mainguy report, that the number of officers employed in these desk jobs should be reduced and replaced by civilian personnel so that service personnel can get on with the fighting job. The minister then said that all the rest were in units. That, again, is misleading. To the ordinary person in the House of Commons and outside the house it would mean that on April 1, except for that 8-7 per cent, all the other personnel were in units ready to fight. That is absolutely wrong. What I asked for was the number of fighting units. These personnel may have some nominal units to which they are attached, but the vast majority of them are not at all in units which are ready to fight. They are not in fighting units. A large number of them would be in the army service corps, moving and handling food and supplies, and all sorts of other materials. A large number would be ordnance corps, looking after stores in various ordnance depots across the country. A large number of them would be employed in repairing vehicles, and occupations of that kind.
These units I know are all officially designated as combatant units. During the last war the troops in them were, to some extent, trained to fight. But actually they were not fighting units; their job was not that of fighting, and they would be required to fight only when their backs were to the wall and every available man would have to be used.
Under normal circumstances those troops do not fight at all, but are engaged in performing these other very essential jobs. I
3440	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence think as a matter of fact that during the last war it was estimated that, for every man fighting, there were ten men in various rear areas who were bringing in supplies, and the like. True, this is most essential work; but the personnel so engaged are not in fighting units. To say that all personnel except that 8-7 per cent are in units leaves, I say, a wrong impression, and it gives the general public the idea that over 90 per cent of our fighting defence forces are in units ready to go ahead and fight tomorrow, or in two or three days' time. Therefore, taking the figure of 50,000 in the permanent force, which the minister has given, this would mean that we could count on 45,000 who could be thrown into battle in three or four days' time.
That is simply not true, and the minister knows it. I do not think it is proper to give figures in this way, when placing the situation before the general public.
I should like to ask the minister what percentage of those in the army are actually in fighting units, in other words, in the mobile brigade group. Also what percentage of those in the air force are in operative squadrons, either fighter or transport. The minister has given this information with regard to the navy and that is why I think he should give it for the army and air force. He said that 45'1 per cent-


Brooke Claxton: 41-5 per cent, I beg your pardon.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -that 41-5 per cent of the navy personnel were in ships in commission. That is the question I asked and that is the answer I wanted, but we should have the information for all three services.


Brooke Claxton: It is not possible to give it for the army or air force because of the nature of their operations. The hon. gentleman knows that there are two interceptor squadrons fully up to strength having an establishment of some hundreds, and then there are the transport squadrons. But their work is so intimately related with that of the ground crew and the other branches of activity of the air force that it would be completely misleading again to give any such figure. Speaking from recollection, we have in the air force about 1,600 qualified air crew.
With regard to the army, the hon. member says that the figures I gave were misleading. I gave what I understood to be the figures he wanted, in the form in which he wanted them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If you look at what I said I think you will find I referred to fighting [DOT]units.


Brooke Claxton: I did not get the impression that "fighting" had been used. Those who make up the notes for me and who note these things carefully made them up without any special instructions as referring to other units. The same thing applies in the case of the army. The hon. gentleman has just described the situation where you have headquarters formation, the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, the Royal Canadian Artillery, the Royal Canadian Engineers, the Royal Canadian Signallers, the Army Service Corps, the Army Medical Corps and the ordnance corps; there are 15 corps in the army but many of them are not fighting units in the hon. member's sense of the term. But they all contribute to the effective work of the army and it is quite impossible to sort out who is "fighting" in the sense apparently implied by the hon. member.
He knows that the brigade group has an establishment of something in excess of 5,000, and I have told him that it is approximately 80 per cent up to strength. The formation with regard to that was the one bit of information to which I referred before and for which he had asked in the house. On the advice of my advisers I told him that it was not in the public interest to give information about the actual strength and the state of training of individual formations, particularly of the brigade group, because that group represented the means we have of defending ourselves against such attacks as might be made suddenly in the way of diversionary or other attacks. It was the piece of information which a potential aggressor would most want to have. It is the one piece of information which on the advice of my advisers I said that I felt we should not give, and I referred to that yesterday.
With regard to the army, it is difficult to differentiate between the active and reserve forces. As the hon. member knows, a considerable proportion of the active force devotes a large part of its time to reserve force training and activities. A large part of all the training staff in the active force spends its time training the reserve force and yet it appears exclusively in the active force lists and votes. It really is not possible to sort out the functions of the armed forces in the way the hon. member mentions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister understood quite well what I wanted when I asked for this information and I think he has sorted it out fairly well as far as the army is concerned. I want to get the number of people in the permanent force who are trained and in position to fight if necessary. The only people who are in effective fighting units, if they are effective, are those in the brigade

group. The minister has just told us that at the present time the brigade group has an authorized strength of 5,000.


Brooke Claxton: Over 5,000, I said.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister said also that
it is 80 per cent up to strength. That means there are some 4,000 men in the brigade group. Those are the people we have to depend on if there is such a thing as a diversionary raid. That is the sort of figure I have been trying to get for the last two or three years. In the course of saying that he could not give it, the minister gives it. This is the first time it has really been given. Of course all those men would not be used in combat, but the figure is close enough to let us know fairly well where we stand.
This leads up to another question which I asked the minister yesterday and to which I did not get an answer that really covered the , matter. I was referring to section 6 of our defence policy which was enunciated by the minister on November 11, 1949, and which reads:
Since an attack on Canada could only be made by air or by sea, emphasis must be placed on defence forces; by air-radar stations and communications, backed by interceptors and a relatively small mobile brigade group;
Yesterday I asked the minister if we had those radar stations and communications, backed by interceptors and a brigade group capable of doing the task which he himself has said was necessary in preventing diversionary raids and things of that sort. Although the minister gave a considerable answer in connection with radar stations and communications, although he told us about the two interceptor squadrons which are in being and something about the other five that are to come into being, as far as the brigade group is concerned he really did not say anything.
In dealing with Exercise Sweetbriar in March the minister stated that our defending forces should be able to prevent an attacker leapfrogging from airport to airport. I asked whether or not we have sufficient interceptors and trained men in the brigade group to prevent an enemy leapfrogging from airfield to airfield, but that is another question to which I have not had an answer.
The minister has made quite a point that he has answered every question that has been asked, but he answers a lot of them, such as the two or three I have mentioned, in a way which does not constitute an answer at all. The answer does not give you the information you want and you have to keep coming back and asking several more questions to get what you are after. This is another example of that fact. I wonder if the minister could make a statement with
Supply-National Defence reference to the ability of the two interceptor squadrons, the transport planes and the brigade group of about 4,000 men that we have at the present time to prevent an enemy from leapfrogging from airfield to airfield, which he has stated is a necessary thing for us to be able to do.


Brooke Claxton: The defence of our northwest must be considered in conjunction with the defence of Alaska. The experience of Exercise Sweetbriar was, I believe, that with the forces we have and the forces planned by the United States for Alaska, in the opinion of my advisers our forces are sufficiently great to deal with an attack on the scale that might be anticipated as part of a total war.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the minister means that they would be sufficient to deal with an attack along the Alaska highway. If there happened to be an attack at the same time on Gander, Churchill or some place else, have we sufficient forces to deal with all of them?


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. member wants to go on and name a third, fourth, fifth and sixth, of course I cannot follow him because this is a matter of opinion. War is a very uncertain business, and he knows that just as well as anyone else in the house. One also has to be cautious about expressing views as to the safety or security of any place at any time. I have avoided doing that, and I will continue to do so because it is not realistic to do it. All I can say is that on the basis of advice from the people with whom I deal we think a sufficiently large part of the defence dollar is being spent on immediate local self-defence either in the navy, army or air force. Of course we are not satisfied with the condition, and we are going to improve it steadily as a part of the program. Nevertheless, having regard to the amount of $425 million made available today, our view is that we spend a sufficient proportion in our own local defence so far as money, personnel and equipment are concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I did not mention anything about a fourth, fifth or sixth. The point I am trying to get at-and
I think the minister knows it quite well______
is whether we have sufficient forces. He has said that in his opinion and that of his advisers we have sufficient troops in conjunction with the United States, whioh is established in Alaska, to defend the Alaska highway. I merely asked whether we have sufficient troops in addition thereto to perform any other task, or is that the only thing we could do? He says it is not realistic
3442	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence to talk that way. I think it is extremely unrealistic to talk as though the only place in Canada that might be attacked is the Alaska highway. I think we are entitled to know whether it would take our entire fighting forces, so far as the army and air force are concerned, the interceptors, transports and the brigade group, to deal with one attack, and whether that would leave ' us completely bare so far as any other attack is concerned.


Brooke Claxton: No, it would not at all. The hon. member must appreciate that in the case of an attack from the northeast-and that possibility certainly must not be excluded- there are not only Canadian but also United States interests to defend. The United States has rights in respect of bases in Newfoundland and has forces there which she would use in her defence. Furthermore, I did not say it would be unrealistic to consider a first, second, third and fourth attack. What I suggested was that it would be unrealistic for me to express views with any certainty on such an uncertain thing as war, particularly global war today. All I can do is to express an opinion as to whether we are spending the defence dollar in the best possible way. Further and finally on that point, not only have we got a brigade group which would be instantly available but we also have the officers and men of the reserve force units which are in very good condition indeed. The unit to which the hon. member for Royal referred this morning, the Princess Louise Hussars, is virtually up to strength in officers and men. It has the equipment and a large number of qualified N.C.O.'s and tradesmen. It is a unit that would be quickly effective to meet any emergency. There are other units in a similar state of preparedness across Canada which could be used to back up the active forces in meeting any emergency that might arise.


George Alexander Drew: Within what time?


Brooke Claxton: Varying times, depending on the unit.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of this house is desired:	Bill No. 268 (letter W-8 of the
Senate) intituled an Act to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932; and Bill No. 269 (letter X-8 of the Senate) intituled

an Act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it was hoped to have these bills on the order paper today. I have spoken to the leaders of the opposition parties and asked if these bills can be given first reading today. If that can be done, on Monday they will be referred, as requested by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), to the standing committee on banking and commerce for detailed investigation.



FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for fhe Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 268 (from the Senate) to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN AND BRITISH INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT


Alphonse Fournier: the first reading of Bill No. 269 (from the Senate) to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillis for second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (enforcement).
Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: I believe I adjourned the debate on this motion, Mr. Speaker. I am opposed to this bill for the same reason as I was opposed to the bill introduced by the member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy). I want to make this observation, if I may. There is a wrong conception here of the responsibility of the members on this board. They are not free agents, nor do they represent particular interests. They bring their

talents to the board, and once they are members of the board they are servants of the state carrying out the will of this parliament. I have checked this with the leaders of the British trade union movement, and other countries that follow our form of government. I believe the hon. member, upon reflection, will see that the present machinery is in keeping with the spirit of what he suggests. I say that not critically, but analytically. I must take the same stand I took on the other bill, that this is not a court but a labour relations board.


Mr. Paul E. Coie@Verdun-La Salle: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put to the house I should like to register my own opposition to this bill. I consider it objectionable. for the reasons which have already been so well explained by the minister on other occasions. My own 'belief is that if this bill were to carry it would strike at the root of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act which, as the house knows, is predicated upon the conciliation of industrial disputes, in addition to its other functions of course.
Since 1944 labour relations have been satisfactorily administered under the wartime labour relations regulations, and since the first of September, 1948, under the present act. Under both the act and the regulations the function of the Minister of Labour was to strive towards the bringing together of management and labour. This has been working satisfactorily. From every quarter in this house, not to speak of high authorities in the ranks of both labour and management inside and outside this country, the achievements of the Department of Labour in the administration of the regulations and the act have been highly praised. I do not think we should hurriedly change the spirit of that act, which has really been the secret of the success which has been achieved.
The act was adopted by this house after thorough consideration by the standing committee on industrial relations during the course of two sessions. I feel therefore that it is wrong to try to change one of the basic features of the act without giving that same committee an opportunity of going over the act once more. After a year and a half of operation, I submit it is premature to consider any such radical change. As a matter of fact not very many complaints have been placed before the minister requesting leave to prosecute. Many of those requests did not result in the issuance of any such consent, because the dispute which was the cause of the request was settled. In only a few exceptional cases was there any occasion for the minister to give
Industrial Relations
his consent to prosecute. Under those circumstances, and without rehashing the reasons that have been given for objecting to the passage of this bill, I believe it is sufficient for me to invite this house to vote against the bill.


Mr. J. H. Harris (Danforih):: If I may be
privileged, sir, I should like to make one or two observations about this bill. First, sir, I quite realize that those who are charged with the responsibility of labour relations in the province of Ontario are so anxious, so happy, to be able to help labour relations in every possible way. But, sir, as one of the young members of this house, in common with you, I may say that we have seen rapid progress made in labour legislation. I think, sir, that today we have reached the stage where we ought to stop, look and ponder on what has transpired with regard to our labour relations, and be careful not to get too far ahead of ourselves in this country. We should do so for this reason; that the economy of this country, compared with the economy of the rest of civilization, is still in advance of all countries from the standpoint of labour relations. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we could inveigle our friend, or persuade him, into letting this particular bill ride over for another year. We are into the hot weather now and we shall be cooler next January or February when the next session comes along. I would ask the hon. member who introduced this bill to give us, please, a chance to check and double check with regard to how far we are going in this country of ours in the matter of labour legislation -yes, in the matter of all kinds of legislation, not just labour legislation alone. In common with other hon. members in this house, I am a labourer in the vineyard, and we are doing the best we can. I seriously ask, Mr. Speaker, that we do not make haste so fast. Let us make haste slowly so that when that haste is made on labour legislation, the legislation will be of a kind that will stick and of a kind that will, in the final analysis, be of great benefit to the major portion of our population, namely, those who produce.
I should like to see this particular bill stand over until another session when we can give it more thought. Do not let us get ahead too fast with this sort of thing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not
going to take more than five minutes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) will have plenty of time in which to close the debate. I speak now only for a moment in order to confirm the principle which I supported and advocated in another bill a short time ago, that is, that in labour

Industrial Relations
matters, any legislation that has assisted labour in every jurisdiction should be allowed at least a trial and that our courts should be permitted to exercise the jurisdiction granted them by the sections which it is sought to repeal or alter, in order that we may find out how it works. If it fails, then perhaps there might be the necessity for some such legislation as is sought to be passed in this particular bill.
I am anxious to make that statement in order that the hon. member for Cape Breton South will have ample opportunity to answer it; because, strange as it may seem, we are rather friendly and we have had some discussions about this particular thing; and I know that he is anxious to refute the principle which I advocate.
I am going to say something more, still watching my five minutes, Mr. Speaker, and it is this. Something happened the other day which I think is the greatest advance in industrial relations that has happened on this continent in all the years that I can remember. That is the settlement within the past week or ten days of the General Motors strike in the United States. The point I make there is this. It was a five-year settlement. Business could proceed with the knowledge that that problem was settled for that time. I make no comment on whether that settlement was good for labour or good for management. That is something on which I do not express any opinion; but having regard to that five-year basis, which is the longest time in recent years-anyway within my memory

for which a contract of that kind has been made, I say that is a great advance in the relations between management and labour.
I say this also. No one will get any money at all from the operation of a business unless he gets it from the profit dollar which the business makes. Shareholders will not get anything and labour will not get anything unless they get it from that source; because no one is foolish enough to carry on a business for any length of time to the point where he may lose his capital investment. He will adopt some other method of seeking something from the wreck. I think that settlement is a splendid affirmation, both by the management of General Motors and by Walter Reuther and labour. I think it is the first real evidence of a long view being taken by both capital and labour; and I use the word "capital" advisedly because I believe in it and I know of no better name to give it. I think they have accomplished a great deal because, as we know, Mr. Speaker, in numbers this labour organization is certainly the largest one we have on the North American continent. That that difficulty was resolved on a basis of conciliation is, I

think, eloquent proof of the fact that both parties, the shareholders who will be seeking dividends and the labourers who will be seeking wages, have shown, by that positive act, an appreciation of the fact that the business must succeed and make a profit in order that either element or either party to the difficulty which they had may receive anything. We know that they have agreed on an advancing scale of wages year by year to the end of that contract. That is one of the finest expressions that I know of of confidence in business and in our present system of carrying on business.
I find that I have gone one minute beyond the five about which I spoke to you, Mr. Speaker. May I repeat this particularly to my hon. friend who is the sponsor of this bill. May I remind him of the co-operation that we had when this bill was passed after long, interesting and well-attended sessions of a committee of this house; and may I suggest to him that perhaps he should not be in too great a hurry to alter what we did at that time. Irrespective of that, I am one of those who are opposed to taking jurisdiction from the courts, as this does, until we have some proof that the courts have failed in their duty in respect to matters of this kind. I do not want to be technical, but I point out to him that he probably should have provided in his amendment for something which apparently was overlooked, namely, an appeal of some kind from the summary jurisdiction which he seeks to have exercised by the board.
It is true his amendment says that, the labour board having found so and so, you simply place that finding before a magistrate. He calls it a magistrate's court. I may say that in law I do not know that name for a court. It is a court of summary jurisdiction. The bill provides that having placed the finding of the board before that court, then the court may make an order by way of penalty, having regard to what the statute provides, for a breach of the provision which the labour board found the individual or the corporation guilty of.
I am very much afraid that if we were to pass his amendment in its present form there would be nowhere else to go after the board had made its finding, right or wrong. I am not basing my opposition on that. I am merely pointing that out to the hon. member. He may have a complete answer, because I have discovered that in this House of Commons he is one of the practical lawyers, and he certainly has appeared before boards often enough to know. Perhaps the word I should have used is "advocate." I know he is an excellent advocate; but I point out that technical difficulty

to him and ask him in closing the debate to point out whether I am wrong, as it may well be that I am.
I do know that in all matters of summary conviction before summary courts, which are usually courts presided over by a justice of the peace, two justices of the peace or a stipendiary magistrate-that is a big word, sir, but I do not know any other to use; that is what they call them-in every line of endeavour there is always an appeal to a higher authority. I know I am right about that. It may be I am wrong in saying that in this particular instance he has not provided a further opportunity for the accused and convicted person to seek redress.
I have gone beyond my five minutes, but I am sure I have left the hon. member plenty of time to answer the very short observations I have made.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. member for Cape Breton South speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I might say nothing at this time, have the house take a vote and have the bill voted down. If there were any danger of its carrying, the bill would likely be talked out; but I am going to take a little time to do something that I have not done to date, namely, explain what I mean by this bill.
When the industrial relations committee discussed the present national labour code I went into this matter very thoroughly before the committee, and the committee did not see its way clear to write this provision into the act.
Just before taking his seat the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) made the observation that perhaps I was in a hurry about this thing. Well, a couple of years have elapsed since the drafting of the code; and if haste is a crime in the matter of amending the code there were many people on the other side of the house in great haste to amend the code as provided by the labour relations committee. We wrote into the labour relations code the check-off clause. When it came before this house, and before the house had a chance to discuss the matters that were written into the code by the committee, an amendment was made in this house that took out of the code the provision that the committee had written in.
If I am exhibiting undue haste in endeavouring to have this clause written in, the precedent was set by the government, and I have waited considerably longer to press a matter that I had strongly emphasized in the committee.
Industrial Relations
At this time I just want to make a few observations on what has been said, namely, someone else's interpretation of what the amendment means. I gave this matter a great deal of consideration. As the hon. member for Calgary West has indicated, I have been before many conciliation boards in the last thirty years. I am not recommending something here that I do not know from practical experience is going to be of great benefit to the future of labour relations in this country.
A few nights ago the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) waved his arms but said very little as to the bill itself. He made just the old line political attack on the C.C.F. What did he say? You could pick this out of the ravings in the time that he occupied in discussion. He said that labour in this country did not want this bill, that they knew nothing about it. I want to say that the bill was carefully drafted with the assistance of the law officer of the crown who is provided for that purpose. From the legal standpoint I think it meets the requirements. But before we did anything to this bill we called in representatives of the Canadian Congress of Labour. We sat down and discussed this bill clause by clause, and without any reservation they endorsed the bill and said it would be a good thing to have written into the code.
In addition to being an excellent lawyer the hon. member for Calgary West is also a labour advocate of long standing. He has been legal adviser to the united mine workers, district 18, over a good many years. While he sticks religiously to his law as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada, he slips a lot in his philosophy with regard to the labour movement, and indicates that he has not followed as closely as he should the development of provincial law in the matter of labour relations in this country.
We are not asking for anything new. Hon. members who opposed this bill indicate that they have not followed the matter of provincial law very closely. We are a long way behind the provinces on this particular point, because in Canada today every province has a labour relations act, and a labour relations board on a provincial scale, it is equivalent to the national labour code, but more than that it covers many more classifications of labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: Will my hon. friend give this parliament credit for setting the example?


