1950-03-17

[Stage Direction]
Summary of orders in council passed during the period February 1 to February 28, 1950.- Mr. St. Laurent.
Final report on the activities of the Fraser Valley diking board from its inception on July 22, 1948, to March 1, 1950.-Mr. Howe.
Report of the administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1943, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1949.-Mr. Sinclair.
Order in council, P.C. 5460, dated October 27, 1949, authorizing the granting of modus vivendi licences to United States fishing vessels visiting Canadian Atlantic coast ports during 1950.-Mr. MacNaught.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Daniel ' Mclvor (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, since the day when a page boy, Romeo Latreille, rescued a girl from drowning in the river near Ottawa on a Sunday afternoon, I have had high regard for the page boys. I appreciate the emblem of my native land, now on my desk, donated by them. It keeps fresh the memory of the patron saint of Ireland; and I am sure hon. members feel grateful for the splendid stuff of which the page boys and their leaders are made.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Last night a question was answered in which I had asked how many prosecutions had been launched against farmers who had failed to file income tax returns in several of the provinces. The answer given by the minister was that no information was available. In my hand I hold a copy of the Winnipeg Free Press of March 7, in which it is stated that in the first two months of this year, in all Canada, 1,953 farmers were prosecuted. My point of privilege is this: If the department can give a newspaperman the full figure, it should be able to give members of parliament a breakdown of that figure.
I hope the minister will reconsider the answer to my question, and try to give a break-down. I am particularly interested in the prosecution of farmers in Quebec and Saskatchewan.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue a supplementary question. In addition to the publicity in the papers about income tax prosecutions, can the department give the number of prosecutions that have been properly asked for? The farmers of Manitoba are just as much interested in this controversy as are the farmers of other provinces.


Mr. McCann:: I shall take the hon. member's question as notice. The answer given to the hon. member for Moose Jaw was a correct answer, and the only one available, because we do not keep the statistics by occupations. That is why we are not responsible for press comments with reference to the number of prosecutions in any part of Canada.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: May I ask, as a supplementary question, how the minister's department got the total farm figures for the newspapers?


James Joseph McCann: I am not in a position to answer that question at the moment.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Is it not a fact that we do get, when we ask for it, the number of farmers, by provinces, who pay income tax? That information has been given before, because I am sure I have asked for it.


James Joseph McCann: That may be true, but it entails a lot of work, because our essential statistical records are not kept by occupations.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That a select committee be appointed on radio broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, with power to examine and inquire into the matters and things herein referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and to send for persons, papers and records; that the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary; that the committee have power to meet while the house is sitting;
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry that the committee shall consist of the following members: Messrs. Balcer, Boisvert, Cote (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville), Decore, Diefenbaker, Fleming, Fulton, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gauthier (Sudbury) , Hansell, Henry, Isnor, Kent, Knight, Langlois (Gaspe), Maybank, McCann, Murray (Cariboo), Richard (Ottawa East), Robinson, Riley, Smith (Moose Mountain), Smith (Calgary West), Stewart (Winnipeg North), and Whitman; that the presence of at least nine members shall be a quorum of the said committee; and that standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
James Joseph McCann: Stand.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I have waited since March 10 for this government notice of motion to be called. Every once in a while it is called and allowed to stand. I want to enter my protest against the make-up of the committee provided for by this motion, because it does not represent all the provinces of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is not before the house. The hon. member's remarks would be in order when the motion is moved.


Mr. McLure:: I am not speaking to the motion; I am speaking on a question of privilege. I think it would be of benefit to the house if I were allowed to give my reasons.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Queens may be correct and doubtless his reasons would be of benefit to the house, but I am afraid that under the rules of the house I cannot allow him to give them at the present time.



OIL AND GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I was not in the house yesterday when the orders of the day were called, but I note that the minister is reported on page 792 of Hansard as having said:
It has been suggested frequently in the current debate that gas will be sent to the United States from the pipe line before the pipe line reaches1 Vancouver. I stated last session that that would not be permitted. I know from discussions with the sponsors of the pipe line that it is not proposed to undertake any such export.
Am I to understand from that statement that no export permit will be granted other than through an all-Canadian route?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Several members of the house have given information that they obtained from the principals behind the bill, and I have given information that I obtained from the principals behind the bill. I might say that I cannot understand the unnatural

fear that certain hon. members have of letting these men come before a committee of the house where members of the house could find out what they intend to do.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I take it the minister is not going to answer my question. Is that correct?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the government recently given consideration to permitting the immigration of German nationals, particularly those who have Canadian relatives?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yesterday, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), I pointed out that we do permit certain German nationals to enter Canada. In answer to the other part of the question, I would say that the government is always giving consideration to doing anything to improve its immigration laws, and if there is to be a change it will be announced in due course.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence forces-[DOT]
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.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, since the last session of parliament a number of events have taken place regarding defence which I am sure will be of interest to the house.	.
Before the last session was concluded I left by R.C.A.F. North Star for the meetings of the military committee of chiefs of staff and the defence committee of defence ministers under the North Atlantic treaty. These meetings took place at Paris on November 30 and December 1.
On the military committee we were represented by Lieutenant General Charles Foulkes, chief of the general staff and chairman of our chiefs of staff committee, and we were accompanied by other officers representing all three services.

It will be remembered that the first meeting of the defence committee held at Washington in October created the various agencies to plan and co-ordinate collective action under the North Atlantic treaty. These agencies included a standing group consisting of representatives of the chiefs of staff of France, the United Kingdom and the United States; also five regional groups. Canada is a member of both the north Atlantic ocean group and the North American group. She is an observer on the western European group.
Since the Washington meeting all the groups had been established and made good progress in their planning.
The defence committee meeting at Paris received reports on this work and arrived at unanimous agreement on the following:
1.	A strategic concept for the integrated defence of the north Atlantic area.
2.	The means to be taken to arrive at a program for the production and supply of armament and equipment.
3.	Co-ordination of planning between the various regional groups.
4.	Additional steps to further defence planning of the North Atlantic treaty organization.
Since the Paris meetings, further action has been taken in the various regional groups.
Arrangements were approved at Paris to merge the day-to-day working of the western European group and western union, both of which have the same membership. As western union came into existence on March 17, 1947, the plans of that group are well advanced.
Work in the north Atlantic group is being carried right along as Canadian-American cooperation has continued without interruption since our wartime partnership. In connection with the North American group, the United States and Canadian chiefs of staff met together at Washington for the first time on January 17 of this year.
The north Atlantic ocean group is making good progress with its important problems.
Further meetings of the military production and supply board, the military committee and the defence committee will take place at The Hague on March 24, March 27 and April 1 respectively. I expect to leave for The Hague on March 25, accompanied by the same officers who went to the Paris meetings. Our representatives on the military production and supply board will already be there.
Under the North Atlantic treaty we have not made any specific commitment, but we have given the general undertaking contained in article 3 of the treaty to take such action as we deem necessary by means of continuous
Supply-National Defence and effective self help and mutual aid to maintain and develop individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. A second undertaking, as contained in article 5, comes into effect in the event of an armed attack against one or more of the signatories. That undertaking is to take such action as we deem necessary to restore and maintain the security of the north Atlantic area.
It is important to recognize that the fundamental contribution each partner in north Atlantic security must make in the event of an emergency is first to ensure as far as it can the security of its own territory, and then to make the maximum contribution to common defence. With the circumstances of the world as they are today, the defence of Canada, the defence of North America, the defence of the whole north Atlantic area are inseparable parts of the same problem.
During and following the North Atlantic treaty meetings in Paris, I took every opportunity to discuss defence arrangements with my opposite numbers from other countries and accepted invitations to visit defence establishments and to have talks in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, as well as in the United Kingdom. In all these countries we received the warmest possible welcome, visited establishments of various kinds and obtained information of great value. Altogether during the whole trip we travelled 10,000 miles in the North Star and Dakota aircraft of the R.C.A.F., and despite bad weather we were able to fulfil every engagement in a complicated and full program. I was pleased the other day to hear the high praise of the R.C.A.F. by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and to find that the experience of his party confirmed my own in travelling many thousands of miles in R.C.A.F. aircraft over the last three or four years. They are a fine service doing a great job.
The objects of our discussions in all these countries were:
1.	To familiarize ourselves with defence problems, possibilities and programs in the western union countries.
2.	To get to know better the defence ministers and ranking officers with whom we would have to work in connection with the North Atlantic treaty.
3.	To secure information about the experience and practices of other countries by which to examine our own defence plans and to improve the efficiency of our own defence forces.

Supply-National Defence
4.	To examine the work and inspect the establishments of our military attaches and the Canadian joint staff in London.
Here are four general conclusions:
1.	Neither war nor peace is inevitable, and it is plain that pending the proper operation of the United Nations, which still remains a main objective of our efforts, the best guarantee of peace is the collective strength of the north Atlantic powers.
2.	The steps taken to implement the North Atlantic treaty, particularly the attitude of the United States, have increased the improbability of military aggression and strengthened the faith of the western European nations in the possibility of preventing aggression by collective action. Such improvement as there has been in the general outlook is shown by changes in the complexion of their governments. When I was last there in 1946 most of the countries visited had communists in their cabinets; today not one of them has a single communist.
3.	Parallel to the organizational work, the exchange of information between countries is already resulting in increased co-operation as well as greater efficiency within each country. Progress is being made in the adoption of standard battle procedures and communications practices. The standardization of equipment is necessarily a longer job.
4.	The greatest shortage is equipment as other commitments have so far prevented much production in quantity. We appear to be spending in proportion more on equipment than the other countries.
I saw much that will assist us in the further development of our own program and it was interesting to observe that we have made as much progress as any of these countries with regard to organization, officer training, defence procurement machinery, integration of defence research, reserve organization, equipment, training and recruitment, and, finally, conditions of service as regards pay, allowances, pensions, food, clothing and quarters.
In the United Kingdom, in addition to numerous talks with members of the government and high ranking officers, I spoke to the Imperial Defence college, visited the army cadet school at Sandhurst, the staff college at Camberly, a fighter station at Odiham, and the great naval establishment at Greenwich. Continuing dividends from this kind of visit are the personal friendships formed which lead to further co-operation.
In this connection I have an announcement to make which will be of considerable interest. One of the purposes of the trip was to look into the question of officer training and to see

if there was a way in which the considerable facilities which we have in Canada could be utilized for the benefit of the North Atlantic treaty organization in general. Canada has had a unique experience of joint training. The British commonwealth air training plan produced 131,000 aircrew, of whom 71,000 were Canadians, the rest coming from the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. It has been described on many occasions as one of the great contributions to allied victory in the air and everywhere. In addition, we trained considerable numbers of personnel from France, Belgium, The Netherlands and Norway. The son of our good friend, Mr. Pierre Dupong, the prime minister of Luxembourg, served in the Canadian forces.
At the present time we have reciprocal arrangements for training officers of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Australia.
The recruiting of officers and men in our own active forces has been most satisfactory, and very soon we shall recruit and train officers and men only to replace normal retirements and discharges.
On this trip, therefore, without commitments on either side, I asked the defence ministers of the countries visited whether or not they thought it would be desirable for us to offer to have some of their officers come to Canada for part of their training. Several of the countries already have similar arrangements for training in other countries, though on a smaller scale than we had in mind. The replies received from ministers and service heads led me to recommend to my colleagues that we should make the offer.
It was recognized that this and other similar arrangements already in effect would give opportunities for officers to add to their professional knowledge and to get to know personally officers and men not only of Canada but also of the other countries with whom they would be working in the future. They would get to know something about this country, its geography and potentialities. This work would add to their knowledge of common procedures, and it would give them an opportunity to improve their knowledge of either of our two languages.
In my discussions I was struck by the fact that almost all the people with whom the idea was discussed recognized that it would have a very considerable psychological force in bringing home to us all the unity of purpose and the necessity for working together that we must all have if the full strength of the north Atlantic powers is to be fully developed.
Accordingly we have forwarded, through the representatives in Ottawa of the countries concerned, letters to the defence ministers of