Clarence Gillis: You are away behind; you should have set this example long ago. But as it is now we are following the provinces, and we should not be doing that. In this matter of enforcing the act, every labour

Industrial Relations
relations board in this country has the right to do what we are trying to enable the national labour board to do here. And if there is any doubt about that, then my hon. friend can just look back to what happened a couple of years ago. At that time the privy council rendered a decision in this matter, as to whether provincial boards had the right to enforce that legislation. That was in connection with the John East Company of Regina against the labour relations board of Saskatchewan. It was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada that they did not have jurisdiction to enforce their legislation. Then the case went to England. The then provincial minister of labour, the Hon. L. D. Currie, who at the present time is a judge of the supreme court of Nova Scotia, attended at the hearing, and backed the Saskatchewan labour relations board. He is a progressive man in that field, and he said that an adverse decision against the Saskatchewan board would mean that it was taking power from the other boards across the country which had been exercising those powers for some time.
Then my hon. friend goes back to the question of stare decisis which I have heard them talk so much about: the decision of the privy council stands. That decision has been made, and it has given jurisdiction to the provincial boards to do this very thing.
My hon. friend is a Conservative in politics. Surely he is not going to take a position in the house against what a Conservative government in Ontario has done on this very question. They were functioning under the national code for some time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will accept stare decisis but not "Clarie" decisis.


Clarence Gillis: The parliamentary assistant said a moment ago that this has not been tried. "Just give it a chance. We have not had any disputes recently in this regard or in the provinces. Things are going along pretty well." Well, he had some pretty bad disputes under the old national code, as it was. I am sure he will not say that the Canadian seamen's dispute was not a bad one. I am reasonably sure he will not say that the strike of automotive workers at Windsor a couple of years ago was not a bad one. I am sure he will not say that the mine workers' strike in Nova Scotia a few years ago, which lasted five months, was not a bad one. All those strikes at that time came under the supervision of the Department of Labour here in Ottawa.
Since Ontario has set up its own act, and has benefited by the difficulties of the past in regard to labour relations and authority in

that field, they have written a code of their own. Since they wrote that code of their own they have provided machinery that gives the necessary authority to the minister of labour, provincially, to get in there, and, through his power, to prevent strikes.
That is what I am aiming at here. I do not suppose there is' anyone in the House of Commons who went through more strikes when we had no legislation. I take a back seat to no one in this country today in my desire to prevent strikes, because strikes are like wars: no one wins; everyone loses.
I want to see legislation in this country that not only gives responsibility to bodies like the national labour board or provincial labour boards, but I want to see such bodies having the necessary authority to carry out their functions. The national board has not that authority at this time.
For the benefit of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), who is a Conservative in politics, and who, I am sure, will not disagree with the Conservative government of Ontario, let me place on record a short synopsis of the provincial statute on this very point of the authority to prosecute:
The Ontario labour relations board will have power to decide if a conciliation board is required in a dispute and to authorize prosecutions for unfair labour practices. These powers formerly were held by the minister.
That is exactly the position the national labour relations board and the minister are in today. The minister now has supreme authority in matters of prosecution. Regardless of what employers or employees or the national labour relations board may think in the matter of a prosecution, they must get permission from the Minister of Labour. I say that is unfair to the minister, and places in his hands dictatorial powers he should not have. Personally, I would not want it.
Last Sunday night I listened to a reporter from the Press Gallery give a news round-up from Ottawa. I would advise him to get in touch with somebody, or to get a little book on labour relations and the functions of national and provincial boards, as well as conciliation boards. He broadcast at some length on this particular point, and said, "Oh, that is asking for judicial power for every conciliation board across this country." For his benefit let me say that this has nothing to do with conciliation boards. If he was not any better informed in respect to the rest of his subjects that night than he was on this one, I would advise him to get another job, rather than attempt to interpret the news to the Canadian people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What were his other subjects?


Clarence Gillis: Markets, international affairs,
and that kind of thing. But if he did not understand something that has been discussed in the House of Commons a good many times, and discussed in a committee I have seen him attend-and I refer to the labour relations committee-then I say we cannot accept his advice very seriously on such matters as marketing, international affairs and so on.
This particular bill has nothing to do with conciliation boards. The parliamentary assistant said that this question has never been brought up since the adoption of the code. The matter has been tested. He could check back and And the case of the Hull Transportation Commission v. the Canadian Congress of Labour. That particular matter was ironed out before the board and finally went to a magistrate in Hull. The Minister of Labour sent it there. I talked with some of the people who appeared before that magistrate, and they told me that the employer went in and stated his side of the case, that they came in and stated their side, and that the magistrate, trained to administer in respect of decisions in criminal law, sat to hear the case.
Industrial relations are human relations. There is no prosecution or defence of a criminal in a matter of this kind; rather there is a duty to deal with the technicalities of industry and the mechanics of unionism. The magistrate must have some knowledge of agreements, contracts and procedure. But the magistrate does not have that knowledge, and after sitting around for some time and spending a large sum of money the case is dropped. I am not speaking disparagingly about the magistrate in question, because he is all right in his own field.
All we are asking in this instance is to give the labour relations board something by way of status. When parties to a dispute come before them they hear all the evidence. This is their act, and they know the mechanics of it. They know who is in the illegal position when they assess the evidence. All we are asking the house to do is not to give them judicial power. They take evidence, just as the income tax appeal board does, and the matter is then placed in the hands of the magistrate. However, the evidence is properly placed before him and assessed, and in this way we have an impartial body, such as the board, presenting a case on its merits. If they are turned loose today, after going through the national board, the only alternative for the worker is to strike. This idea of sending union representatives to get permission from the minister to prosecute will not work. Today the unions are dealing with large organizations with lots of money and the cost of carrying on litigation cannot be
Industrial Relations
borne by the average union. They can drag you through the courts until you are bankrupt and that is the end of your organization. In the meantime you may have delayed the settlement of a dispute that finally culminates in a strike. All this while your labour relations board is sitting idly by without authority to do anything.
We contend that this is a good time to test this when the national labour relations board has jurisdiction over so few workers. The national harbours board employees, the C.B.C. employees, the railroad employees and the employees of certain shipping companies in interprovincial trade come under their jurisdiction, but that is all. We could go on and by trial and error find out if it works.
The provincial boards have the power to do this and it has been found that the employer is not as tough as he used to be. He knows that if he forces a matter into the courts he will be fighting the provincial government. Apparently the government has little respect for the judgment of the people they appoint on this board. I say that instead of stepping up prosecutions, this legislation would cut them by 75 per cent. Instead of promoting strikes, it would prevent them.


Humphrey Mitchell: If you cut them down 75 per cent there would not be any prosecutions.


Clarence Gillis: You have had quite a few and you would have a lot more if litigation were not so costly.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not want to put the unions into the courts, as they are in the United States.


Clarence Gillis: I am trying to take them out of the courts. You had that transportation matter not so long ago.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is a matter of opinion.


Clarence Gillis: It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of record. The idea has been built up in the minds of hon. members that this is something new, but that is not correct. Every provincial labour relations board is doing this. As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) said a moment ago, we should be leading the provinces. As it stands now, we are following them. I am safe in saying that if the labour relations board had this authority you would not have had that mess in connection with the seamen that disrupted the whole industry; the board could have stopped it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Do not bring up that old chestnut.


Clarence Gillis: Certainly I will bring it up.

Industrial Relations


Humphrey Mitchell: You are not kidding me.


Clarence Gillis: That dragged along because no one had any authority. I am not speaking in favour of the communists at all. You had a man like Mr. Brockington write a report about it. I am not advocating support of the communists.


Humphrey Mitchell: I agree that the hon. member is not advocating support of the communists.


Clarence Gillis: At that time the seamen were made up of hundreds of good Canadian citizens who had done a wonderful job during the war. The report that Mr. Brockington wrote against the companies left much to foe desired.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows that the communists feed you up like a turkey at Christmastime and then slit your neck.


Clarence Gillis: They will even borrow your handkerchief to wipe the blood off their knife after they are through with you. I am reasonably sure that if our labour relations board had had the necessary authority they would have stopped that whole thing. I realize that the Minister of Labour is only one ordinary human being and he has a large department to administer with authority over a large country. I do not expect him to keep his finger on everything. What we are trying to do is to set up machinery to help him.
It is not a new thing for me to be advocating this sort of legislation. I remember the first time I went before a provincial government in connection with mothers' allowances-I was almost arrested. Yet we have all those things today. This is just another step forward. The provincial governments are getting ahead of us with this kind of thing. I have a little pride in our national forum and I want to see us pass legislation that the provinces will follow. In this particular matter they are ahead of us.
I do not want to talk out this matter because I should like to have a vote although I know how it will go. I do not want to leave the impression in the minds of hon. members or of members of the press gallery that we are taking a step in the dark because this legislation has been tried out already and it is working. It will not be taking anything away from the courts because it places the matter of assessing evidence and imposing penalties as contained in the act-


Arthur Leroy Smith: The courts would do that.


Clarence Gillis: -squarely in the hands of the magistrate. That is exactly the same thing the income tax department is doing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do not talk to me about that.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member for Calgary West says, "do not talk to me about that".


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is a czarist outfit.


Clarence Gillis: The income tax people may from your files gather evidence; they institute prosecutions and they take these matters into the courts.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: My hon. friend is trying to establish an analogy between the machinery set up for the administration of the Income Tax Act, on the one hand, and the machinery for the administration of this labour act. Does the hon. member consider that the collection of taxes should be compared with the conciliation of disputes and the administration of human relations between employers and employees?


Clarence Gillis: I am merely making a comparison. The hon. member for Calgary West says that there is no provision for appeal, but there is a provision in the bill that the board may appeal the decision or the judgment of the magistrate, and the employer can do the same thing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The board may.


Clarence Gillis: There is no appeal from the decision of compensation boards and they deal with human beings.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why not give the workman the right to appeal when you are giving the board the right to appeal?


Clarence Gillis: We are.


Arthur Leroy Smith: According to the section you read you are not.


Clarence Gillis: A workman may appeal if he wants to and so may the employer.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Nonsense.


Clarence Gillis: There is nothing new in this legislation. It is simply following precedents already established. The bill has been drafted very carefully and it conforms to the law in every way. It is merely giving to those who administer the act the same status and authority now given to the provincial boards.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Supply-National Defence
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence forces-
202. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $579,301,670 including authority, notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $438,178,000 and commitments for future years of $141,123,670 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1950-51 will not exceed $384,932,304.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, today the house has heard a number of questions asked and a number of answers given; and there has been noticeable a certain measure of impatience in certain quarters that still further questions are being asked. On a number of occasions the minister has repeated that we have more complete information than similar elective bodies elsewhere, but the repetition of that statement does not make it correct. If anyone wants to know how correct or otherwise that statement is, it is only necessary to read any one of the great metropolitan dailies of the United States. One can then see the amount of information that is given in congress in regard to every detail of national defence, except that which comes under the real veil of secrecy such as the details of the development of the hydrogen bomb; the development of atomic energy, and even that is now subject to some limitations; the development of secret weapons that have not been announced. There is a discussion on those that are generally known, although they are still described by the use of the particular term "secret weapons".
Moreover, when we are told we have more information than is available at Westminster, that again is simply not so. At Westminster the estimates go before a subcommittee on estimates, and the members who make up that committee have the right to call and do call-within this last year they have, as on other occasions-upon senior staff officers of the different branches of the service. These men are questioned about the details connected with those military services. It was only in the late afternoon that some measure of information was given which had been sought all day. Over and over again an attempt had been made, not only today but earlier, to get some idea of the real breakdown of the figure that is given for the active army. We are told that there are in excess of 40,000 members of the active army. We are told of their high state of training. In so far as their training goes, with whatever limitations there are upon that training, it is true that they are keen; that they are devoting themselves to that training; and that they give an example on parade which might well be accepted anywhere as a standard of what military appearance should be. Only in t

Supply-National Defence late afternoon we learned that of those 40,000 the hitting force, and it is the hitting force that counts, is in the neighbourhood of 4,000 in the brigade group. We were given that information indirectly, because it was stated that the brigade group was about 80 per cent of strength, and we know the establishment of a brigade group. Therefore, subject to whatever additional figures may be added by the minister, the hitting force that we have available through our land army is something of the order of 4,000 men.
Having said that, it is appropriate to point out that the staff, the officer body, and the men generally of the active army are called upon to train the reserve army. Therefore the relationship of the staff, and of non-combatant to combatant, could not be expected to bear the same proportions as a group of military formations in the field. Nevertheless there must surely be some reason for concern, and there must be a recognition of the lack of balance, when out of some 40,000 our apparent hitting force is in the neighbourhood of 4,000. I say, Mr. Chairman, it is our apparent hitting force. It may be greater than that, and if it is we are still waiting to be told what the figures are. I hope we will not again in this chamber hear a statement that this information might help Russia. Surely we are talking in terms of reality, and not in terms of children's make-believe. We are talking in terms of the threat of a military power that has some 160 fully armed divisions in the field, and that has a potential of some 600 divisions that could be quickly brought into military service. It is that potential to which the free nations of the world are now directing their attention, and which they are seeking to restrain by their combined strength.
The only people who will be misled or the only people who will be in any way fooled by hiding information are the people of Canada who should know exactly what the facts are and who are prepared to meet those facts. The people of this country will respond to a challenge. The people of this country, if they are told of the need really to prepare ourselves for the test that lies ahead, will undoubtedly meet whatever reasonable demand is made upon them or any call for sacrifice. But it would be criminal folly for any Canadian to forget what happened in 1914 and in 1939, and not to remember what happens to the bravest men if they are confronted with superior armed force and a determined enemy who has been preparing for active aggression with the deliberate intention of using his weapons for that aggression.
In so far as the figures are available, we do not know. I hope that the minister will

indicate that the figures are much better than they now appear. But one of the things that this committee should know and should insist upon knowing-and this insistence should come from every part of the chamber -is how many of the active forces are in headquarters, how many are staff, how many are in command headquarters, how many are engaged in the work in the various military establishments across the country and in the armouries as well. We should know what the proportion is of each of those groups brought right down to the actual hitting force itself. When 1 speak of the hitting force, I am not including those vitally important services-and may I emphasize the words "vitally important services"- such as the medical service, the army service corps and the various organizations required to support troops in the field. Their place is as a component part of any successful military effort. But the effort from the staff organization down and up again is all related to What hitting force can be put in the field. If our hitting force is only of the order of
4,000	or 5,000 men, and if that is the total number of men that we could put into the field if the call came tomorrow, then there is a disproportion that should alarm everyone here and everyone in this country; because that proportion is not one that is in keeping with any balanced allocation of military tasks.
When the minister was asked about those forces, and it was mentioned that 80 per cent of the establishment of the brigade group would be in the neighbourhood of 4,000, he said quite properly that it must be remembered that behind and associated with that were the reserve units. There again is something about which we should have a great deal more information than we have now before we even think of passing this item. We must remember that this item is the one that embraces the whole broad field of military expenditure in the general field of military training.
The minister pointed out that certain units of the reserve forces which have been mentioned are in a high state of training and that they would be able in a short time to give an excellent account of themselves. He was asked, "Within what time?" His answer was, "Varying times". I do not think any words in this discussion have been more descriptive of the nature of the information that we have than the answer that was given to that question, "Within what time?" The answer was, "Varying times". What is meant by "varying times"?
Do not let anyone accept the statement that we are getting accurate information when

we are simply told that the reserve units could be put in the field in varying times. We know from experience that units of the reserve forces were put in the fields in varying times in the last war, and they ranged from two and a half years upwards. It takes a long time to bring a reserve unit up to combatant standards, unless its training has been on a combatant level, whether it has full equipment or not. I greatly question whether there is a single reserve unit in Canada today that, with any justice to the men in that unit, could be put in the field against a trained army in less than six months. We are talking in terms of what can be done in the face of an immediate threat, not what can be done at some distant time.
I would hope that the members of this committee would ask that the Minister of National Defence speak with words that have the same clarity as those used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because the Secretary of State for External Affairs left no doubt that I can see in reading the words as to his interpretation of what happened so recently in London when the twelve member nations of the Atlantic community met there and reached certain agreements. Speaking as the man who had actually been there, speaking on behalf of Canada, and speaking as the man who represented Canada, the Secretary of State for External Affairs told us here in this chamber last Monday that never again could nations wait behind the ramparts of sacrifice of other nations to build up their strength to defend themselves. Those are clear words and they are words that face the reality. Never again, he was telling us in effect, will there be that period which we were given in the first world war and in the second world war to make up for the time which had been lost in making any effective preparation to meet the threat of war which was actually before us. Never again can we hope for a channel to protect freedom in the way that the channel protected Britain as the great outpost of freedom in 1939 onwards until the free nations were ready to re-invade the European continent.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs also used words which were open to no doubt when he said that this agreement laid' down a new principle and that principle was-and he used an illustration to show what he meant -that each nation within this group of twelve nations would decide what task it could best perform and what things it could best produce as part of the combined effort. Let us take the illustration of the battleships, and this has already been mentioned; but in the face of the uncertainty of the statements that have been made, it obviously needs to be
Supply-National Defence repeated. He pointed out that if the battleships could best be built by one nation, then other nations would not build them; but he pointed out that such an economy of forces- and may I emphasize the words "economy of forces"-would only be possible if the other nations knew that the nation which was building the battleships would put them to immediate use in the event that a threat had to be faced; and that applied to aircraft, to armoured vehicles and to everything else. It is not only that the nation which can best produce those things will produce them and train with them, but that whole principle rests upon the clear understanding that if other nations leave that job to a nation that can best perform it, that nation which is doing that particular task will carry out that task at the moment that the task is of importance.
We have no such definite statement from the Minister of National Defence. On the contrary, we are told that what has happened in London calls for no change that should be announced to us now. All over this country the agreement was hailed as one of the historic documents of our time. The newspapers very naturally, in editorials and in feature articles, spoke of the fact that this presented the possibility of a reorganization of our forces which could increase the effectiveness of those forces and at the same time make it possible to economize in some of these things. And yet we are told that there is no change from what has been placed before us for so long, and that this calls for no new announcement, no new plan, no statement that there will be a re-adjustment of the proportion of units or anything of that kind.


Brooke Claxton: What suggestion have you to make about a re-apportionment of units?