the north Atlantic powers offering to train a total of 150 officers of the ground forces and 100 officers of the air forces from the various countries. It is assumed that the training proposed would last about a year, and that if the number of members of the other forces are available to come the plan would continue so there would be a continuing offer to train a total of 250 officers each year. The arrangements proposed do not contemplate any payments between countries. Later a reverse operation may be worked out whereby Canadian personnel would do training in other countries on a similar basis. This arrangement will be combined with the existing reciprocal arrangements that we have with the United Kingdom, the United States and France.
Hon. members will appreciate that the training in Canada of 250 officers from a number of different countries would represent a big program in training staffs, personnel and establishments compared with any similar peacetime arrangements. Training together would be an exercise in practical co-operation of the particular kind for which we in Canada are well qualified by experience and for which we in Canada have a proud record of achievement.
Turning now to events within Canada, a major event in Canada's defence and industrial history was the first flight on January 19 of the twin-engine jet all-weather fighter, the CF-100. This aircraft was specially designed and built in Canada, with a range and navigational instruments suited to Canadian conditions. The aircraft is at present fitted with two Rolls-Royce Avon engines. If flight tests prove successful, we propose to replace the engines with our own Orenda engines. It is believed that the Canadian-designed and built Orenda engine may be the most powerful in existence. The successful conjunction of the CF-100 and the Orenda engine would put our country some years In advance of any other in respect of meeting requirements for a long-range all-weather fighter. Those of us who were able to see the first Ottawa flight of the CF-100 last Saturday must have been struck by its powerful performance, and say with the test pilot, Bill Waterton, formerly of Camrose, Alberta: "We have an aircraft".
The development of the CF-100 is a remarkable achievement of designers, engineers and industry, in A. V. Roe Canada, Limited, working together and in fullest co-operation with the R.C.A.F. It is also a vindication of our faith in Canadian industry and Canadian skills. We invested a good many million dollars and, in an accelerated program, pressed
Supply-National Defence on to develop a Canadian aircraft to meet Canadian conditions well in advance of similar efforts in other nations.
The first test flight of the CF-100 in Toronto last January was for me immediately followed by an inspection tour of the principal defence establishments in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. On this trip I found that good progress was being made by both active and reserve units. Most striking was the fine co-operation between the navy, army and air force, the new teamwork between active and reserve as members of a single force, and the understanding support of veterans and others in the civilian community.
Three weeks ago I paid another visit to the west, this time to witness Exercise Sweet-briar. Leaving Rockcliffe on the morning of Monday, February 20, we travelled over 6,500 miles, returning Saturday night, February 25. Our object was to observe the closing stages of the exercise and to discuss at first hand with officers and men of the United States and Canadian forces their impressions of the food, equipment and training, as well as the strategical possibilities of the far north and the lessons learned from their work together.
The exercise has been very fully reported in the press of both countries, and I shall confine myself to a brief summary. I should like, however, to express appreciation to the press of the fair and full account they gave.
The main object of the exercise was to develop doctrine and procedures for the employment of combined Canadian and United States forces operating in the Arctic and under Arctic conditions and to test in the field the latest developments in clothing, food, aircraft, vehicles, weapons and other equipment and material.
The exercise began on February 13 and concluded on February 23. Over 5,500 personnel of the United States and Canadian armies and air forces took part, about one-half being Canadians.
The tactical assumption was that an aggressor force had captured the air field at Northway in Alaska and had moved down the northwest highway almost the whole 350 miles to Whitehorse. The task of the allied force was to drive the aggressor back and recapture the air field.
In preparation for the exercise, the great majority of the 1,457 Canadian army personnel involved had trained at Wainwright under even more severe conditions than those prevailing during the exercise. The period of training altogether covered about seven weeks.
For all of the eleven days of Exercise Sweetbriar, and for most of the even longer period at Wainwright, the troops lived out
854	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence under the most severe winter conditions. Those of you who were in the prairie provinces this winter will recognize what this meant when I say that every day, at some time or another, the temperature was below zero and reached a low of -58 degrees. Moreover, throughout the exercise they lived on their original issue of supplies, supplemented by food, fuel and equipment brought in by airlift. You can appreciate something of the size and complexity of modern military operations when I tell you that there were no less than 978 motor vehicles, of which 428 were Canadian, and more than 100 aircraft, of which some 60 were ours, and all these were serviced on the spot and generally out of doors.
The exercise concluded at 12 noon on Thursday, February 23. At this time the troops were given their first meal indoors since its commencement. The airlift to take the troops home was already starting. While I was having my first experience of a flight in a jet, the great four-engined aircraft were shuttling backwards and forwards, so that that afternoon they brought out 423 of our men and the first convoy of 120 motor vehicles was moving off. Two days later, by Saturday, all the aircraft, motor vehicles, equipment and men had been efficiently dispatched on the long way home and Northway was again alone with the northern lights.
It will be some time before detailed reports are considered. It is possible, however, to make the following interim report:
1.	The exercise was valuable in training personnel and testing doctrine and equipment of every kind.
2.	The results confirmed the basic concept of Arctic warfare already held by the staffs of both countries so that there will not be any major change.
3.	Military operations in the far north can only be successful if keyed in to one of the existing systems of transportation-airways, the highway or water. The distances a potential aggressor would have to go from any base favour the defence but only if the defence can stop any leap-frogging operation such as from air field to air field. Fighting in the north we know requires specially trained personnel of high morale and top physical condition with first-class equipment and air supremacy. These have been our targets and we are making good progress. Our new aircraft, the CF-100, is specifically designed to have the added range to do the job, and it has been speeded along so that it is years ahead of any aircraft having similar performance.
4.	While aircraft and some motor vehicles and equipment proved even better than


expected, the exercise confirmed the necessity for having tracked vehicles in bigger quantities. For example, we should probably have one bulldozer for every infantry company. The experience gained will lead to further developments in new equipment for preheating motor vehicles, ventilating tents, and so on.
5. In respect of food, cooking, accommodation, clothing and other personal equipment, physique, leadership, staff planning, weapons, motor vehicles, aircraft', and all-round performance, the Canadians showed that they were in every way equal to the fine forces of our good neighbour, the United States.
On my return I sent the following message to the chiefs of staff of the forces employed:
"On the conclusion of Exercise Sweetbriar, will you convey to all officers and men who contributed to its success my hearty congratulations and thanks for a job which was a credit to themselves and in accordance with the best traditions of the Canadian forces.
Co-operation between army and air force, Americans and Canadians, was one of the principal objectives of the exercise and that co-operation at every level left nothing to be desired.
We can be proud that in personnel, equipment and performance generally, the Canadian forces acquitted themselves well."
At the request of Major General Penhale and Air Vice Marshal Dunlap, who were the Canadian officers directly concerned, and on the recommendation of the chief of the general staff and the chief of the air staff, all of whom deserve great credit for their part, I approved an extra week's leave for all men engaged on the exercise. A number of these men had been away from their homes or their home camps for several months.
I do not think it is generally appreciated that from the beginning of the training at Wainwright on January 3 until the close of the exercise at Northway on February 23, that is, during a period of seven weeks, the great majority of the Canadians lived out under conditions as severe as could be found anywhere; that they travelled under these conditions over 4,000 miles; that this was done over country as rugged as can be found; and yet when I visited the base hospital at Whitehorse there were not more than six cases due to accidents and twenty-five due to various types of respiratory troubles, not very many more than would be expected on a summer vacation of a similar group of civilians. At the end of the exercise their physical condition was good and their spirits high.
Throughout the exercise the R.C.A.F. maintained their sixty aircraft with a serviceability at the high level of eighty per cent, although all servicing of aircraft in the area was done under battle conditions. The air transport command lifted into Whitehorse

1,198 passengers and 366,766 pounds of freight. Mustangs, Vampires, Mitchells and Lancasters of the R.C.A.F. flew a total of 174 sorties. On the conclusion of the exercise the combined forces lifted out from Northway to Whitehorse on two days, February 23 and 24, 1,596 passengers with 50 pounds of baggage per passenger. The R.C.A.F. then lifted from Whitehorse to Edmonton 995 passengers, mostly personnel of the army, and 160,073 pounds of cargo, the job being completed two days ahead of schedule.
The most important single result of the exercise is that, of the armed forces that were engaged there, there are now over 5,000 United States and Canadian personnel who hold the Arctic in a healthy respect but no fear, who know that they can live there provided they meet the tough and challenging conditions.
Among the objects of the exercise was to get training and experience in staff work and administration.
Planning which began last May covered such things as special Arctic clothing, pack rations, arcticization of aircraft, vehicles and equipment. A lot of this was the result of research and development carried on at Churchill and elsewhere over a number of years.
The main camp for training had to be opened at Wainwright, with five other major camps and twelve staging camps, where construction was carried out at below-zero temperatures. At all of these there had to be supplies of food and fuel and men competent to do the job.
Altogether 102,000 spare parts and other articles of equipment were issued, and 642 Canadian vehicles were prepared. There was no fatal accident attributable to the exercise. A doctor parachuted down with the Princess Pats in their magnificent drop, followed in the next descent by a paymaster to ensure that the troops had money to buy what they wanted at the PX stores.
Primary attention was naturally focused on the fine work of the Princess Pats under Lieutenant-Colonel D. C. Cameron, D.S.O., E.D., and the battery of the Royal Canadian Artillery. The various servicing corps constituted the largest proportion of personnel involved, and the way in which the Royal Canadian Engineers, the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, the Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and others did their job, reflected great credit on their training, organization and ability.
Supply-National Defence
In addition to the lesson which we learned from Exercise Sweetbriar, that we could live and work in the north country, we had additional confirmation of our ability to work with the American forces.
The senior Canadian administrative officer who, during wartime, had a close association with the troops of Great Britain, Belgium, Poland, The Netherlands and Czechoslovakia, which at one time or another were under Canadian command, had this to say in his report about his experience in working with the Americans on Exercise Sweetbriar:
I should like to state that the co-operation and co-ordination of administrative effort between Fifth U.S. army and western command has been nothing short of phenomenal: on countless occasions I have often wondered with which headquarters I was serving, and I know from experience that this applies to many officers, both Canadian and U.S. There has been a wonderful demonstration of our ability to work together to achieve the common objective.
I should add that I have had the most friendly messages from Hon. Louis Johnson, Secretary of Defence, His Excellency Laurence Steinhardt, United States ambassador, who accompanied me on the exercise, and Lieutenant General S. J. Chamberlin, the exercise commander, who, like Air Marshal Curtis, Major General Penhale, most of the press and myself, suffered what were called "minor respiratory troubles" from which the troops who lived out were singularly free.
The exercise and everything about it brought home the magnificent vastness of our country. We must come to realize that Canada is just as big from south to north as she is from east to west. From Ottawa to Winnipeg the distance by air is 1,058 miles. It may surprise some hon. members who are more accustomed to the fenced-off farms of the east when I say that the distance from Edmonton to Snag on the Alaskan boundary is 1,327 miles-that is, nearly 300 miles further than the distance from Ottawa to Winnipeg.
I know it will interest hon. members of the committee when I say that at Whitehorse I saw my good friend George Black, who sent his greetings to all his old friends in the House of Commons. I only wish that it might have been possible for all hon. members to be present. Had they been there, I am sure that they would feel the same pride that I do in our armed forces today.
To support these forces we are seeking from parliament this year an appropriation of $425 million, an increase of $42 million over principal estimates of $375 million, and supplementary estimates already voted of $8 million. To this, since the tabling by the Minister of Finance yesterday of the further supplementary estimates, there should be added, if
856	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence the sum is voted by the house, an additional $4 million, which represents the cost of our acquisition from the British government of the British admiralty properties in Newfoundland at a cost of $7 million, reduced by a carryover, which we estimate will be unexpended from our estimates and supplementaries, of $3 million.
This figure of $425 million is many times greater than our expenditure on defence in the years before the war.
This sum of $425 million is allocated among navy, army, air force and defence research, among construction, equipment and personnel, among active, reserve and cadet services. The same dollar as I said earlier this week cannot be spent once on construction, again on equipment, and a third time on personnel.
This allocation is worked out, subject to the approval of the cabinet defence committee, between myself and the chiefs of staff. The chiefs of staff act jointly as regards overall division on matters having interservice implications, and separately with me as regards matters concerning only their own service.
Our planning must look several years ahead. On the one hand we must start work in time to produce the results in personnel and equipment when they are likely to be needed. On the other hand, we must avoid starting things now which might involve us in future commitments for the expenditure of money which might then be needed for other defence purposes of greater priority.
We must use the money appropriated in the best way to meet an immediate threat and also to develop our full potential. We must maintain a force in being and the means necessary to develop our full potential as quickly as possible. This is a question of emphasis-of planning and timing. Our target must be always to become more and more operational. That is what we are doing.
The proposed allocation of this appropriation of $425 million as between the various defence functions provides that the expenditure for the Royal Canadian Navy be increased from $67 million last year to $82 million for the coming year. This increase is mostly attributable to the cost of implementing the previously announced program of construction of three new anti-submarine escort vessels, one arctic patrol vessel-ice breaker; a gate vessel, and four minesweepers.
The Royal Canadian Air Force expenditure would likewise be increased from $138 million to $169 million to cover the costs of manufacture of the F-86A fighter aircraft and the CF-100 all-weather fighters, as well as radar equipment.