George Alexander Drew: I will make that suggestion in a moment. In so far as these details are concerned, I asked last night-and I asked in the hope that the minister would comply with the request-that the minister agree to prepare a statement which could be presented to this house and could be printed as an appendix to the records of the house, which would show the actual military formations in this country, would show the headquarters organization here in Ottawa, would show the command organizations, would show the groups within those various commands; would show the number of infantry units, the number of artillery units, the number of engineering units, signal units, medical units and all the other units required by a land force; would tell us the number of air units of different kinds, whether of fighter, bomber or other squadrons, would give us the numbers and types of ships, both in

Supply-National Defence active service and included in these estimates for construction or for the beginning of construction during the current year.
The minister comes forward with nothing of that kind. He still talks in generalities, still talks in very vague and uncertain terms of the things that must be secret, and we do not even know what he thinks should be secret and what should not. There is no mystery about the organization of our forces in this country. We have a headquarters staff here in Ottawa, and we should know- and I propose, to ask in detail-exactly the number of staff officers in this headquarters, what the military staff organization is under them, what the general civilian body is that is employed here in Ottawa; what the number is at command headquarters, what the number is at every other military location throughout Canada, and the number of people, not giving them in individual points, but the number employed at armouries and at other establishments for maintenance and otherwise. These figures could be given without producing volumes to do that task.
Let us look at the situation. We have this headquarters here. The general staff is situated here, and all the supporting organization. Then we have in this country five commands. We have these commands divided as follows: We have the eastern command, with headquarters at Halifax; we have the Quebec command with headquarters at Montreal; we have the central command with headquarters at Oakville; we have the prairie command with headquarters at Winnipeg, and the western command with headquarters at Edmonton. In turn these commands have certain special duties and certain special tasks. One of the things that should be explained to us, when the detailed organization of these commands is given to us, is what is being done at these commands for divisional organization, and what is the divisional organization within these commands; because that also is something that relates to the type of training that we are giving, and whether there should be a reallocation of forces in this country.
Also there is the question of the interchangeability of units between eastern and western commands because of the similarity of their tasks. Certainly it is not in any of these secret categories when we recognize the fact, which is not stated in any of these records, but nevertheless is fully recognized and generally known but has to be stated in order to examine the whole picture, that our military establishment is based upon the acceptance of the proposition that we will have six divisions, four independent infantry brigades, two independent tank brigades as well as certain ancillary troops.
[Mr. Drew. 1

The divisions in the various commands are as follows. The eastern command has the fifth infantry division; the Quebec command has the third and fourth infantry divisions; the central command has the first infantry division and the second armoured division; the western command has the sixth armoured division and the Pacific command has part of the fifth infantry division, so that the fifth infantry division is made up of the parts that are in both the eastern and western commands.
When the Minister of National Defence asks what should be considered, well, here is something that certainly should be considered, namely, whether or not the decisions that were made in London so short a time ago have any bearing on whether there should be a greater concentration of armoured divisions than of ordinary infantry divisions. I think the minister should tell us whether he thinks that with the developments of the past few months, let alone a few years, infantry divisions can ever possibly be expected to go into active service except in association with armoured divisions; and whether the whole plan should not be to create fighting teams in which the armour and infantry are integrated at all times without any degree of separation between the two formations.
The war establishment, and it is the active service establishment that we are contemplating in this discussion of an armoured division, consists of an infantry brigade of four infantry battalions, an armoured brigade, four armoured regiments, divisional troops. These divisional troops include divisional artillery, self-propelled regiments, self-propelled antitank regiments, armoured car regiment, motor battalion division, signal regiment, divisional engineers, divisional service corps, divisional medical corps, divisional ordnance corps, divisional electrical and mechanical engineers. That is the type of force that is included in one armoured division on a war establishment. I think that is the kind of thing we should be asking at a time like this, when the very survival of this nation rests upon the subject we are discussing.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: What do you want to tell the world about it for?


George Alexander Drew: As I was saying, when the very survival of this nation depends upon the subject we are discussing. First: what is the actual situation in regard to each one of those units that are embraced in an armoured division of this kind? As would be indicated by the very fact that the fifth infantry division is divided between the east and west coasts, it is clear that the fifth infantry division is for coast defence in both coastal areas.

Then, outside of those particular troops that have this particular task there are five other divisions and in addition four independent infantry brigades and two independent tank brigades. These are all reserve organizations. I am convinced that there is no one who would speak with any measure of responsibility who would suggest that with the most concentrated training that could possibly be conceived those units could go into action in less than six months-and many of them would require a great deal more than that.
It is in the light of that situation that we must then go back to the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who said that we have come to the time now when never again can preparation go forward behind the ramparts of sacrifices of some other nation, but that the task now is to have a hitting force that can be put into the field the moment the demand comes.
When the Minister of National Defence asks what can be done, then I say to him that what can be done and what should be done-and we should be having staff officers right here to tell us-is, in the light of this new principle enunciated last Monday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to tell us what is the maximum hitting force which can go into action immediately and that we as a nation can maintain.
That is the question. And on the answer to that question depends the answer to the demand for money which is being made in this House of Commons. It may be a great deal more than the money that is asked for, and it may be less. It may be that, if our forces are organized on a highly efficient basis, with every unit trained to work as a team that can go into action the moment the whistle blows, we actually would save millions and scores of millions of dollars. On the other hand, if on the advice of the staff, and with that advice presented to members of parliament, it is clear that more money is needed, then I am satisfied that parliament and the people of Canada will vote whatever money is needed to preserve that freedom which means more than life itself to our people.
But let us know what is the force. I say the definition is simple, and the definition is not contained in anything that has been put before us here. The definition is simple, and it is this:	We are members of the Atlantic
community of nations. According to the Secretary of State for External Affairs we have agreed to become part of a team of free nations pooling all their strength for the preservation of their freedom. We have agreed
Supply-National Defence as a free nation to pool that strength upon a basis which will economize by using that strength which each nation can best produce.
Our contribution may well be limited in the field of a land force; it may be very great in the air. I have no doubt that that is our major role. It certainly would be very great in hard-hitting armoured units. Also there are undoubtedly certain types of service craft which this country has learned to make so well, manned by men who have shown as high a natural instinct for seamanship as the members of any navy in the world. There again our task is to determine what proportion of those should be used, and whether in the light of this new principle enunciated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs we are to maintain aircraft, carriers, cruisers, destroyers, submarines or vessels of any other kind.
All we are asking, and I am sure what the people of Canada are asking, is to know what the facts are and to know the best contribution we can make and, knowing that, then to relate the expenditure of money called for by parliament to the most effective organization of a force of that kind that can be put into operation the very moment danger of war should threaten. It is upon that basis that we will have not war but peace.
If there is one clear and tragic lesson that has emerged from all the dreadful and heartbreaking evidence at Nuremberg last year, it is the clear evidence that where there were two world wars there could have been peace, if the free nations of the world, with all their vast resources, and that greater energy which freedom gives, had only had the vision to stand together and to say to Germany and to other aggressors before war actually came, "We will give everything we have to save this freedom that we love so much. Do not be misled into believing that we have gone soft, or that we are not prepared to fight for the freedom which you threaten."
Today there is only one possible enemy in the world-only one. Never before in the whole history of the world have the lines been drawn so clearly. Those of us of my age and over have lived through the most eventful years in the whole history of the world. My memory as a small boy goes back to the days immediately following the South African war, and to the time when those who served in that distant field came back. To us they were almost like men from Mars. They had been in a distant world the rest of us could not understand. They had come from a distant land the rest of us would never know. There was romance, there was glamour-yes, there was an appeal about the 'thought of marching men on the distant veldt that had

Supply-National Defence no relationship to the tragic hardships, the disease, the death and the horrors that went with that struggle in a comparatively limited part of the world.	-
Then, in the years between 1901 and 1914, there were a number of great powers any one of which might have threatened the peace of the world. There was Germany, the Austrian empire of 55 million people, France, Italy, China, Japan, Great Britain and the United States. They were all strong powers.
Then war came, and out of the holocaust of war a very limited number of nations carried on as great powers. Actually in the years after the war Japan in the east and Germany in Europe presented the only real threat. Mussolini could not build a formidable army although he put many men under arms. Two threats were there and we knew they were threats. Russia was not yet a threat in the same way because it was still gathering its forces together under the new tyranny which had emerged. But it would be a good thing for us to recall that the real driving power that created the tyrannies in Germany and Italy was communism itself. It was because of the rise of communism in Germany after world war I, after the dreadful horrors of the communist governments of Prussia, of Saxony, of Bavaria and other German states, it was after the horrors of communism in Italy as well, that these dictators emerged and built up their military power.
In the Orient the military power of Japan was built up upon another basis. But there was that threat; we saw it and we knew it. War came. The war destroyed much. But for Great Britain, for the commonwealth, for the United States, for many nations in Europe and the rest of the world, thank God, it did not destroy freedom. But freedom has been lost in many parts of the world. Freedom is being lost day by day, under the threat from one power and one power alone.
That power has vast military strength which was built up largely by the assistance given by Great Britain, by the United States and by Canada as well. Let us be under no delusion as to the strength of Russia in many lines. I am not questioning the wisdom of the decisions arrived at at the time, but we sent some of the finest electrical equipment ever produced in Canada to help rebuild the great power plants on the Don, the Dnieper, and the Dniester. Those great projects are producing the power for the munition plants of Russia where they are turning out arms and equipment with the help of the conscripted skill of eastern Germany which they control.


It is not an easy picture to accept. We know that the machine tools which they cannot turn out as yet on a satisfactory basis were supplied by ourselves in limited quantities, by the United States, by Great Britain, by Sweden and other countries which are able to make machine tools of the highest quality.
That threat is there and must be dealt with, not by promises of what can be done within six months, within a .year or within two years; it can be blocked only if we face the realities of what it means. We, along with other nations, must create armed forces in being, not armed forces on paper, not armed forces that can go into action in six months or a year.
The Minister of National Defence knows that I had some experience with this problem and it is because of that experience that I am concerned about any delay in the reorganization of our forces in keeping with the principle that has been laid down. As he has stated, I had the privilege of being 'the president of the Canadian Artillery Association at a time when all the defence associations came together for the purpose of drafting a plan for the reorganization of our land forces. At that time there was a complete disproportion between the infantry units, the artillery units and the other units. The resolution upon which the reorganization took place was a simple one calling for the integrated organization of the land forces in Canada on the basis of not less than four and not more than six divisions on an active service basis. With the acceptance of that principle the six-division basis was adopted and the reorganization took place. It took several years and it was only because there were several years in which to carry out that reorganization that it was possible for the reserve units of this country to be mobilized as they were in 1939.
We are confronted now with another demand for a type of armed force that will be adapted to the principle enunciated so clearly last Monday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We want to know exactly what is the maximum hitting force that can be put into the field right away, not something that will take months to prepare but right away. Whatever that force is, we want to see the equipment and we want to see the training. We want to see the sort of organizations which can put those units in the field at the earliest possible moment. So much for the land force.
What is our role in the air? That too must have been dis,cussed. There cannot be any secrecy about this. As the organization of

our air force is developed it is known to everyone. They know what the types are. The Russians do not think that a Vampire or other jet machines are bombers. They do not think they are anything else but what they are. They can tell by the type of machine just what it is intended for. When we have five jet squadrons, which is the present objective, they will know that those five jet squadrons are for a particular purpose. If we have jet transport squadrons or turboprop squadrons or squadrons of any other kind, they will know what they are for. For that reason, let us know what is needed. Let us know what fits into this pattern. Then let us insist that the plan be completed.
The same is true of the naval force. Let us know whether the aircraft carrier is still part of the force or whether it should be reallocated to the navy of Great Britain. On the other hand, let us know whether we should have more aircraft carriers. Let us know what the task is.
In this respect may I point out that it is not enough for us to be told by the minister what he thinks this is; we should have the evidence of what is required. It is for this house to say how far it is prepared to go and to insist that this government, with the full support of the members of parliament, must create the most efficient fighting unit consistent with this new principle which will economize our effort and which will make it possible to develop our strength within this team of free nations.
Beyond the armed forces is the question of military supply. We have the statement of General Howard, chairman of that board, that the developments are not as advanced as they should be. We should know how much of this money is needed by that board under the chairmanship of General Howard. Having regard to the allocation of tasks, we want to know that that also is brought up to date.
That is the broad picture. We are not dealing simply with marching men; we are not dealing simply with aircraft flying over our heads; we are not dealing simply with the magnificent sight of ships; we are dealing with the last chance for freedom in our generation. That is what it is. It is time that every one of us grasped this problem with full recognition of all that it means. If there is one call that should come to us from those whose memory is perpetuated in the cemeteries, money for which is a part of the requirements to be voted, it is: Do not again put young men against steel, iron and explosives without the steel, iron and explosives that they need for their task. Do
Supply-National Defence not pit flesh and blood against steel. Do not test the bravery of a free people beyond endurance. We have risked that twice. Let us not try it again. That is the issue before us. In the light of that issue I once again urge the Minister of National Defence to give us the complete breakdown to which we are entitled.


Mr. Mclvor:: I have listened to many speeches in this debate and a lot of them have been good, but I must admit that the greatest force in keeping a nation alive and winning wars has not been emphasized. As the dramatist said:	"There's a divinity that
shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will." Behind parliament, behind the soldiers and behind the nation if we have not that power which is divine we will be licked to a frazzle. Napoleon said:	Talk not to me of
Providence; Providence is on the side of the heaviest battalion. As somebody has said, Napoleon lived to rue the day when he found that Providence was on the side of the white snowflakes of Russia, when the flower of France were frozen in their saddles. I would advise the opposition, the minister and the government to put the emphasis on the greatest force possible. We have to keep ourselves in shape and well equipped physically and mentally, but certainly we must keep ourselves equipped spiritually.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, there is one correction I should like to make. Because of the fact that the over-all figure of 40,000 odd was referred to I used it. I want to correct the figure in relation to the army as distinguished from the armed forces generally. The total for the army as distinguished from the armed forces is in the neighbourhood of 20,000 whereas the armed forces are in excess of 40,000.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, we have
listened to a speech by the leader of the opposition which was rather similar to a speech he made yesterday and to others which he has delivered throughout the session. I do not say on that account that it was necessarily a bad speech.


An hon. Member:: Friday night.


Brooke Claxton: Not necessarily, but I say that the problem of our national defence is a problem which must be decided by parliament and the country, and one which must be decided in the light of the circumstances as they exist at the time. Hon. members will appreciate that I have made a good many speeches throughout the country about the communist menace. They will appreciate I have made a good many speeches to arouse interest in the work of our armed forces and

Supply-National Defence explaining their needs, but I do not feel it is necessary to make that kind of speech tonight.
I feel that this is one kind of audience which might have been spared the speech made by the leader of the opposition. He has made it before, and we agree with a great deal of it.
We are concerned now with voting $425 million for purposes of national defence for the year 1950-51. That is the matter before the committee. I must say I have been ready to take part in that discussion since the 17th of March when this department was the first to be brought into supply. We have not been assisted to any great degree in making any progress by the various measures that have been brought forward by opposition groups from time to time. But here we are. We have had two days of the most ample and general discussion. A .good deal of it has been first-class and very welcome; but why the leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Kamloops and other members of the opposition should in some way find fault with us because we have not anticipated meetings that have not taken place, because we have not anticipated decisions that have not yet been made, because we have not declared history before it has been written,
I just do not understand.
That has gone on for two days, apparently in some kind of notion that in the statements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself there is room for finding some point of difference. I should like once and for all to scotch that type of childish effort to provoke some kind of division in the government. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have known each other for over twenty-five years. We have worked together on international conference after international conference. When he was away in London at the recent conference it was given to me to represent him in the house as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, as it has been my duty in his absence ever since he was appointed Secretary of State for External Affairs. So far as I know, when I have acted with him as his junior on a delegation, or when we have worked together on any other occasion, we have worked together as one person speaking the same language, as members of this government work together under the leadership of the Prime Minister. We have gone over the text of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said and I think I have quoted parts of it twice, but I only did so because members of the opposition failed to quote the parts that were necessary to complete the picture. The statement is there. If you look at the statements made in consequence of the first meeting of the council of


ministers under the North Atlantic pact in Washington; then the defence committee held in Washington; then the defence committee held in Paris; then subsequently the defence committee held in The Hague; and finally the council of ministers held in London; you will see a record of gradual, steady but rapid accomplishment of the ends for which the North Atlantic treaty was signed by this and the other eleven nations.
Let no member of this house and no person in Canada ever fail to remember that among the nations which put forward the idea of this treaty, Canada, through the statement of the Prime Minister at the United Nations, was one of the first. That was followed through in our work in the working group. In fact I believe we were the first country to sign the pact, and then we were among the first to ratify it without a dissenting voice in either this house or the Senate. Make no mistake about it, any effort by anyone anywhere to indicate that we are less than faithful to our signature and desirous of the interests of freedom is an effort to distort the established record and to thwart the interests of the Canadian people.
Why should it be necessary for me to say this after we have gone through all these debates, and the discussion in the house yesterday and today? Only because an effort has been made to indicate that Canada, in some way or other, is doing less than she should. Sir, I am one who has had to face the Canadian people in some elections, and I never want to face any section of [DOT] the Canadian people unless I can say that we have done everything that is necessary to live up to our bond, to seek our interests, and to do what the Canadian people want. The record of the armed forces of Canada in the great war of 1914-18, and the second world war, has given us a place second to none among the nations of the world, irrespective of size. We have earned their respect, and we are going to hold their respect.
Why have the members of the official opposition brought up this series of questions as to whether we are going to make changes; whether we are doing enough; whether we should not suddenly stop in the middle of our defence preparations this year and make some other preparations, because of the declaration of an important principle? I do not know why they have done it. I do not see where they are getting. I do not see any political advantage from it. I certainly see no national advantage to it. I see nothing in the speech of the leader of the opposition that would help us in either raising forces for our own defence or meeting the enemy should he come tomorrow. I do not see it. I have been

trying through three years to develop the sort of idea that I believe is thoroughly understood by this country, and that is that defence is a matter of major government policy, of major national policy, because of the attitude of the Soviet union. Owing to that fact, we have been seeking increasingly large amounts from parliament in order to secure the means of defending ourselves, but also to contribute to the defence of other nations who think with us that we must defend our freedom where-ever it can best be defended. Towards that end I believe a good many hon. members on both sides of the house have spent their efforts. I believe also that, to a greater degree than ever before in the peacetime history of this country, the needs of national defence are recognized and appreciated by the people in every part of Canada, and no one has done more to arouse that appreciation and that recognition than the Prime Minister.
But far more than the efforts of any person have been the realities of the situation. On that account, as I say, we are seeking an increasingly large amount from parliament for national defence. This year we have come before you for $425 million. I shall not say for a moment that with $425 million we can guarantee Canada, or any part of it, against attack. I shall not say that with $425 million we can replace all the deficiencies that may be found in western Europe; that is ridiculous. What we must do is see what part of our national income, of our national budget, of our national production, we can spend on defence, having regard to our appreciation of the international situation. Then having regard to that sum, but always having arrived at it with regard to the international situation, we must see how we can best spend it. During this discussion I have not heard very much criticism of the work of the members of the Royal Canadian Navy, or the army, or the air force, and they are people who are our defenders today.
It is possible, of course, to say that we should spend a little more in respect of the air force; a little more in respect of the navy; a little more in respect of the army, or the reserve, or the active forces, or cadets. But every cent more that is spent in one direction must be taken from somewhere else. You cannot use these dollars that are voted by parliament more than once. You can use them for personnel, for construction or for equipment. You can use them for the navy, army, or air force. You can use them for active or reserve forces, but you cannot use them right across the board. The point which I believe must be emphasized before this committee is that, on the information I
Supply-National Defence have given today and having regard to comparisons that are available to us of the accomplishments of our navy and air force, and then from what we know of the army, the division seems to be as good as we can work out. I have not heard any suggestion that there is anything wrong with it. I have only heard suggestions that I should announce some change in consequence of some decision that has not yet been made. But I think that this committee will agree with my suggestion and also the people of Canada, judging from what I have seen of them-and I dare say I have travelled about the country on my job more than most other hon. members, meeting the people and trying to persuade them that what the defence forces need is their support and then explaining defence policy to the defence forces. What I have found everywhere is that the need is for appreciation, and that the defence forces are not only accepted but are respected to a degree that has never been attained before in our country's peacetime history.
Every now and then there is thrown out the suggestion that everything is fine with the defence forces but everything is wrong with the minister. I do not claim a bit of credit for anything that is good about the defence forces, and I think they are good; but I demand the right here or anywhere else to defend them, and I have done so from one end of the country to the other whenever the need has been apparent.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, to have taken up so much of the time of the committee, but I do not think I have taken up nearly as much as have some of the hon. members of the opposition who have made statements today. I should like to deal again with a matter I dealt with before; and always on these questions it is difficult to know how much one can go beyond the terms of the actual communique that we agreed to have announced. One of the things the leader of the opposition said was, "Let us know what is needed" and he said he was sure that the Canadian people would respond. I am finding that the Canadian people are responding quite well to the appeals that are made to them. But "Let us know what is needed", he said; and I ask, "Let us know what is needed, where, when, by whom, and with what?"
,1 would tell the leader of the opposition this, and here I think I have the precedent of General Bradley in the speech he made on April 14 to which I referred. The list of the requirements of the countries of the North Atlantic treaty far exceed their present