The expenditure for the army is being decreased from $135 million to $130 million because of the urgent requirements of the other two services for equipment. The provision of major items of new equipment for the army is being deferred in view of the relatively large present holdings of fighting equipment of this service.
The increase in administration is largely due to the increased activities of the inspection services to enable them to take care of the increasing flow of new equipment.
In 1948, 12 per cent of the total appropriation was spent on equipment; in 1949, 24 per cent and in the coming year it will be 28 per cent. This trend reflects both the increasing cost of fighting machines and the importance which is attached to having up-to-date weapons in the hands of our services. It is, I am sure hon. members will agree, a desirable and proper approach.
For the convenience of hon. members I have had a chart prepared comparing the allocation of the defence dollar by services and also by requirements for each of the years 19481949, 1949-1950 and 1950-51, which, if the house will consent, I shall be glad to put on record.
(The chart appears on the page opposite.)
As at January 31, 1950, the total strength of the three services-that is, the active force- was 47,163 officers and men, representing 93 per cent of the present establishment and an increase of 2,004 over the figure for September 30, 1949, given in paragraph 93 of the white paper.
At January 31 the strength of the navy was 9,322, which is over its establishment of 9,047. We are continuing recruiting for the navy to replace normal retirements and discharges, and also to increase the establishment, probably to 9,600.
The strength of the army today is 20,601, and of the air force 17,240. In addition to the replacement of those retiring or discharged in the normal course, we shall be continuing to take on a limited number of single men between the ages of seventeen and twenty-five who have good education and can pass the physical requirements.
The number of men desiring to retire from the armed services at the termination of their engagements or leaving for other reasons is very much smaller than anticipated and planned for. Accordingly we expect to have a waiting list for all three services within a matter of months.
For the reserve forces the figures have continued to improve. As at January 31, 1950, the navy had a strength of 3,555; the



DISTRIBUTION OF DEFENCE DOLLAR

[Stage Direction]
1950-51


[Stage Direction]
>
a
[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Defence
[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Defence army 41,855; the air force, 3,467, making a total of 48,877 as compared with 45,126 at September 30, 1949.
In every way we are endeavouring to emphasize the importance of the reserve forces. Here one of the greatest needs is increased accommodation, and a commencement has been made on a program to construct armouries, with the contract for the first new major armoury to be erected for the 49th Heavy Anti-aircraft regiment at Sault Ste. Marie. This construction program must be fitted in to the continuation of our program to press forward with the construction of married quarters. We have done in three years what we originally planned to take six, greatly to the benefit of the physical comfort and moral welfare of the married members of the forces and their wives and children.
In connection with recruiting, it is interesting to know that as we have released the pressure, the net increase for the active forces, which was 8,261 for the twelve months ending September 30, has dropped to the figure 7,346 for the twelve months ending January 31. It will, of course, as planned drop considerably further.
Similarly the number of approaches has fallen from 54,814 for the twelve months ending September 30 to 53,092 for the twelve months ending January 31.
We employ today 23,087 civilians in the department, the majority of whom are employed at prevailing rates as dockyard and shop workers. This is compared with the figure of 24,359 at September 30.
Altogether, therefore, we have in round figures 47,000 in the active forces, 49,000 in the reserve forces and 23,000 civilians, making a total of just under 120,000 engaged part time and full time in national defence.
Training as officers at January 31 we had 1,403 for the university naval training division, 2,700 for the C.O.T.C., 632 for the university air training plan, 319 at the Canadian services colleges, and 606 others under various arrangements, making a total of officer candidates of 5,760, most of whom are training to standards equivalent to a university degree and a year's practical work.
We have not issued a white paper at this time, because only four months have elapsed since the last was issued on November 11, and I believe that it would be the wish of the committee to incorporate in the next, paper material which may result from the meetings at The Hague, and also the results of a longer period of operation. There are some additional matters to which I should now refer.
We are continuing to place great emphasis an the air force, but not to the point where

the proper balance between the three services is ignored. Air force equipment is immensely expensive, and we are spending very much more on the air force than on the other two services-it may surprise hon. members to learn, a far greater proportion than is being spent in other countries.
In the current year there is being spent on the air force in the United Kingdom 29 per cent, France 30 per cent, United States 34 per cent, but in Canada 42-6 per cent. This proportion will be further increased to 44-8 per cent for 1950-51, if the house votes the present estimates.
So far as we can see ahead, if there is a likelihood of attack on Canada, it would probably come by air. Consequently the air force is an important element in the defence of our own territory, which is the primary task of any defence force.
One reason for this is the size and geographical position of Canada. We have 34 million square miles of territory, occupied by 134 million people. That a war can be won by air power alone is not the view of reputable experts; but no expert believes that a war can be won without air supremacy. This was certainly one of the lessons of Exercise Sweetbriar.
Let me give you brief notes on some further developments in the air force.
1.	The first of the new type of reserve units, No. 1 radar squadron, was set up in Montreal and has achieved a strength of 450 in a little more than a year, reflecting the utmost credit on the unit. This augurs well for the success of similar units which will be progressively set up as accommodation becomes available. One of the first of these new units will be set up in Toronto, others in Halifax and Vancouver.
2.	This development with regard to radar is being accompanied by the formation of units for training a variety of key personnel in both technical and administrative trades.
3.	We hope to work out arrangements for reserve pilots to obtain refresher training on light aircraft.
4.	We have in training for commissions in the air force, active and reserve-
University air training plan	 632
Canadian services colleges	 94
University undergraduates	 79
University postgraduates	 1
Active force	 324
1,1*0
5.	During the year, flying time increased by 60 per cent, the number of hours flown per man on strength compared closely with the U.S.A.F.; we had the first wings parade of

university flights; and the ceremony at Trenton demonstrated fine organization and training as well as the fact that the R.C.A.F. stood as high as ever in the eyes of our country and of other nations.
6.	We have in the R.C.A.F. two interceptor squadrons in operation, and the equivalent of seven other squadrons of one kind or another.
7.	We shall continue steady development until we shall have at least five interceptor squadrons and the equivalent of about six other active squadrons immediately ready for action, the fighters being equipped with the latest type aircraft. In addition, we have ten squadrons of auxiliary, with another soon to be activated. Several of the auxiliary squadrons, by their excellent performance in various exercises have shown well-advanced preparedness.
Another service which has shown a substantial increase in the appropriation is the navy. As I have indicated, this is largely to meet the costs of the new ships which will be under construction this year.
In the R.C.N. we shall have in commission on the west coast the cruiser Ontario; the destroyers Athabaskan, Cayuga and Sioux; the frigate Antigonish; the Algerine escort vessels Rockcliffe and Sault Ste. Marie; the auxiliary vessel Cedarwood; and the patrol craft 724.
On the east coast we will have the aircraft carrier Magnificent; the destroyers Micmac, Huron and Haida; the weather ship St. Stephen; the frigate Swansea; the Algerine minesweeping vessel Portage; and the motor minesweeper Llewellyn.
In addition, six training vessels will be in commission on the great lakes during the summer.
Of the destroyers, Cayuga, Sioux, Micmac and Huron have been recently commissioned following extensive refit to improve their capabilities as anti-submarine vessels. Similar refit will be completed shortly on Athabaskan.
In addition to the above improvements, many changes in accommodation, including introduction of cafeteria messing and separate dining and sleeping quarters, have been carried out in Sioux and Athabaskan. This is the first time that either Canadian or British destroyers have had this improved accommodation.
Effective training is being given to the officers and men in the twenty-one divisions of the R.C.N. reserve. In accordance with the Mainguy report, courses for officer cadets are now all being put on the same four-year basis in the Canadian services colleges.
Supply-National Defence
During the last few months the navy has had a number of useful exercises with United States and other forces.
Everything that we are doing in the navy is directed to meet its clear and unmistakable role to protect our coastal waters and trading routes against mine and submarine attack.
The role of the army is equally clear. It is to provide the forces necessary to meet an immediate attack on our country any time and any place. To do this we have organized a brigade group, a highly mobile, hard-hitting unit. More than half of this group consists today of well-trained, experienced, tough soldiers. The remainder are undergoing training of various types from recruit training to the more complex unit training. While the proportion of fully trained troops will increase, there will always be some in the brigade group who have just joined. No unit is ever fully trained, because its personnel is never static and officers and men are taking courses of various kinds virtually until the day of their retirement.
In addition to seeing to the immediate defence of our own territory, our forces must act as the organizational and training nucleus for the development of the largest forces we can develop to play our part where they may be needed. A large part of the personnel of the army-all the reserve units and a very large portion, certainly more than two-thirds of the active forces-are concerned with this side of the job.
Defence research activities have been carried on on an increased scale, maintaining close co-operation with research activities in other countries and with other research activities in Canada.
In civil defence we have completed the stage of planning at the federal level. Civil defence depends on close co-operation with the provinces, the municipalities and other agencies at every level. Following earlier preliminary discussions we are now in a position to make further progress.
Our over-all plan we believe meets the strategical needs of Canada and makes the best use of the resources available.
The factors involved in the speed of development of our maximum potential are organizational staff, trained officers, qualified tradesmen, equipment, accommodation, and, finally, trained personnel. Any plan which involved the immediate full-time employment of many more men would not be the best way to use the money made available.
What I have said with regard to the development of the forces in being to the maximum potential applies to the navy and the air force as well as the army. In the case of these forces, however, the largest controlling
860	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence factor determining the speed of development is the supply of equipment, particularly ships and aircraft. By the time we could build any ship or any aircraft, we could recruit and train the crew. You will see, from what I have said, the reason for our emphasis in our program on the building of ships and aircraft.
This question of equipment is extremely important, particularly in view of the close relations between the United States and Canada.
The integration of industrial capacity under the Hyde Park declaration helped to win the war. A similar arrangement is in the interest of both the United States and Canada in peacetime. The continuation of the general principles of the Hyde Park declaration was accepted in an exchange of notes in May, 1945, and the joint declaration of February 12, 1947. I may say that our friendly discussions with members of the administration in the United States and with their highest service officials show that they hold the same view as we do. It makes sense for Canada and the United States to co-operate industrially and economically with relation to defence as well as in training and command and battle practices.
Unfortunately there are statutory obstacles in the United States which make it difficult for us to purchase, military equipment there and make it even more difficult for them to purchase military equipment in Canada. But in consequence of discussions I am glad to say that, pending a more satisfactory permanent solution, temporary arrangements have been worked out which permit purchasing of some equipment in the United States, but there is still the problem of finding the United States' dollars.
We think it is in the best interest of collective defence to have diversified sources of production. We can make many types of things just as well as United States manufacturers and, given reasonable markets, often more cheaply. There are some things which it is not in the interest of Canada to make at all, for example, tanks, heavy motor vehicles, large calibre guns. It is not in the interests of Canada to make these things provided that there is an adequate and fair amount of specialization. On the other hand, we think there is great merit in Canada specializing in the production of certain items, which it cannot do if dependent on domestic consumption for outlet.
In these circumstances we believe the sensible thing for both countries would be to work out an arrangement whereby certain items of United States military equipment are bought in Canada in order to maintain defence productive capacity here, and in order to permit of specialization in production.
[Stage Direction]

What I suggest now is the effective revival of the Hyde Park agreement for the integration of North American defence industry.
Mr. Graydon:: Does that require legislation in the United States congress?


Brooke Claxton: Unquestionably. I suggest this as the kind of way in which we should and could work together.
In conclusion, may I say that our defence forces are in better shape than ever before in the peacetime history of our country. We are employing the defence dollar in the best way we know how, to make suitable provisions for construction, equipment and personnel. In respect of organization, officer training, integration of defence research, our forces are second to none and our plans have been well laid to put us in the lead with regard to the two special weapons we need, long-range fighter aircraft and anti-submarine vessels.
I am glad to say that during the time I have held this job I have had nothing but the most complete and loyal support from all heads of services and from officers and men of the armed forces. It has been a pleasure to serve in this department. It has been a privilege to have been associated with the officers and men of the armed forces of our country. They are grand people, and it is a pleasure to work with them for the defence and security of Canada.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of National Defence for the kind invitation that he extended to me and other members of the house to observe the flight of the CF-100 jet fighter a week ago tomorrow. We had the opportunity of driving out to Rockcliffe airport and there seeing a machine of which we can most certainly be extremely proud. I hope that the minister will give us a further opportunity of seeing this fighter when it has its new engines and its full armament. It is a little difficult to judge the full capabilities of an aircraft when it is not loaded as it would be for action.
Then I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the minister for his graphic description of Exercise Sweet briar. We have read accounts in the press of both Canada and the United States of the progress made during that exercise; and I feel quite certain we all share the pride the minister has expressed in the achievements of the Canadian and the United States troops who took part. No doubt we all have personal friends who were on that exercise and who have confirmed the report given by the minister today as to the magnificent physique and grand spirit of our troops, and their determination to do in