Supply-National Defence available resources of personnel or equipment. That is so in almost every computation of military needs. I do not suggest for a second that we should not take the list of requirements as being serious. Of course they are. But when he says, "Let us know what is needed", I say that we can only answer that in terms of what we think we should contribute to the common pool of defence, and then also relate that to our own local defence needs; and relate for our own local defence just as small a portion as is possible for us to relate in that way. We want to have in Canada engaged in static defence as small a force as is regarded as being needed. But then we get into the question of equipment, personnel and what is needed for balanced forces; and that is one of the questions which are coming before the deputies who have not met yet-they have not been appointed yet- and before the other agencies of the North Atlantic treaty organization.
I must say that I am astonished at being accused steadily throughout the last few days of not disclosing something that has not been revealed or yet disclosed to me or to anyone else in the world yet. I am also surprised at being accused of saying that we are not taking care of the future, not thinking ahead and so on, when all of our defence planning, as far as I can see and as disclosed to hon. members, has been based on the principle of continuing examination to meet changing circumstances. Just because we seem to have done so well in anticipation as not to require any change in the immediate future does not mean that we will not require a change over the long term or over the intermediate term. As I said today, we shall be ready and glad to discuss with our partners in the North Atlantic treaty ways and means of pooling our resources so that we can make the best possible use of them. But that does not remove from us in Canada the responsibility of trying to work out what is the best pattern for our forces. I must say that during the last few days or in the previous defence debates I have not heard anything which has caused us to alter greatly the pattern that has been worked out since the war. I must also say that we have heard a good deal, particularly from the hon. member for Nanaimo, which has confirmed us in the course that we have been following; and I hope that we shall hear more in the future to the same effect. But let no one try to separate us one from another by any charge based on false premises. And let no one suggest for a second that this government or this department is not doing everything in its power to press forward the preparation of our defences within the means put at our


disposal. In that I am sure we shall have the support of members from every part of the committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am somewhat surprised at the speech the minister has just made, particularly the earlier part of it. On reading it over in the morning, I think he will find that it will not stand up well to critical examination.


An hon. Member:: Who are the critics?


An hon. Member:: General know-all!


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should just like to comment on a few things that he said. He started out his speech by saying that he has been ready to go on with his estimates ever since they were first introduced on March 17; and then he tried to give the impression that the reason he had not been able to go on with them was that the opposition had prevented him from doing so. Nothing could be more arrant nonsense than that. The government has the conduct of the business in its hands. It decides every day what will come up for debate the next day. If it had wanted to bring on the estimates of the Department of National Defence for the five days following March 17, except Saturdays and Sundays, it could have done so; and if it had wanted to bring them on at any time after that, it could have done so. The idea of trying to leave the impression that the opposition has prevented these estimates from being discussed for almost three months is, as I say, complete nonsense. The government could have brought them on at any time whatever, and they must take full responsibility for not having done so.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: The hon. member has been
talking all day and has not said anything.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have been interrupted by
the hon. member for Mackenzie-


Mr. Cavers:: Not only by the hon. member
for Mackenzie.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He has spent his time
mumbling and grumbling-


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Who would not, with you?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and shouting "carried" for the last several days. I happened to go to the performance of Hamlet which was held here on Wednesday night, and when the hon. member for Mackenzie started shouting and mumbling tonight it reminded me of Shakespeare in another play of his called King Lear-


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Much ado about nothing.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: A midsummernight's dream.

The Depuly Chairman:	Order. I can see
that hon. members are in a very good mood. I am sure we all hope that this debate will be carried on in a very serious manner. Therefore I ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am in this difficulty; I
could not hear the interruptions, there were too many at the one time. However, as I was saying, Shakespeare was the most versatile writer who has ever lived, I presume-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: That has nothing to do with
the estimates.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I think the hon. member for Calgary East should relate his remarks to the item now before the committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I am, Mr. Chairman. I am relating them particularly to the interruptions. It will only take a moment. I am sure that the hon. member for Mackenzie is a great student of Shakespeare, and I would like to draw his attention particularly-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Ditto, my friend from the
west.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. All hon. members will admit that this is a very serious debate which we are now carrying on. I should think that the decorum and prestige of the house should be maintained. I have asked the hon. member for Calgary East to relate his remarks to the item under discussion. If he relates the little story of Shakespeare that he has before him-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I hold in my hand-


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member should resume his seat. If he wants to relate his remarks to the interruptions which the Chairman has been trying to prevent, and which he is now trying to prevent, and will try to prevent until eleven o'clock, he will not be carrying out the Chairman's ruling. I should like the hon. member to relate his remarks to the item under discussion. The story he was about to tell has no relation whatsoever to the item under discussion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I will just read these few lines-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I ask the hon.
member to co-operate with the Chair in this instance. It is very difficult to keep order in the committee when hon. members do not want to co-operate. I would again ask the
Supply-National Defence hon. member to relate his remarks to the item under discussion. I know that is What he will do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, if any member wishes to read it it can be found in act 2, scene 2, line 71 of "King Lear" where Cornwall asks:
Why are you angry?
You know, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this house is degenerating when it has come to the point that one is not allowed to quote Shakespeare.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Shakespeare is now out of order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Hon. members seem to quote everything else, but when you come to quote Shakespeare you are ruled out of order. I tried to do so.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Shakespeare was not a
Canadian.


Douglas Scott Harkness: To come back to the remarks which the minister was making, he said that an effort had been made to show that Canada is doing less than she should. No such effort as that was made, Mr. Chairman. Nobody on this side of the house made any attempt of such a nature. What we have done is to have asked for information. And it is information which we think we are entitled to get. There is surely nothing in the matter of asking for information which should cause the Minister of National Defence to say that an effort was being made to show that Canada is doing less than she should. Nobody has suggested that; nobody has thought it.
Then the minister asked this question: Why have the opposition been asking these questions? Well, by that he meant the questions that we have asked about the possible change in defence planning, and so forth, because of the agreements made last month in London. The answer to that is very simple. We have been asking the questions because we want to know the answers. What other reason is there for asking certain questions? The minister was making a great point of it. We asked these questions naturally because we want to know, and we think it is o-ur duty to know, what our defence policy is; whether there have been any changes in it as a result of these agreements which were made last month, and also how the defence policy is to be or is being implemented or carried out. That is why we have been asking these questions. There is nothing else we can do except ask them.
One reason that we have to ask them probably more often than we would like to ask them is that we do not get direct, straight answers to the questions. We have to keep

Supply-National Defence asking and asking over and over again to get anything like the information that we want. In other words, we draw it out in bits and pieces. If we could get a complete and full answer the first time, then we would not have to repeat the question, and ask for another bit of information on something else.
Finally the minister said he had not heard any criticism of the navy, the army or the air force. Certainly he has not heard any criticism of them. Why should he hear any criticism of them from us? They are carrying out the duties assigned to them, and the policy which is adopted by this government. So far as we have been able to determine, they are carrying them out very well. But what we are criticizing, what we are asking questions about, is the policy. What is the policy? That is what we are trying to find out, particularly as to whether these forces have the strengths, the equipment and so forth to be able to carry out these policies properly or not. That is what we are asking for, and that is what we want. In many cases these are not the answers we have been getting.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Mr. Chairman, I have not said anything in this debate. I have sat around here for quite a long time listening to colonels. The minister and I happened to be in the first war and we were of the same rank and we are proud of it. I am proud of every Canadian boy in the army, the navy and the air force. I will not sit here and listen to any man say that we have got divisions here that could not go into a war tomorrow and lick anything that there is in the world today. There are 40 million people in Siberia and we have 14 million in Canada. I want to say right here and now that these gentlemen on my left ought to be ashamed of themselves when they try to get information out of the minister when, as colonels, they themselves know that they would not under any circumstances give anything that they thought would help an enemy, if they were in power.
In the first war the late Colonel Ralston said, "Boys, you are going up to the front line. Remember one thing: silence is golden, and the less they know"-


An hon. Member:: What about putting it into practice?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You don't need to talk, buttercup. Silence, as I said before, is golden. I am going to say very little more. Maybe

some of my friends to my left will listen to
me when I say this: The heart of government is in Britain; the muscle of government is in the United States; the brains of government are in Canada today.


George Alexander Drew: Well now, Mr. Chairman, let us all be perfectly clear about one thing, and that is that there is no one in this chamber who has been casting any reflections on Canadians in any of the armed forces-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: -and anyone who suggests that any member of this house did cast such a reflection is not worthy to sit in the House of Commons. Because I might point out that interest in the men of our armed forces is not the exclusive privilege of the hon. member for Mackenzie, or any other member in the House of Commons. There are members in the house who have as much reason for interest in and concern about those in the armed forces as any others who have spoken. I am prepared to attribute that interest to every member. I hope we will keep the discussion on the basis of the broad problem, and not try to divert the discussion to any such improper suggestions as those which were made.
When we are asked why any question should be raised-


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: On a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Did not the leader of the opposition say that there was not a force in Canada today that was trained well enough to meet the enemy?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, that merely indicates how necessary it is that things be repeated frequently, because if the hon. member had listenedi, or if he had been capable of remembering, he would have remembered that what was pointed out was that we were told that there was a brigade group with an approximate number of 4,000 men who would be in position to go into active service right away. When the minister was asked how soon these other reserve units could go into action, if necessary, his reply was simply that it could be done at some uncertain time.


Brooke Claxton: Various times.


George Alexander Drew: At some varying times. "Varying times" is the very expression I used, and "varying times" is something that not one of us can define. Varying time is something that all of us should try to understand. I, for one, have tried to impress upon the minister the desirability of preparing a statement which

would show a break-down. 1 do not believe for one moment that the minister is not fully aware of the kind of statement that would answer the request that has been made, and would greatly simplify this discussion.
I have stopped to point out that during the lifetime of many of us here we have seen events move through to the point where there are only two camps and where, if we succeed in our effort, we have brighter hopes of peace than ever before and, if we fail, there is nothing but disaster.
In so far as what we are discussing is concerned, I have merely suggested that we discuss it with a recognition of the seriousness of the problem. I am urging the minister to prepare such a statement. If he will not do it, then there is no alternative but to take these items one by one, go through them and get the information that could easily have been presented in a statement. That would have saved time-and the other way will take a very long time.
Now I shall ask my first question.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


George Alexander Drew: "Filibuster"-no; it is a subject about which we not only have the right but the duty to know something. That information could have been given to us in the form of facts, and perhaps disposed of in a very short time. However, since we have not got that I shall proceed to ask my questions.
My first question is this: How many officers, N.C.O.'s and other ranks are employed at headquarters at Ottawa?