peacetime, to the very best of their abilities, the job of preparing for war; not for a war of aggression, but for war in defence of their own country. I could not help smiling a little when the minister expressed regret that members of parliament had not seen the troops taking part in that exercise. 1 may assure him that the only reason I did not do so was that no such invitation was extended to me.
In listening to the minister's statement I could not help feeling that it was more in the nature of an annual report than a presentation of estimates, explaining why Canada was expending a very large sum of money, and breaking down that expenditure to give us information as to how this money was to be distributed as among the various services. Naturally we are pleased to hear an annual report on the activities of the department for the past quarter, but at the same time I do think hon. members, who are here charged with the responsibility of looking into these expenditures and safeguarding the money of the taxpayers, would have liked a. great deal more information as to how that money was going to be spent in the coming year, instead of a general description of the activities of the defence forces in the past year.
Before proceeding to a discussion of the estimates for this year I too should like to refer briefly to what has happened in the past. The minister has had the opportunity of giving credit with respect to some of the achievements of the officers and men of our three services, and today I should like to take this chance to offer my congratulations also on the magnificent work they have done. Within the last few weeks we saw the men of our services perform actions in the highest traditions of those services. My mind goes back to the unfortunate accident which occurred a few weeks ago, when it was necessary for the destroyer Cayuga to go to a remote island off the Pacific coast and, in severe weather and over most difficult terrain, rescue their comrades-of another country, but still comrades-who had been taking part in the exercises in the north, and who had the misfortune to become lost over the Pacific. Also during the past year on numerous occasions the rescue squads of the R.C.A.F. have done really excellent work in the mountains of British Columbia, in the far north, and at various other points, and I think they should also receive praise. I know that on every opportunity the minister has sent his congratulations, and now I want to add mine. Naturally I felt elated when I heard of the progress made by my old regiment, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, and I was delighted with the minister's glowing reports in that regard.
Supply-National Defence
Generally speaking, all through both the active and the reserve forces there is the keenest possible spirit and a willingness tc do rather more than a day's work. As far es the reserve forces are concerned, they are still ready to devote a good deal of their spare time, both in the evenings and during their annual holidays, to the work of their units, a tradition which has been handed down for many years and which the reserve divisions of the navy, the reserve army and the auxiliary-squadrons of the air force are living up to so well. If in the course of my remarks I should appear to offer some criticism and some suggestions as to the conduct of the department I should like it understood that I am in no way criticizing the endeavours of individuals from the minister right down to the newest recruit. I offer suggestions and perhaps criticisms only because I believe we have the best type of fighting men the world can produce, and I am anxious to see that they are given the best possible arms and equipment so that should they ever be called upon to defend our lives, in the defence of this country, they will have at least a fighting chance.
At the beginning of the minister's review he told us of the meetings that had taken place at Paris and described in rather general terms the progress made. I cannot help feeling that we are left without any idea as to what definite commitments this country has been assigned. In fact, the minister almost went so far as to say that we had no detailed commitments in so far as the North Atlantic treaty was concerned. I believe the people of Canada expected that the minister would come back with something more definite, something which would be encouraging to the people and to the services. The services would then know that they had a definite role into which they were to fit in the general over-all defence of the north Atlantic area, and of the world.
I felt more encouraged by the remarks which were made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he was speaking on this same item on a motion to go into supply. He was referring to the North Atlantic treaty, and he said, as recorded at page 429 of Hansard:
We are getting down to the detailed problems of working out an effective system of collective defence for the north Atlantic region.
I think perhaps we should have had a firmer, more definite statement from the Minister of National Defence.
Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to say:
As planning for military production and supply under the north Atlantic organization gets under way-and it is now under way-account should of

Supply-National Defence course be taken of the needs of specialization in production and of the availability of productive capacity in all the north Atlantic nations. Means must also be found for overcoming existing difficulties which impede the transfer of equipment and supplies among the north Atlantic nations so as to permit the maximum use of their productive capacities. Solution of these difficulties is necessary if full advantage is to be taken, for instance, of Canada's present and potential productive capacity by the north Atlantic countries.
I had hoped that the Minister of National Defence would be able to tell us that some of the difficulties regarding the transfer of purchases of military stores and equipment from the United States had been ironed out, and that it had been possible to reach an agreement whereby Canada could now purchase large quantities from the United States; and would also be able to specialize, in her own industry, in certain types of equipment which the United States would have been able to purchase from us. However, I did not conclude from the remarks the minister made that any such agreement had been reached.
If I drew any conclusions from the description of the commitments to which Canada might possibly have agreed, it would seem to me that the emphasis is being laid now upon the defence of our own country, as being a major contribution towards the North Atlantic treaty. If so, I feel, with some modesty, forced to call the minister's attention to the fact that that is a side of our defence policy which I have emphasized in this house for a number of years. Moreover, from statements which have been made by senior officers, who may or may not have been at the Paris conference, it would seem that there is a change in policy in so far as our defence forces are concerned. The minister did not refer to it any more than by a general statement, that the defence of our own country would be a contribution to the North Atlantic treaty. I have not quoted his exact words, but I think that was the intent of what he said.
Senior officers have apparently given to the press statements which would indicate that, since the beginning of the year, there has been a change in the emphasis. I quote from a Canadian Press dispatch which, I believe, reported statements by Air Marshal Curtis:
Canada will assume a relatively big air-fighter role in' continental and Atlantic defence plans.
That is just one statement. Then, the same chief of air staff reported that last year marked a turning point in the post-war progress of the R.C.A.F. He is reported as having said that our original concept was a force consisting primarily of a nucleus body, able to expand rapidly in the event of war. We now see, in the light of the changed world situation,' that we must go further than that. The R.C.A.F. must be brought to a

point where it is able to bring into immediate action those forces required for the initial defence of Canada. I should imagine that these statements were in line with the remarks of the minister this afternoon, and that they are following out the general policy. I must say that the statements by Air Marshal Curtis are much clearer, and more definite, than the statements which were made by the minister today.
During the discussion of the estimates last year, I spent some considerable time in pointing out how I felt the emphasis must be placed upon the role the Canadian air force must play, as the prime arm which would, and could, only be the principal factor in the defence of our limitless northern territory. I was interested in hearing the remarks the minister made concerning the lessons which he drew from the Sweetbriar exercise. He suggested that air support would be necessary in any Arctic operations

I believe he said air superiority-and that such operations could only be carried out as a leap-frogging process from one established airport to another. I suggest that the only way in which we could meet such a contingency would be to have an air force in being, an air force that would be ready upon short notice to engage an enemy who might be tempted to raid our northern territory.
If, as has been suggested by high air force officers, the emphasis is now being placed upon the operational side rather than the nucleus expanding-type policy, then I think it is all to the advantage. I feel that the minister has no doubt been studying the book written by Dr. Bush, to which he referred a few days ago, and he drew the same conclusions as Dr. Bush has drawn in his volume "Modern Arms and Free Men", namely, that the pendulum now is swinging in favour of defensive operations as against those of an offensive nature. Dr. Bush, of course, does stress the point that, in order to have an effective defence, there must be an air force in being, one able to take the air at short notice. I should like to put on the record just a few paragraphs from Dr. Bush's volume, in which he is writing largely about the atomic bomb. I quote from page 43 of his book. May I say that I think this is encouraging. I think this is heartening to the members of this committee and to the nation as a whole, that they should hear what a recognized authority has to say on this matter. He says:
But the spectre of great fleets of bombers, substantially immune to methods of defence, destroying great cities at will by atomic bombs is a spectre only. There is a defence against the atomic bomb. It is the same sort of defence used against any other type of bomb.

We have had too many alarmist statements made across the country that there is no defence to the atomic bomb. It is interesting to hear what the leading military scientist, of this continent anyway, has to say on that matter. He then goes on to say-and here is a warning that we should well heed:
... at any time against a poorly prepared enemy, the modem bomber at very high altitude can proceed with comparative immunity, even though it has a serious problem in hitting anything precisely from its position eight or ten miles up. Against a fully-prepared enemy, with plenty of early warning, interception radar on ground and in the air, and the best of jet pursuit ships, it would appear still to be vulnerable.
Then he goes on to say that the defending pursuit ships have all the advantage of ground radar, in early warning sets and sets for ground control interception, while the bombers and fighters accompanying the attacking force have at their disposal only airborne radar of very limited range. Then he says that into that picture there is also introduced the high-speed, guided missile which is about to enter the field on the side of the defence. I should like to give one more quotation: The jet was adaptable to the plane of short duration and very high speed, namely, the defensive interceptor of bombers, and it was not adaptable nearly so well to the accompanying fighter, which had to fly distances comparable to those of the bomber. There is a fundamental factor here that favours the defence, namely that the short-duration defensive aircraft must be expected to outperform the fighter that has the burden of a long accompanying flight.
I think those statements are distinctly heartening. I want to call attention, however, to that warning, that we must have a defence force prepared if we are going to take the advantages which now seem to be swinging to the defence.
That leads me to suggest that' there should be a careful examination of the policy now being carried out with respect to the provision of our jet interceptor fighters. In the white paper tabled at the end of the last session of parliament there is an item for $30 million for the purchase of, I think, one hundred F-86's. This afternoon the minister referred to the equipping of the fighter squadrons with this aircraft. I believe that certain purchases of that aircraft have already been made-and I would ask the minister to confirm this fact; I have seen it reported in the press-to the extent of something in the neighbourhood of thirty, according to the press dispatches I saw. The decision which has been made to equip our fighter forces with that particular aircraft I cannot regard with anything but the greatest concern. Even a most casual reading of such volumes as Jane's All the World's Aircraft, and Flight and Aviation Week, reveals the fact that the
Supply-National Defence F-86, which is referred to as the Sabre type, has a performance far inferior to the performance of the new bombers and fighters with which it might have to compete. In fact, a study of the various publications which deal with aircraft design and development reveals what I think you can only describe as rather alarming shortcomings of that particular aircraft for the peculiar conditions under which it must be produced and under which it must operate in Canada. I am tempted to ask whether the strategic, technical and economic factors concerning the F-86 have not been overridden by political considerations. With regard to the equipping of our fighter squadrons with this particular aircraft, we appear to have abandoned the United Kingdom types of jet fighter in order to obtain the United States types. Has this decision been motivated with the idea that the United States might unload upon us certain surpluses?
So far as I can make out from the study I have given to this matter, the F-86 does not measure up to the Canadian requirements, because of its sluggish climbing performance, which makes it unsuitable for bomber interception, while its high fuel consumption seriously restricts its range. Its sluggish climbing performance is due to the heavy wing loading and the inferior performance of its J-47 engines at high altitudes.
The Vampire types, even the older types of Vampires, have a climbing performance considerably better than the climbing performance of the F-86. I know it is reported to be the speediest aircraft in the world. It is a racing type of aircraft, a racer. But speed is not everything in interceptor work. Maximum rate of climb, operational ceiling and manoeuvrability are the paramount factors required in an interceptor.
The proposed production program, which I understand, according to press reports, will see the F-86 coming into production either at the end of this year or in 1951, raises serious doubts in my mind as to whether it will not be an obsolescent machine before it comes off the line. These doubts are reinforced by the decision which I understand has been taken in the United States in which orders for an improved type of Sabre, the F-93, have been cancelled. Doubts have been expressed in leading aviation papers in the United States that the F-86 will ever become a practical interceptor. I do suggest that money could have been saved to this country if the R.C.A.F. had continued to use the improved Vampire types during the interim until our own CF-100 becomes generally available, which I gather, from the remarks made by the minister this afternoon, will be toward next year.

Supply-National Defence
That is, our CF-100 is an all-weather two-seater jet made by the A. V. Roe Company Limited of Malton, Ontario. As has been said repeatedly, it is a magnificent machine. Are we wise in scrapping the Vampire type of aircraft at this stage in order to take an American aircraft which does not have many of the excellent qualities of the more modern types of Vampires? Would it not have been better for us to have continued with that British type of aircraft rather than to have made the change at this stage?
The newer types of Vampire, such as the Vampire-6, have a climbing capacity up to
40.000	feet in some 14J minutes, whereas the F-86 requires somewhere in the neighbourhood of 26 minutes to reach that height; and from the standpoint of manoeuvrability and stability at high altitudes the Vampire is without a peer. More recent developments of the Vampire type, such as the Venom interceptor, have even greater speeds and climbing ability. I saw a report in the newspaper that the Meteor-8 could climb to a height of
40.000	feet in four minutes.
The Vampire fighter has already been adopted by twelve countries connected with the North Atlantic security treaty. These include France, Sweden, Norway, Australia, South Africa, India and, of course, the United Kingdom. It is reported as having been adopted as the standard ground-support fighter for all western union nations. Thus, one basic design of Vampire type provides the interceptor, the ground support, the night fighter, and the naval version as in the Sea Vampire. Thus can supply and servicing be standardized.
The Canadian aircraft industry has shown itself quite capable of producing all types. It could have continued to produce the Vampire types just as well as it could have ventured into the development of the Sabre type. The manufacture of Vampires I am sure could be arranged in Canada, in exactly the same way as it is being arranged in Australia and France.
If we had pursued the course upon which we first started, then we might have seen that by now we could have even replaced the old propeller-driven Furies of H.M.C.S. Magnificent with, shall we say, Sea Vampires.
From the servicing point of view the introduction of the F-86 will necessitate the setting up of stockpiles of a whole range of spare parts, and the establishment of new maintenance procedures-and this in addition to such stores as I believe are fairly extensive, and such servicing arrangements as now exist which have been provided for the original Vampires of the R.C.A.F.
[Mr. Pearkes.l

From the point of view of cost it seems to me that the dice are heavily loaded against the F-86. We are told that something over $30 million was required for the purchase of the hundred F-86 machines for Canada. That works out at about $300,000 for the frames- because, according to the white paper, the armament, engines and the like, are in addition to that.
I ask the minister to tell us before this debate is concluded how much Canada will have to put up in United States dollars, free of Canadian income tax, in the payment of royalties to this North American company for the privilege of constructing these aircraft here. It seems to me that when an opportunity is offered to deal with a country of the British commonwealth and to obtain a type of aircraft whose performance has been proved to be superior to that of the type we are obtaining from the United States, if advantage is not taken then we are simply paying lip service to the expressed desire of fostering commonwealth relations and saving United States dollars.
I understand that Vampire frames can be obtained from the United Kingdom at about one-third of the cost of the F-86 frame. If that is so, would it not be advisable to have three Vampires for each F-86 that we have? Viewed from every conceivable standpoint, technical, strategical and economical, the only conclusion that can be reached is that a mistake, if not a serious blunder, was committed when we selected the F-86 as our interceptor fighter. It would be well if that fact was recognized and I hope that action can yet be taken to remedy what I feel is a grievous mistake. I hope the minister will be able to explain in detail what was involved in the decision reached to go into F-86's.
There seems to be a change in Canadian naval policy from the nucleus idea to having a navy which must be prepared to meet the menace of hostile submarines. I could not agree more with the minister when he says that our principal naval objective must be the protection of our coasts against mines which may be laid and against submarines. Undoubtedly that is modern naval thinking. I notice in today's paper that Vice-Admiral John H. Cassady, deputy chief of naval operations of the United States, told a committee of the House of Representatives:
The threat of enemy submarines affects all of our programs and gives rise generally to the most urgent requirements which must be covered by our 1951 estimates.
The statement made by the minister did not indicate clearly the progress being made with the construction of the three antisubmarine escort vessels. I feel that every

effort should be made to press forward with the construction of that type of craft. It is a Canadian type that is designed to meet our own particular requirements. It is a novel type of vessel and one suitable to the task it is being given to do, the hunting of the modern submarine. In my opinion we cannot press on too fast with this construction work.
Another indication has been given of a change in naval policy in the division of our Canadian vessels into operational and training fleets. I regret that we have not been able to produce a second aircraft carrier to operate with the anti-submarine escorts which I hope will be on the Pacific as well as the Atlantic coast. I hope the minister will be able to clear up the question of whether we are not spending too much money on the maintenance of obsolete vessels which are now in reserve or even in the operational and training fleets and which are of little value in modern sea war. Surely frigates are out of the picture as far as operational vessels are concerned. They cannot be classified as a submarine-hunting vessel.
Referring to the remarks by the minister in connection with the army, I do not see that the same policy is being carried out in so far as the army estimates are concerned. The estimates reveal that there is something like a $2 million reduction in the appropriations for the active army. I should think that one of the lessons of Sweetbriar was that we must concentrate on the mobile brigade group and that greater emphasis should be given to the active army so that it will be prepared to meet any diversionary raids which may threaten our shores. On the other hand, there is an increase in the amount allotted to the reserves. One can only draw the conclusion that there still remains greater emphasis on the nucleus or expansionist policy.
Referring to what we have heard about Sweetbriar and the description of the airlift, I think in fairness the minister should have pointed out that the type of aircraft which transported the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry was not really adaptable to modern conditions and the dropping of parachute troops in hostile countries. It is all very well to say it was a grand airlift, but the Dakota must be ruled out as an aircraft for the transportation of troops. Unless you have a vast air superiority the carrying of key airborne troops in a Dakota is much like putting sailors into a wooden vessel.
If the initiative has been taken by the aggressor then we cannot count upon air superiority. I note also-and this surprises me, considering the importance of the north- that reductions have been made in the estimates for the maintenance of the radio system 55946-55
Supply-National Defence in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I am sure that reductions can be made in army expenditures. I am sure that if the department carefully scrutinizes the figures and takes stern action considerable reductions can be made in the amount of money which is expended on our defence establishments. By that I mean camps and barracks which are scattered all over the country. Surely by more concentration a great deal of the overhead might be cut down. In every province of the dominion there are small detachments of troops, air force, navy and army, and I cannot help thinking that a great deal of money could be saved if there was more concentration and we limited the overhead.
Then of course we only have to look at national defence headquarters in Ottawa. The Mainguy report suggested that many of the positions held at headquarters by naval officers might be filled by experienced civil servants. Nevertheless we find that during January of this year-and these are the latest figures I have been able to secure-there were almost 3,000 officers and men employed at headquarters, and in addition to that another
3,000	civilians employed at national defence headquarters. I know it is quite easy to talk about reducing staffs, and I know it is difficult to do so. From personal experience I know that it is difficult to make officers dispense with clerks, and senior officers dispense with staff officers, but I believe there is room for reductions there.
I am alarmed to see that, instead of any reduction being made, the amount of money allocated for departmental administration has increased by $1,200,000.


Mr. Goode:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Randolph Pearkes: Certainly.


Tom Goode: The hon. member for Nanaimo, with all his experience, has complained that the department is spending too much money by decentralizing the quarters for troops. I am not too sure that he means that, because from my experience with the army I know that is one of our principles so far as present-day warfare is concerned. I am not sure whether he expects the department to have headquarters in two places in Canada where they would be susceptible to air attack.


George Randolph Pearkes: I could go into a long discussion as to the advisability of concentration or dispersal, but I am talking about the small detachments that are maintained across Canada. They would not all be in danger of immediate attack. So far as the estimates are concerned, I have not had the benefit of the chart which the minister has tabled, but

Supply-National Defence I am forced to say that I find they are being presented in a most complicated form. It is difficult to tell just how much will be distributed among the various services. As I understand, the total commitments the house is being asked to pass amount to something over $623 million, of which it is estimated $425 million is to be spent this year. There are rather broad headings under which that amount is to be expended. Another $144 million is allocated to be spent in future years and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no indication in the blue book how that amount is going to be distributed among the various services, or for what purposes it is to be spent. Obviously it is for commitments that have been made for escort vessels and aircraft which must be provided for in the future, but I hope the minister will be able to indicate, before this debate is over, the general distribution of that amount of money among the various services and research.
Then there is another $55 million which I feel is rather in the nature of a blank cheque given to the minister to meet any unforeseen commitments which may possibly arise during the coming year. It seems to me that must be a most comfortable floating reserve for the minister to have. I cannot help thinking that we should have a detailed explanation as to why that amount is necessary.
The great bulk of the estimates is assembled under one item with a new heading, "defence forces". Last year and the year before similar items were grouped together under the heading, "demobilization and reconversion." I do not know whether demobilization has been completed, but I do not think it has been because there are still outstanding claims. I do not quite know where those will be placed. I have some questions to ask as to the amount of money actually allocated to what you might call the combat units of our defence forces. No doubt the chart which the minister has provided will assist us in ferreting out that information. I use the word "ferreting" because I think hon. members will agree that very little information has been given to the committee today about how the money is going to be spent in the future. Many times in the house I have said that it is almost impossible, within the limited time available, for the committee of supply to really secure the necessary information. I feel that it will take a very long time if we are to have a detailed examination and analysis of these defence expenditures. However, it is the wish of the house that the matter be dealt with in committee of the whole. We suggested a special committee to examine these estimates, but


the house did not agree, so I shall have to ask hon. members to be patient as we ask questions concerning these estimates.
There is such a wide range of subjects even under this one item to which I just referred that I think it will illustrate how extremely difficult it is to carry on a connected discussion. For instance, here we have the pay and allowances of all three services. That has to do with the number of men in the services and the various types of training. Also under that same item come such questions as the Northwest Territories and Yukon radio system, the northwest highway system, the aerial photographic survey, the northwest staging route, the cadet services, and even the imperial war graves. So you might have one question with respect to the establishment of some particular unit; then another member of the committee might ask something about the progress of the construction work on the Alaskan highway, while the next question might concern war graves and war memorials. I do suggest that it is practically impossible, and we have found it impossible in the past, to make a careful analysis of these estimates.
The other day the minister was kind enough to tell the house how these estimates had been brought down in the past; and in giving the dates on which his estimates had been presented in recent years he said "terminal pressure" had not been applied. By that I gathered he meant that the rush at the end of the session had not commenced when his estimates were presented. He said that in 1947 his estimates were brought down on July 9 and 10. I looked to see when the house prorogued that year, and found that the session concluded on July 17, just one week after his estimates were brought down. I well remember that at that time we were sitting morning, afternoon, and evening, and Saturday as well. Then he said that in 1948 his estimates were brought down on June 24 and 25. That year the house prorogued five days later, on June 30; and again we were sitting morning, afternoon and evening. Last year it was a bit better. His estimates were brought down on November 11, 18 and 24, and the house did not prorogue until December 10; but I well recall that the session continued for many days after the original target date for prorogation. So if the minister wants to be at all fair he must admit that at the time his estimates were brought down there was some justifiable anxiety on the part of members of this house about when they might return to their constituencies.
I do not think the minister's arguments against the setting up of a committee were well founded. As far as I could see there was no attempt to change the constitutional system. There was merely a request on my

part and on the part of other hon. members that we be given an opportunity to carry out our duties in connection with the examination of these estimates, at a time when they are increasing so greatly and when such changes are taking place. It was a request'that we be permitted to perform our duty without the rush and without the feeling that we were delaying other hon. members.
Because of our system of presenting estimates here, hon. members are groping in the dark as they seek such information as may be fed to them from time to time. The minister asks us to have faith in his infallibility; that the estimates have received careful consideration by the officers of his department; and that he is doing his best in the allocation of such money as he is given to promote the welfare of all the services. I believe he is, but I do not believe he is infallible. I believe the officers on his staff are doing their best; I have every confidence in their integrity, but 1 have no confidence in their infallibility.
Finally, the difficulty we as members experience is undoubtedly felt by others who have to do with defence matters. I have here a report concerning Major General G. B. Howard, general manager of the Canadian industrial preparedness association, who apparently made a tour across Canada recently with the idea of interviewing leaders of industry to see how industry could assist the Department of National Defence. The report states:
Lack of information from the government on defence requirements and types of equipment likely to be manufactured for defence purposes is hampering the work of the Canadian industrial preparedness association.
He goes on to say:
We should continue to press the government authorities for all possible information . . . What are we expected to do to assist in planning industrial defence? What are the requirements we are expected to meet; and what is our role?
Those are questions the general manager of this association is reported as asking. In view of the immense amount of work that must face the committee of the whole of this house, I am going to ask the minister once more if he will not consider referring these estimates to a committee which will be able to make the careful analysis which the importance of these estimates and the size of these expenditures require hon. members of this house to make.


Brooke Claxton: I did not want to interrupt the hon. member in his very constructive and helpful remarks by raising a point of order, but obviously it would be quite improper for this committee or this house to revert to a discussion of something already decided by the house this session. I should like to have 55946-55J
Supply-National Defence that point noted, but I would, at the same time, like to thank the hon. member for his helpful and constructive speech.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: When the member for Nanaimo speaks on defence estimates, we listen to him with respect. Obviously, he has a great and detailed knowledge of the services. When he tells us that, in his opinion, there are savings which could be made in these estimates, I am inclined to agree with him. I believe, however, it will be rather difficult to ascertain just where those savings could be achieved this year. We are spending in the next twelve months the huge sum of $425 million for defence. None of us dispute the necessity for that defence, but when we realize that this figure is greater than the total ordinary expenditure on the Canadian budget in 1939, we also realize how drastic a change has taken place.
That $425 million is a lot of money. How is it going to be spent? We know that in the year 1948-49, $145 million was spent on construction, equipment, supplies and so on. A total of 65,308 contracts were let out. Obviously, this year there will be many more. Despite the denial, which I accept, made the other day in this house by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce about the now rather celebrated study group, I think there remains an unhappy feeling in the minds of many of us that there are some who would like to get their snouts into the patronage trough. I hope the minister will be firm, and will not permit patronage to be shown in this matter of contracts dealing with the Department of National Defence.
It has been said it is government policy to provide the forces estimated to be necessary to defend Canada. Today the minister qualified that somewhat, of course, because we in Canada cannot provide the forces requisite to defend ourselves. We might be able to do so were we to conscript every man, woman and child in the country, and were we to bankrupt ourselves with military expenditures. When the minister states that the defence of Canada is also the defence of the north Atlantic powers, he is right. Defence must be looked upon from that point of view. Yet, in his remarks, I detected what appeared to me to be an illogicality. He said that the best Canadian strength is the collective strength of the north Atlantic powers. There can be no argument against that; it has been said month after month during the past year. Yet, surely, collective strength implies that commitments have been made collectively to defend ourselves collectively; but earlier the minister stated we had made no specific commitment under the North Atlantic treaty. In that case,