An hon. Member:: Carried.


George Alexander Drew: No, it is not carried.


Brooke Claxton: I believe the answer to that question was given before. However, I am checking up.


George Alexander Drew: Then, I shall put the next one: How many civilians are employed at headquarters in Ottawa?


Brooke Claxton: I think that was answered, too.


An hon. Member:: Silly question No. 2.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think that was answered. I have a note down here in connection with it.
Mr.' Drew: If it has been answered, then it would be very easy to give the information to me. We want it right up to date. I should like to ask that I be given answers to both the first and second questions.


Brooke Claxton: I will find out whether they have been answered. If they have not been answered we will be glad to get the figure for the leader of the opposition.
55946-219^
Supply-National Defence


Edmund Davie Fulton: How many civilian personnel were involved or employed in departmental administration in 1949-50, this year, and in the year 1948-49?


Mr. Pearkes:: Perhaps it would simplify things if the minister would explain why there is an increase of something in the neighbourhood of $1,175,409 in the general administration item?


Brooke Claxton: I can give the hon. member the answer to that. It is almost entirely due to increased inspection services. A total Of $758,433 of the increase is due to increased inspection services made necessary by increased purchases of defence equipment.


George Randolph Pearkes: Where was that shown last year?


Brooke Claxton: Under the same item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How many extra personnel are performing the increased services?


Brooke Claxton: In the inspection branch?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Brooke Claxton: Eighty-nine people. In addition there is an increase in the amount of work let out by contract by the inspection services.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am trying to be helpful and not critical, but in every other department you find a separate item for general administration while in the Department of National Defence everything is lumped in the one huge general item. It would be much easier if we could discuss under general administration the problems which we discuss under that item in other departments.
I noticed that other departments list under that general administration item the number of officials employed which I assume covers the administration of the several branches at Ottawa. But in the case of the Department of National Defence no such breakdown is given to us. Would it be asking too much to ask the minister to tell us what the ministers of other departments tell us, the number of officials employed in the various branches of the department and how much of this general administration item is for pay and allowances of officers and other ranks and personnel at national defence headquarters and in the several commands and divisions throughout the country? It is impossible from this one general statement to get any idea of what is covered by general administration in this particular department.


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to give that information. Departmental administration is $3,466,205, as shown on page 168 of the details. That is divided into three main heads: Departmental administration, $1,708,490; director of
3462	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence public relations, $100,485 and inspection services, $1,657,230. The details making up the item of $2,202,728, in respect to the employee figures, are as follows:
1	Deputy Minister	
2	Associate Deputy Minister-$10,000 ....
1	Assistant Deputy Minister	
1	Co-Ordinator of Works and Accommodation	
1	Financial Adviser, National Defence ...
2	Administrative Officer Grade 7-$6,300 ..
1 Administrative Officer Grade 6	
1 Administrative Officer Grade 5	
Departmental Accountant Grade 9	
1	Administrative Officer Grade 4	
2	Chief Clerk (1-$4,050, 1-$4,380)	
4 Administrative Officer Grade 3 (1-
$4,380, 2-$4,320, 1-$4,080)	
3 Administrative Officer Grade 2 (3-
$4,080)		
2 Administrative Officer Grade 1 (1-$3,480,
1-$3,360)		
2 Departmental Accountant Grade 4 (1
$3,780, 1-$3,690)	
1 Departmental Accountant Grade 1	
7 Head Clerk (6-$3,660, 1-$3,420)	[DOT] [DOT]
20 Clerk Grade 4	(11-$2,580 ,	2-$2,340,
1-	$2,565, 1-$2,520, 1-$2,415, 2-$2,430,
2- $2,400)	 [DOT] [DOT]
13 Clerk Grade 3 (9-$2,280, 2-$2,190, 1
$2,220 1-$2,130)	
5	Clerk Grade 2B (3-$2,040,	1 $1,995,
1-$1,980)		
1 Clerk Grade 2A	
1 Clerk Grade 1	
1 Chemist Grade 5	
1 Confidential Messenger	
1 Information Officer Grade 3	
1 Inspector of Stores Grade 4	
1	Mcsswi^gi	
10 Principal Clerk (8-$3,060, 1 $2,910, 1 $2,820)	
2	Packer and Helper-$1,920	 [DOT] [DOT]

7 Stenographer Grade 3	(3-$2,280. ^ 1

1	Stenographer Grade 2B	
2	Storeman Grade 1 <l-$2,055, 1-$1,965) ..
1 Secretary to Executive	
1	Supervising Clerk	
3 Tvoist Grade 2B-$2,040	 * [DOT]
2	Technician Grade 2 (1-$2,880, 1-$2,970)
1 Technician Grade 1	
1 Watchman	
1 Fitter-Machinist	
1 Labourer	 [DOT]	
1 Private Secretary to Minister	
1 Assistant Private Secretary to Minister
3	Departmental Accountant Grade 2 (l
$3,180, 2-$3,060)	
1950-51 $ 12,000 20,000 6,600
6,900
6,000
12,600
5,220
5,040
4,740
8,430
17,100
12,240
6,840
7,470
2,880
25,380
50,220
29,250
10,095
1,695
1,140
4.740
2.040
4.740 3,480 1,800
30,210
3,840
15,195
2.040 4,020 2,760 3,360 6,120 5,850 2,580 1,920 2,160 1,800
5.000
3.000
9,300

Then there are 760 temporaries totalling $1,781,213.


George Randolph Pearkes: I wonder if the minister would like to put the list of temporaries on the record rather than read them? He has had a hard day and it may save time.


Brooke Claxton: I have enjoyed this day.


George Randolph Pearkes: I was only trying to save the time of the committee. In the long list that


the minister has just read, did that include officers of the army, navy or air force, or are they all civilians?


Brooke Claxton: All civilians.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is this amount of $3,466,205 all paid out to civilians?


Brooke Claxton: Oh, no, the total for salaries that I mentioned was $2,202,728. Those are civilian salaries and wages as shown on page 168 of the details.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are any military personnel included in those?


Brooke Claxton: Not at all.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then it is all paid to civilians?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is the point I asked a moment ago. Then in addition to the $3,466,000, which is for departmental administration, there are a certain number of officers of all three services employed at headquarters in Ottawa.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Can you give me any idea what the pay and allowances of the total number of officers and other ranks employed at national defence headquarters would amount to?


Brooke Claxton: That figure changes from day to day, as the hon. member must appreciate. I can get the figure for him as of any date he mentions. It will take a little time but that can be obtained.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has just given us a list of the permanent civil employees at headquarters under the item of departmental administration. Therefore he must be able to give us the actual number of both permanent and temporary employees. He said 760 temporaries, but how many permanent?


Brooke Claxton: There are 115 permanents and 760 temporaries.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Those figures just include national defence headquarters?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Not for any of the
commands?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That includes national
defence headquarters for the three services?


Brooke Claxton: This is departmental administration in respect of the whole department but not within each service.


George Randolph Pearkes: You referred to the inspection service. Is it carried out entirely by civilians?


Brooke Claxton: No. We have attached to the inspection service a number of service personnel in order to secure the advantage of service experience and training, and also the reverse with regard to inspection. It is mostly civilian but at headquarters in Ottawa there are a limited number of rather senior service personnel.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are their pay and allowances included in the amount you quoted for the inspection service?


Brooke Claxton: No, they are additional. They are paid out of the pay and allowances of the armed forces. As I understand it, they are attached, not seconded.


George Randolph Pearkes: That would not include of course any inspection services dealing with the efficiency of personnel or the state of training of the various units?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: They are purely an inspection service dealing with the inspection of equipment, buildings and that sort of thing.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does that include buildings which are under departmental-


Brooke Claxton: Perhaps they may have to do with some of the materials that go into the buildings that are constructed by the department itself, but that would be a very minor item. They have to do with equipment and supplies.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do they inspect buildings which are being erected now for the department?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: In the various headquarters?


Brooke Claxton: No. A very large part of the construction of defence quarters, particularly married quarters, is done by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and we do no part of the inspection of that. I would have to verify to see whether or not our inspection services have to do with the inspection of materials or work entering into such part of our construction program as we do ourselves. My impression would be that they do not but I can verify that. They have to do with the inspection of armament, equipment, motor vehicles, clothing and the like. As an offhand figure, I would suggest that
Supply-National Defence they inspect certainly in excess of 50,000 or
60,000	contracts a year representing approximately $150 million.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is that in addition to any inspection staff employed with the Canadian Commercial Corporation?


Brooke Claxton: No, the Canadian Commercial Corporation is a procurement agency for the Department of National Defence. We are the consumer and we provide the inspection services.


George Randolph Pearkes: You provide the inspection services in that case?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: And that also applies to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Brooke Claxton: No, not to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We do not provide any inspection service.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sorry for that because certain complaints have been made regarding the type of houses which have been constructed. I believe you had a communication only a short time ago from the city of Victoria making a complaint. We accept these houses without any inspection? There is no check at all by the department?


Brooke Claxton: The houses are not delivered to the Department of National Defence. In effect they are leased to members of the defence forces. It is quite true that it is not precisely the same as a civilian lease because they do not receive their allowances. In their place they receive a house. In effect the defence personnel occupying Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation houses are in the position of tenants. Of course we try to see that the houses are in good shape before they are delivered. We do everything possible towards that end but we are not responsible for the condition of the houses.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do personnel have to live in them?


Brooke Claxton: There has been no difficulty about forcing personnel to live in the houses. There is a waiting list at every military establishment for such houses.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will take up the second reading of Bill No. 268, an act to amend the Foreign

Business of the House Insurance Companies Act, 1932; second reading of Bill No. 269, an act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932. I understand these two bills will be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where are they now?


Alphonse Fournier: They received first reading by leave of the house just before six o'clock. We will then take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of
Trade and Commerce concerning the Defence Supplies Act; Bill No. 89, an act to provide for the publication of statutory regulations. Then we will move to go into committee of supply and call one item of the Department of National Revenue, that item to stand. We will then take up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday. June 12. 1950