Supply-National Defence I cannot see how we can say that we have any collective strength at all, if we are not prepared to make commitments to those who are our allies.
At this point, I should like to quote a sentence which appears on page 13 of the white paper issued last year. It reads as follows:
There hardly remains an inhabited point on the map too remote to be directly affected.
That refers, of course, to the unhappy tragedy of a war.
Such a conflict, while constituting man's greatest failure to live intelligently with his fellow-men, would also, paradoxically, necessitate a degree of co-operation previously unimagined, among those nations and individuals who value freedom.
Those words are profoundly true. But why do we have to wait until the calamity of a war is upon us before we learn that lesson? Why can we not do these things now, if they are going to add to our defence, as I am convinced they are? Why can we not achieve this degree of co-operation now?
In this document, at page 8, we are told:
By pooling resources, the effect of the pact should be to reduce the total expenditures which each of the 12 countries would have found necessary for their security had there been no pact.
That also is very true. One would think then that, under a system of collective security, the national commitments for each nation would be cut down accordingly, because our strength would be the strength of the entire group. To have the sort of co-operation which is envisaged in the white paper when war comes, demands the surrender of certain powers to a supranational authority. I am more than willing to see that done now, rather than wait until a war comes upon us-if indeed one does come. If we wish to make the North Atlantic treaty a reality, then certain powers have to be surrendered to a supranational authority. The trend has to be towards the nucleus of an international army among those powers.
There are other questions which I should like to ask the minister, and to which he may reply later, concerning matters which were not touched upon by the member for Nanaimo. What is the industrial defence board doing now? Under the order in council which constituted it, it was asked to prepare, and keep up to date, a plan for industrial production in the event of war. I should like to know how far that plan has gone, and if the plan is being kept up to date. Then, the industrial defence board was asked to advise on the locations of industry. What sort of advice is it giving? Obviously, under the conditions which prevail in the world today, if there were to be a war, then decentralization


of industry would be highly advisable. Are any plans being made for such decentralization?
The industrial defence board was asked to advise on the maintenance of reserve stocks. What is the situation with regard to our stockpiling of chrome, manganese, tin, and natural rubber? I do not ask that details be given to the house, but I think some total figure in terms of dollars might be given to us, so that we should have some appreciation at least of what is being done.
The Canadian Commercial Corporation apparently was asked to try to place shadow contracts with various industries throughout the country, to ascertain if requirements could be met in case of necessity. I should be interested in knowing if this has happened, and what the result has been of placing such shadow contracts. In a speech which the minister made about a year and a half ago now, I think to the Canadian Ordnance Association in Montreal, he commented upon the position of the steel industry in Canada. He emphasized the tremendous importance of steel to our economy. We still produce far less than our requirements. I should like to know if the government is preparing for the worst. Obviously, this department should be one which, while it hopes for the best, should nevertheless prepare for the worst. I would like to know what the policy of the department is with regard to this industry. If Canada is not producing sufficient steel for her needs, if she is dependent on other nations, might it not be advisable to carry out policies which would ensure the steel Canada needs? Would there be any better way of doing it-in fact it would be killing two birds with one stone-than by rehabilitating the maritimes by building an efficient steel industry down there? It could only be done by the government taking over that corporation which is known as Dosco.
There was another matter which was not referred to by the minister, the question of defence research. I imagine this is one of the most important departments under the minister. It is spending less money this year than it spent last year, although the supplementary estimates may increase the amount. Nevertheless here is a department which is surely a key to many of the things we want to find out; and we are justified in asking what sort of security clearance is used in this department. I think hon. members may know by now I am not one of those who are enthusiastic about security clearance, but I realize the necessity for it. I ask the question from the point of view of United States experience, where able and competent young scientists

have volunteered their services to government bureaux only to And that the interminable delay of security clearance was such that they got fed up and, instead of working for the country, devoted their talents elsewhere. Are we short of skilled and trained staff in the defence research department? Have we all the men we need? Are we giving those who are there the opportunity of productive work?
I think the most important point I want to make, and one which I think the minister should answer because there may be an answer to it, is this apparent illogicality of his, as I call it, where he talks about the best guarantee of strength being collective security, and then states that we have made no specific commitments under the treaty. I do not think that Canadians would have any objections at all to specific commitments under the .treaty; and we in parliament certainly would want to know what they are. Most certainly I am convinced that there can be no collective strength until we have given these specific commitments to those who shall be our allies.


Mr. Poulioi:: I am glad the Minister of National Defence is here, Mr. Chairman. I should like to bring some facts before the committee. I have been interested in listening to what has been said by the minister, by the hon. member for Nanaimo and the other members who have spoken. I am not familiar with logistics, but I have received many letters from soldiers and men who want to get into the army, and I should like to explain their case.
Over the C.B.C. there is a program called "Comrades in Arms"; in French, it is "Tambour Battant", beating the drum. It is supposed to help recruiting, and it is wonderful. There are Mexican songs and tom-tom and all sorts of tunes that are supposed to invite young men in good health to join the colours; and it must be quite expensive. It has been running for some time. I do not listen to it regularly, but I hear it occasionally. There is always the same announcement at the beginning and at the end. There are no military marches and there is no military inspiration in the music that we hear. It is just fun, Viennese waltzes and other things. It is quite astonishing.
I have a case that I am going to mention to the minister. He must be familiar with it because we had some correspondence about it. I am unfolding some of the files to which I referred the other day on another matter. The case I refer to now is that of Romeo Santerre, who is a nice fellow, less than 25 years of age, with three years' service in the army, of which one and a half years was
Supply-National Defence overseas. He was honourably discharged and now he would like to get into the army. In spite of "Comrades in Arms" and "Tambour Battant", beating the drum, I am obliged to fight for him in order to get him into the army.
What to me seems stupid on the part of the brass hats is their paying for a program over the radio to invite young men to get into the army and then failing to accept them when they are able-bodied and willing to come in. I have this man's regimental number here. I will give it to the brass hats who probably adorn the gallery. I do not know whether there are any there. I find the brass hats stupid. The number is E-100850. The reason the young man is not accepted by the army is that he has not sufficient education to meet their standards. Who ever heard of such a thing? He must be a B.A. in order to be accepted in the army! What is the use of having a program over the radio, in both languages, telling young men "join up", "get into the army", "you will be happy in the army", "there is a career for you in the army"? Romeo Santerre listened to that in French and said to himself, "That is my chance to get a job. I have been in the army. I have nothing to do. I am unemployed. I am ready to go back again. Although I saw many things in the army that were unpleasant I do not mind about that; I am ready to go; I am willing to go. I have my experience of one and a half years overseas and one and a half years here in Canada. I think I am fit. I was honourably discharged. I want to join the colours." If that man joined the colours after having listened to the program, we would think the program was worth something, having regard to the money expended on it.
Romeo Santerre tries to join the army. Is he accepted? No, sir; he is not accepted because he is not highly enough educated. He must be a B.A. He must go to a university. He must be like the civil servants. The army seems to be like the civil service. In the civil service a man must have university degrees in order to get irj. They must have a gilt embossed parchment attesting the degree of M.Sc. and then they are doctors; they wear mortarboards. What the army wants is not able-bodied men; it is men with mortarboards. The army is just the same as the civil service commission. I am quite indignant about this matter. Here is a young man who is willing to go into the army. But can he get in? No, sir. They say to him, "You have no mortarboard; you have no honorary degree, you have no degree of doctor of laws from a university that did not give you any lectures on law; you are

Prairie Transmission Lines not qualified to get into the army. You are too ignorant." Who ever heard of such a thing?


The Chairman:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want Santerre in the army.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benidick-son for the second reading of Bill No. 9, to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited, and the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East): "That this question be now ' put."
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. A. C. Stewart (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker,
I had not intended to speak on this pipe lines bill, and I do not wish to delay proceedings unduly. However, the hon. member who preceded me in the debate, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), made certain remarks with which I think I should deal.
In his speech on March 14, reported in Hansard at page 748, he said:
May I warn members from some of the other provinces. Let us first take those from Saskatchewan. They may find the next step will be that instead of their towns being supplied with natural gas that gas will be sent down into the United States.
Then he proceeded to warn members from Quebec and, finally, to chastise the four Liberal members from British Columbia, implying that these members were not doing their duty by their own province, and that they had favoured the bill-although, as has been pointed out, all they did was to move for a vote.
Before I received the advice from the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, I had communicated with the province of Saskatchewan. The city of Yorkton, in which I am particularly interested, is not, I think, very much concerned with the bill, because in that constituency at the town of Kamsack we have found gas, and it is now being partially supplied with gas.
In any event we are interested as a province; and with that in mind before the hon. member spoke I had communicated with the

boards of trade in Saskatoon and Regina as to what action if any they wanted the Saskatchewan members to take with regard to these bills which, as hon. members know, were debated in the last session, as well as in this one.
In that connection I also asked a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), which is reported in Hansard at page 792 as follows:
Have any representations been made to him by the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan with regard to protecting Saskatchewan so far as the export of oil and gas from Alberta is concerned?
In reply to that the minister answered in these words:
I have no knowledge of any representations from the province of Saskatchewan in that connection.
My second question was:
What is the policy of the minister with regard to the granting of permits for pipe lines from Alberta
to the United States?
In answer to my second question he said:
I would say that I spoke on this subject at the last session of parliament, and pointed out that the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act is designed to protect Canadian consumers. It is necessary under the act for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give a certificate to the effect that the present and foreable future needs of Canada are protected before any exports of electricity or gas are permitted. It has been suggested frequently in the current debate that gas will be sent to the United States from the pipe line before the pipe line reaches Vancouver. I stated last session that that would not be permitted. I know from discussions with the sponsors of the pipe line that it is not proposed to undertake any such export.
Iii addition I have received a copy of a letter which the commissioner and the board of trade of Saskatoon sent to the Hon. J. H. Broekelbank, minister of rtatural resources and industrial development in Saskatchewan, at Regina, dated March 13. That letter points out that it has been brought to their attention that a private bill was coming before the house in connection with this matter.
The question was raised as to whether Saskatchewan's interests in getting a supply of gas should not be protected. The thought was that in any such bill authorizing the exportation of gas to centres in British Columbia Saskatchewan's probable needs of natural gas should be provided for, before any gas was exported to British Columbia.
With that I agree. I have checked the history of these pipe line bills that were passed at a session of parliament before many hon. members who now hold a seat were here. I refer to the session in April of 1949. Apparently all these bills received second reading on April 29 of that year.
I was interested to note what the sponsors of the attack on the present bill had done

to safeguard the interests of Saskatchewan in connection with the previous legislation. I find they took no stand on it at all. Bill C-8 was not passed, and that was an application from this same company. Then I find that on April 29, 1949, Bill B-8 was passed, under which the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company obtained a charter in the same wording as the application in the present instance, giving them rights within or outside Canada.
Then I find that the Trans-Northern Pipe Line Company, oil only, also obtained a charter, with rights within or outside Canada. I find, further, that the British American Pipe Line Company on the same date from the House of Commons obtained a charter, for oil only, within and outside Canada.
Then I find a bill, sponsored I believe by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), for the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited. It was passed, but it only gives permission within Alberta and British Columbia, or outside Canada, to construct a pipe line for gas and oil. So that in that bill Saskatchewan is left in the choice position of not having any interest at all. They got a charter for the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. By that bill Saskatchewan was left in the cold.
The bill now before the house proceeds to follow exactly the same language in which the other bills were passed, and those bills were not questioned. No riders were added and no amendments moved either by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra or the hon. member tor Fraser Valley in any way limiting the route of the pipe line, or anything of that nature. I have checked that.


Mr. Green:: Has the hon. member checked the proceedings before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines? If he does he will find that that was where we got that pledge.


Alan Carl Stewart: I am taking the record of Hansard. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is quite a skilful lawyer, but I do not think he will attempt to convey to this house that anything said before a committee is binding when there is nothing in the bill. With his legal experience I doubt if he will contend that for one second. The previous bill passed without any amendment. I think the hon. member will agree that anything said before a committee of this house is not binding or operative on anyone.


Howard Charles Green: Unless the people behind this company are entirely dishonest, the pledge they gave before that committee would bind them.
Prairie Transmission Lines


Alan Carl Stewart: The hon. member who sponsors this bill, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), is reported on page 447 of Hansard of March 3, 1950, when replying to a question by one of the opponents of the bill, as saying:
I have given the assurance. Mr. Speaker, that this company is quite prepared to build a pipe line wherever any of these regulatory bodies insist that it be built.
That is a much more binding undertaking given before the whole house than anything that might be given before a committee. The same hon. member pointed out during the debate that the Alberta government is not opposed to the incorporation of the particular company provided for in this bill. On the contrary, that government feels strongly that no bona fide company should be refused incorporation and thus deprive and limit the province of Alberta from dealing with several companies instead of one. The leader of the Social Credit group also made it quite clear that he wanted a vote on this bill on its merits and also wanted it referred to a committee of the house.
I repeat that the bill that passed the house covers only the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia-Saskatchewan was completely out in the cold. Should this bill pass permission will be given to incorporate a company that can operate in Saskatchewan. It looks to me very much as though there were a nigger in the woodpile. The same hon. gentlemen are now strenuously opposing the granting of a charter to a company which the government of Alberta is in favour of.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave an opinion which I concur in with deference- I submit the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) concurred in it also-that the province of Alberta alone has jurisdiction over the oil in Alberta while it is in Alberta. In addition conservation measures were prepared by the hon. member for Calgary West, according to his statement-we will presume that with his usual thoroughness he included every protection necessary for the province of Alberta-and they provide that the conservation board must ratify and give consent to the exportation of oil or gas from Alberta. Until they do that neither the company that has been formed nor the company that is proposed by this bill will be able to build a pipe line to move gas or oil out of the province of Alberta.
Then in addition the province of Alberta has safeguarded itself further in connection with how much oil or gas shall be exported from the province. They have ruled, and properly so, that the people of Alberta must come first and then the other provinces and the United States. The hon. member for

Prairie Transmission Lines Vancouver-Quadra is criticizing Liberal members who voted for another bill which was in accordance with the wishes of the government of Alberta. I would remind them that there never was any motion to amend or restrict that bill. There was never even a suggestion that there should not be exportation to the United States. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra did say that he thought our own people should be served first, but there was no attempt to amend or restrict the legislation. I submit that from a legal point of view you could not have restricted it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Does the hon. member say seriously that there was no motion before the house that the bill be amended to provide for an all-Canadian route?


Alan Carl Stewart: I say that there was no amendment introduced to the bill that passed this house which related to Alberta and British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There was an
amendment.


Alan Carl Stewart: The hon. member for Fraser Valley did not oppose that bill, which was worded similarly to this bill. He never said a word during the whole debate as to the provisions of the bill that passed this House of Commons. He did ask a simple question as to whether the bill permitted exportation from Canada. All the hon. member did was to ask that gentle question and get an answer.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I disagree entirely with my hon. friend.


Alan Carl Stewart: The hon. member is not reported in Hansard. He will have an opportunity later in this debate to produce Hansard.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I intend to be on
Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that they should address the Chair and not engage in conversation.


Mr. Mclvor:: Which would cost more, a pipe line to Saskatchewan or a pipe line to British Columbia?


Alan Carl Stewart: Because of the mountains, a pipe line to British Columbia would naturally cost more than one to Saskatchewan. We have some splendid cities in that province, including Saskatoon, Moose Jaw and Regina, and I am not forgetting my own city of Yorkton. No provision for Saskatchewan was made in the bill_ for which the hon. member for Fraser Valley voted.
I should like to go further and quote the opinion of the Prime Minister in support of


my contention that the province of Alberta has the whole say as to whether a pipe line is built for the purpose of exporting oil from that province. The same thing applies to Quebec. For thirty years that province has had the right to say that pulpwood could not be cut unless it was manufactured in Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh.


Alan Carl Stewart: The hon. member for Fraser Valley disagrees with his own leader. I think possibly his leader knows a little more law than the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I concede that, and distinctly more than you do.


Alan Carl Stewart: I should like to quote from page 2651 of Hansard of April 27, 1949, where the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
I do not think the parliament of Canada would have the right to say to those operating on crown lands in the province of Quebec. "You shall have the right to export wood cut on those crown lands." That wood is simply not exportable. I would imagine it might be the same situation with respect to gas taken from concessions in any other province. I would imagine the province would have the right to say, "We will allow you to exploit these lands provided you do not send the product from these lands outside of Canada."
As Alberta has the right to do. The Prime Minister continued:
In that case I do not think any licence granted under federal authority would authorize a concessionaire to export contrary to the conditions of his concession from the owners, that is to say, the provincial government.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: That is a term of the contract.
He apparently agreed with the Prime Minister.


Mr. St. Laurent:: A term of the contract, and I
do not think, whatever be the terms ef the federal legislation with respect to permits, that such a permit could give one holding a concession the right to violate his contract.
In other words, any company will first have to enter into a contract with the government of the province of Alberta, and no doubt that government will make sure that the contract is fair not only to Alberta but also to the other provinces of Canada. I think the government of British Columbia realizes that because, since we have been debating this matter, a motion was passed unanimously by their legislature urging that the pipe line be built in Canada. They also sent their attorney general to the government of Alberta, and that is the proper place to go. They have the first say. The Prime Minister said:
... I do not think, whatever be the terms of the federal legislation with respect to permits, that such a permit could give one holding a concession the

right to violate his contract. It might very well be that, although the owner under the contract did not forbid exportation-
The province of Alberta is the owner of 90 per cent of their oil and gas and they likely would forbid export.
-parliament could say, "we will not allow you to export gas because we have the control of foreign trade, we will not allow that commodity to go out without a permit, and we will not give you a permit." I do not think, however, they could do the reverse and say, "we will allow you to export it no matter what the province, as the owner of the land from which it is taken, wants you to do with it."
That is the opinion of the Prime Minister. By giving second reading to the bill we will then have the opportunity to send it to a committee of the house. The people of British Columbia and Saskatchewan have no protection under the bill passed last April. Any company will have to go first to the government of the province of Alberta which has the first say. Under our law they next have to go to the board of transport commissioners, and under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act passed in 1907, which is chapter 54 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, they have to get a permit from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and you have his declaration on the matter.


Mr. Knowles:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Alan Carl Stewart: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Quite honestly it is an attempt to clear up a point. I think it is understood that the province of Alberta would have the say as to whether or not its natural products are to be exported, but if this measure is passed does the hon. member suggest that the province of Alberta would have the right to deny to the company the right to build its pipe line wherever it chooses to do so?


Alan Carl Stewart: Yes, I would go that far, and I think the Prime Minister agrees with that view. Ownership of 90 per cent of the land in Alberta is in the crown, and the rest is privately owned. The government of the province of Alberta has passed regulations under its conservation bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Respecting the export of its raw materials.


Alan Carl Stewart: And relating to oil and gas. They give a permit to the company to operate. They charge a licence fee and in the licence they also stipulate where the company can operate and what it can do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where does the board of transport commissioners come in?
Prairie Transmission Lines


Alan Carl Stewart: The board of transport commissioners comes in under our own statutes. Then we also have an old statute relating to the export of gas and oil, chapter 54 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927. It gives the Minister of Trade and Commerce the right to refuse or to grant a permit. You have the declaration of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he intends to do as he has on other occasions. As was pointed out during the debate last April, he did so in connection with other matters and gave protection to Canada. He will not grant a permit unless he thinks one should be granted, and he can revoke it at any time. In this case the minister says that he has the assurance of the company which is applying for a charter that they will build in Canada. Furthermore, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) says that he heard that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will you permit a question? Did the minister say they would build their line entirely within Canada?


Howard Charles Green: He did not say that.


Alan Carl Stewart: The Minister of Trade and Commerce said they had assured him that they would build in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: No, he did not say that.


Alan Carl Stewart: I think he went that far.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We are glad to hear you say it on his behalf.


Alan Carl Stewart: I have read you his answer from Hansard. With reference to the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), may I point out that the Prime Minister said at page 2652 of Hansard for April 27, 1949:
I cannot change the constitution.
He is referring to our own powers.
In my view the resources of a province are controlled by the legislation of that province.
Alberta has its legislation.
If there is legislation in the province of Alberta saying that the owners of fields where there is gas must comply with regulations made by a board set up under the authority of that legislation-
The hon. member for Calgary West referred to the activities of the board.
-I think as a lawyer they would have to do so, because that is control of property and civil rights within the province. The federal government has the right to control export but it cannot force export.
I think that answers your question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the hon. member must have misunderstood my question. I was not asking where Alberta comes into the picture so far as the export of raw materials
874

Prairie Transmission Lines is concerned. My question related to the building of the pipe line once this charter has been granted.


Alan Carl Stewart: I referred you to what happened in Quebec, as did the Prime Minister, in the matter of cutting pulpwood. Once it is severed from the land it is severed whether it is oil or pulpwood.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That does not apply at all.


Alan Carl Stewart: I disagree with you there. The Prime Minister also said:
The laws relating to the hon. member's property are under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. but if it is something that is free to be dealt with the federal government can say, notwithstanding that it is free to be dealt with, "we will not give you a permit to export it unless you comply with such and such regulation."
The hon. member for Calgary West agreed with that. At page 2653 of Hansard for April 27, 1949, he said:
Or to cross a boundary.
Following that remark the Prime Minister said:
Or to cross a boundary-unless you comply with such and such regulation. But they cannot make exportable something that is governed by a provincial law which makes it non-exportable.
Surely that answers your question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, it does not.


Alan Carl Stewart: In spite of what the hon. member has just said, the legislature of the province of Quebec has made pulpwood, which is a product of the forests, non-exportable from Canada in an unmanufactured state. That has been going on for over thirty years and the law has been respected and followed, and is valid legislation. Therefore I say that, in so far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, I am in favour of the bill being given second reading and going before a committee of the house. I am most surprised that members of the C.C.F. are opposing the government of the province of Alberta which wants the bill passed. They want competition. If you leave the situation as it is with only one measure incorporating a company on the statute books you are creating a monopoly. You are allowing only one company to have a charter. It is far more favourable to the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to have several companies competing with each other. We will get cheaper gas and oil, but if you give a monopoly to one, as was done in April of 1949 without the C.C.F. saying one word against it, without even moving an amendment, you are simply building up a monopoly, and you have done that in the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yorkton, who has just

concluded his remarks, has made some statements which I think require to be dealt with immediately. I should like to deal with the last one first. He said that if no further companies are permitted incorporation before this house we will be creating a monopoly. It is not this house which will be creating a monopoly. The very nature of the gas pipe line industry itself creates a monopoly. For that and similar reasons the Alberta government has set up its gas conservation board and the British Columbia government has set up its public utilities commission. The two provinces have similar legislation to control the price to be charged for those products or utilities which are in the nature of monopolies. So the fact that there may be two or three companies seeking incorporation, or that two or three companies may be incorporated, would not make the slightest difference to the price of gas in Alberta or British Columbia, in that set-up.
So the issue before us, and the only issue, is whether or not we shall incorporate a company which has declared that it intends to build its line through the United States. It is on that issue that we as members of this house are asked to make up our minds in voting for or against this bill. Before I go on to deal with that point in detail may I refer to two or three other arguments advanced by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). He has referred to the fact that last year we incorporated a number of companies. At least two if not three of the companies he mentioned had to do with oil pipe lines. The Interprovincial and the B-A are certainly oil pipe lines; and an oil pipe line has nothing in common with a gas pipe line. What is before us tonight is a bill to incorporate a company to build a gas pipe line. An oil pipe line is a common carrier. The oil must be taken to a refinery and processed before it is of any use. Gas, however, is available as soon as you put in a branch or distributing line and tap the main pipe line. You have a commodity in a form in which it can be used right away. So there is no comparison between the two undertakings; and the fact that last year we incorporated oil pipe-line companies is no argument in favour of continuing to incorporate gas pipe-line companies.
Let me say further that while we incorporated the Westcoast company last year to convey gas, when it was realized that there was before the house no undertaking from the company as to whether or not they would serve Canada first, the company was asked in committee-which was the only available place at that time where they could be asked -whether they would build their line through Canada or where they intended to build it;

and as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has pointed out, they gave a firm undertaking to build their line through Canada. Since that time they have been before the Alberta board asking permission to export gas over a Canadian route which they have laid down in black and white.


Alan Carl Stewart: Is that line not for gas or oil?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Gas.


Alan Carl Stewart: Look at your statute.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am referring to the application made by the company to the Alberta board.


Alan Carl Stewart: I would point out to the hon. member that the Westcoast company has to do with gas and oil.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The proposal was to construct a gas pipe line. There are certain considerations which must be borne in mind by hon. members when dealing with this bill, considerations of national as well as local policy. May I deal first with the considerations of local policy. I would inform the house that yesterday the British Columbia legislature passed unanimously a resolution asking that the pipe line from the Alberta gas fields to the Pacific coast should be built through Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would the hon. member permit a question on that? Am I not correct in saying that in the coalition government of British Columbia there are both Liberals and Conservatives, and that it was also endorsed by the C.C.F.?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That statement is correct.


Alan Carl Stewart: Did British Columbia also ask that we should not pass this bill?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall read the resolution which was adopted unanimously by the British Columbia legislature yesterday. It was introduced by Mr. G. E. Braden, M.L.A. for Peace River:
Whereas there are strong indications that a great potential of both petroleum and natural gas exists in the northeastern section of British Columbia:
And whereas exploration is presently taking place to ascertain the extent and value of these resources:
And whereas it would be a further incentive to greater and more intensive exploration if an outlet to market of these commodities was available:
And whereas proposals are now being considered for the construction of gas and petroleum pipe lines from available supplies in Alberta to Vancouver and the Pacific coast states of the United States:
And referring to the last question of the hon. member for Yorkton, I might say that those words-
Prairie Transmission Lines


Alan Carl Stewart: Read it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Obviously those words refer to the proposals now before this house. The resolution continues:
And whereas, in the opinion of many members of this legislature the requirements of Canadians in this connection would be a matter of first consideration:
And whereas the industrial development of the interior of British Columba as well as the Vancouver and Fraser valley areas would be greatly stimulated by the construction of oil and natural gas pipe lines from Alberta and northeastern British Columbia through the interior of British Columbia to the Pacific coast:
And whereas, if the proposed northern route is followed, many millions of dollars will be spent in British Columbia in the construction of the lines with consequent employment of thousands of our citizens:
Therefore be it resolved, that the legislative assembly of the province of British Columbia urge upon the federal and provincial authorities concerned the advisability in the interests not only of British Columbia but of Canada as well that such pipe lines be constructed through the Yellowhead pass and thence through the interior of British Columbia to Vancouver, with provision for the extension of the line to the Peace river block so that when sufficient supplies of petroleum and natural gas are available in that area there will be an available outlet to market without unnecessary delay.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Now would the hon. member permit another question on that, just to make it clear? That was adopted by all parties, was it not?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That resolution was adopted, as the hon. member said, by all parties in the British Columbia house.


Alan Carl Stewart: And they did not oppose this bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As hon, members of this house know, at the present time there is a coalition government in British Columbia made up of Liberal and Conservative members, the opposition being the C.C.F.; and every member in the house subscribed to this resolution. It asks in specific terms that the route of the proposed pipe line from Alberta to the Pacific coast be through the Yellowhead pass and into British Columbia. That is the route proposed to be followed by the Westcoast Transmission Company; and so far that company alone has given the assurance that this route will be followed. Speaking for myself- though if I have been able to follow the arguments of others who have spoken I think I can speak for them as well-if any other company seeking incorporation will give a similar undertaking that it will follow this route to British Columbia, then I will withdraw my objection to its bill.
I am basing my stand and my appeal to the members of this house tonight on what this
876

Prairie Transmission Lines pipe line, if it is built through British Columbia, will mean to the area I come from, to my province, and to this country, and what it will mean to have the principle accepted that pipe lines transporting Canadian resources should serve Canada first.
May I just remind hon. members of the two alternatives placed before the house by the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), in his very able speech the other day. He placed before us the two alternatives we have in considering these bills. On the one hand, there is the possibility of a route through Canada, serving the Canadian cities en route, and providing adequate natural gas for those cities, as far as we know forever, and certainly for the foreseeable future. That route from Alberta to the Pacific coast, if it is built through Canada, will not only supply the Vancouver and Pacific coast market, but it will serve the Canadian cities in the interior of British Columbia through which it passes. And such a pipe line, Mr. Speaker, will serve the Pacific coast market, including the United States cities on the Pacific coast, just as well if it is built through the interior of British Columbia, as it will if the route is down through the United States. So there is no question of any member who has spoken in opposition to this bill seeking to deny export of gas to the United States. There will be as much gas exported to the United States through that Yellowhead route as there will be through the U.S. route these companies are asking for. Our point is that we want the route to go through Canada first, and serve the Canadian cities en route.


Alan Carl Stewart: Will the hon. member permit one more question? Do you agree with the statement made by the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) before the Gyro club in the city of Ottawa? This is the statement:
. . . oil and gas are found together and so abundant is the latter that "enough gas to supply the needs of Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and all eastern Canada is being wasted in flares. If we had a market for our gas, we could continue our search for oil," said the speaker in conclusion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are trying to get a market for it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We want the pipe line routed through Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. gentleman would open his mind, instead of closing it, he would realize that we are all equally ready to serve Alberta, and help find a market, but we want the pipe line routed to its market through Canada instead of the United States. We have one proposition, a route to the Pacific coast' of the United States through Canada, and serving the Canadian cities and towns

en route. We have the other alternative of a route proposed by this company whose bill is before us tonight, the major portion of which would run through the United States. It would serve the same ultimate market on the Pacific coast, without any similar advantages to Canada. There would be no advantage to Canada, either in its construction, because it will be built through the United States, or in its maintenance, because it will lie in the United States. There will be no service to the Canadian cities in the interior of the province of British Columbia, which would be served by the other route.
Why is it there are only these two alternatives? Why is it that if the route to the Pacific coast is through the United States the interior of British Columbia will not be served? The answer is, and again I am quoting, amongst others, the authority of the member for Calgary West, upon whose statements the member for Yorkton seems to place a good deal of reliance, that there will be only one pipe line from Alberta to the Pacific coast. If hon. members will reflect, they will see that is the case. The significance of that factor is, and I think it must be admitted, that the market in the interior of British Columbia, Kamloops, Vernon, Kelowna and Penticton-those interior cities- is not large enough to warrant a separate pipe line being built to serve that market alone. If, therefore, that line goes to Vancouver and the Pacific coast via the United States and does not go through our area, we will not get a pipe line built back up from the coast to serve us. If the line goes by any other route, we will not be served with gas. If it is built through our area, then it is a simple matter-I have talked with the officials of the company-to serve the cities along that route.
Furthermore, a definite assurance has been given that the company will service these cities, and will service the whole of the Okanagan area as well. I ask hon. members to consider the area which is vitally concerned in this matter. There are the four large centres I have mentioned, Kamloops, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, all cities of between ten and fifteen thousand people. Each one serves a tremendous area of its own. The other cities farther to the south, Oliver and Osoyoos, and the Merritt, Princeton and Hope districts will be served as well. To put a conservative estimate on it, that area contains at least 100,000 to 150,000 people. If this pipe line follows the route to the United States, that area will not be served with gas. You can see, Mr. Speaker, what it means to have the pipe line built through the interior of British Columbia.

I should like to lay before the house some of the telegrams and resolutions-


Mr. Laing:: Would the hon. member permit a question before he proceeds with that? I think he will admit that the gas, in a city like Kamloops, would have to be retailed, regardless of whether or not a pipe line came through Kamloops or adjacent to Kamloops. The gas would have to be retailed by a company in Kamloops. The hon. member has a great collection of figures tonight. Has he any figures of the economic minimum of service within the retail area that would justify a retail distribution such as that? Further, would he deny-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to answer the questions one at a time.


Arthur Laing: Will he deny that the economic-


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. member has the great interest which his position as a British Columbia member-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Let him make his own speech.


Mr. Sinclair:: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind hon. members that the member for Kamloops has the floor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall answer the hon. member, but I should like to answer questions which are put singly and not in groups. If the hon. member has the great interest which his position as a British Columbia member-


James Sinclair: Answer the question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -should give him, he might give us the benefit of his views when he speaks-	.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -instead of, as he did last time, carefully taking a position on both sides of the question.


James Sinclair: Answer the question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Tell him to make his own speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To answer the question which the hon. member has asked me, I have talked this matter over with the officials of the Westcoast Transmission Company-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -who assure me that the problem of supplying cities such as Kamloops, Kelowna and Penticton with natural gas on the route of the pipe line is a problem which they are well qualified to handle, and one which they are prepared and anxious to undertake. They have looked into the matter, and have satisfied themselves it will be
Prairie Transmission Lines economically desirable for them to supply that market if their pipe line goes through that area.
Then, dealing with the question of the views of the people whom I represent, I should like to read some of the resolutions which have been sent to me in support of the Canadian route. On February 13, the Kamloops board of trade passed a resolution which reads as follows:
Whereas it is the opinion of this Kamloops board of trade that Canada's natural resources should be used to serve Canada first and to promote the welfare and growth of the Canadian economy before being exported;
and whereas there is need' of a conscious and dynamic policy to develop Canada's resources and economy;
therefore be it resolved that with respect to the construction of a gas pipe line to serve Pacific coast cities using Alberta natural gas this Kamloops board of trade is of opinion that the route of such pipe line should be built so far as possible through Canadian territory first so as to serve Canadian cities before the gas is exported to the United States.
At their meeting last Sunday in Revelstoke, the Mainline-Okanagan associated boards of trade endorsed that resolution according to a wire I received today; and that association represents the main line boards of trade from Chilliwack to Revelstoke and the Okanagan boards of trade from the areas of Vernon, Kelowna and Penticton, all those areas being unanimous in support of the resolution.
I have similar letters or resolutions from the Kamloops junior chamber of commerce, the Osoyoos junior chamber of commerce, the Penticton junior chamber of commerce, the Smithers junior chamber of commerce, the Vernon junior chamber of commerce-


Alan Carl Stewart: Do any of these resolutions oppose this bill?


Edmund Davie Fulton: -the central north Thompson board of trade, the Blue river and district board of trade and the Rutland board of trade. Those are only some of the resolutions and telegrams which hon. members from the interior of British Columbia have been receiving in connection with this matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And the Fraser valley.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In our desire to obtain the services of a cheap source of power, which we will obtain only if this pipe line is routed through British Columbia, we in the interior of the province face a problem which is very much the same as the over-all problem as between Canada and the enormously more powerful industrial nation of the United States, which brings me to a consideration of the wider implications of this measure and what I consider should be a national policy for the use of Canada's resources. As in all areas which are not yet fully developed and

Prairie Transmission Lines industrialized, we in the interior of British Columbia are at a disadvantage as compared with the more heavily industrialized centres of the country. Whenever you go to an industry and try to attract it to such areas as that, the answer is that they are too far from the markets and that they are too far from cheap sources of power to make it economically wise to build their industry in that area; hence we go around in what sometimes amounts to a sort of vicious circle. Because the sources of power and the markets already exist, let us say at the coast, the industry goes down and establishes there. This action increases the market, it increases the facilities and increases the disproportion between the undeveloped and the developed areas. I am speaking here from the point of view of local interest. That is why we want this gas in the interior of British Columbia, and we can have it without doing any disservice to the coastal areas; because it is as advantageous to build through our district, and the supplies of gas are ample to supply us and still leave plenty over for Vancouver, the other Pacific coast cities, and the United States.
In that respect there is a parallel between our position vis-a-vis the already developed coastal areas and the position of Canada in comparison with the United States. If we allow this gas to go to the United States Pacific coast cities before it goes to Vancouver, the result is obvious. Vancouver will be at the end of a branch line. Vancouver's gas will cost more than the gas in the United States cities which will be served first. The United States is already more highly industrialized than is Canada. Because the gas will be served to them at a cheaper rate, it will be more attractive for industry to go to the United States, and hence the disproportion between Canada's industrial development and that of the United States will be perpetuated if the route should be built through the United States first.
That brings me to the broad national question of the policy of building Canada first, the policy which is actually inherent in this gas pipe-line bill and in the stand of those who are opposed to the incorporation of a company which does not give us the assurance that it will build its route through Canada. If the various governments of Canada had never taken the stand that Canada's resources should be developed for Canada first and that they were going to build a nation here north of the forty-ninth parallel, we would never have reached even the stage of development that we have today. One has only to think back to the history of the construction of our railways to realize

that it is only when governments and parliaments assume their full responsibility with respect to the directing of the national policy that we can have national growth along conscious and positive lines.
Mr. Speaker, it is nine o'clock, and I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.

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, 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.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to continue, Mr. Chairman, with what I was saying before the dinner recess. I was complaining of the silly program called "Comrades in Arms" or "Tambour Battant", which is pure nonsense. I was going to ask the minister, as he is familiar with the case of Romeo Santerre, if he would have any objection to taking him into the army again. This is my question, and the reason is obvious. He had something more and something much better than any university degree. He had experience in a theatre of war to the extent of several months. As I wrote on December 21 last, the experience that he has acquired on the battlefield should be a greater asset than any university education. May I ask the minister if he will take him into the army again.


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad indeed to take into consideration the representations made by the hon. member, but I cannot guarantee that the candidate for service in the armed forces would conform to our requirements at the time. I shall be glad, however, to look into the matter again.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, but I will ask him to be kind enough to tell me something about the requirements for getting into the armed forces. It seems to me that the radio listener should be warned that applicants must have mortarboards before they can be admitted to the army. It is not fair to say to them, "Come in; come in", if they are not all accepted. Instead of the silly prologue to that broadcast a warning should

be given to all those who have not enough education, according to the standards established by the Department of National Defence. The program should be known as one to invite people not to enlist, instead of one calling them to the colours.
This is something absolutely nonsensical. Why should a country pay for that program if it serves no purpose, and if those who are willing to enlist are refused the opportunity, particularly when they show what Mr. King would have called good will? That is something beyond my understanding. I do not understand it at all.
I would ask the minister to be good enough to give us the titles of the songs on the program, the titles of the musical parts, both in French and in English, since their beginning. We will see that we will have Strauss and all the other Viennese composers coming to the fore to call people to the colours. Well, if so, it will be quite unusual. I want to know, further, how much this cost the country, and what the results were. In the case of Romeo Santerre they were nil. I am wondering if they have been better for others.
It may be that other fellows who were qualified to be good soldiers, who had good eyesight so that they could shoot straight, and who were able-bodied, have been refused, perhaps because they could not write Latin verse, or because they could not make a translation from French into Greek.
It is the funniest thing; in virtue of the North Atlantic pact, I was under the impression that these things had been decided, and that the examples I have given must have been due to the eccentricities of someone from Oxford or Cambridge, or from some French lycee who wished to show his importance in the drafting of a program like that.
What are the important qualifications of a soldier? He must have sufficient intelligence to understand orders given to him by his commanding officer; he must have good health and good training. I appeal to all those who have been in the army, I appeal to the minister and to his critic, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), and ask them bluntly if the best soldiers they had under them were not precisely lumberjacks who, perhaps, could not read or write, but who were always on the job. They were the best shots, the best marksmen. They were able to walk long distances and were physically trained to be soldiers.
Those men were not university graduates- far from it. They were the ones who went to war under the command of experienced officers such as the hon. member for Nanaimo, and others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Supply-National Defence


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank hon. members who are returned men for their approval. They were fortunate enough to have education, but they did not turn a cold shoulder to the men who were the backbone of the army, and who were always there when there was a difficult task to accomplish. That is that.
We are in an age of super-education. We are in an age of mortarboards and gowns. We are in an age where people are much too clever. That is why Romeo Santerre was not accepted when he wanted to enlist again as a private. Incredible! I know Romeo Santerre well. He is a nice, clean fellow.


George Randolph Pearkes: A good man in a tight corner.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, a straight, first-class man for the army. I would not recommend him as secretary to my hon. friend, or as chief of staff in the Department of National Defence; but I do recommend him as a private soldier. He wants to be a private soldier, and I want him to be.
I am for the voluntary system; I am not for conscription. During the last war the government sent military police to look after the farmers' sons and to take them to the clink. I believed the farmers were needed on the farms, and objected to the action then taken. I was for voluntary service, and when a young man wants to enlist I do not see why those who call for recruiting should object to it. That is why I am so insistent upon having this man accepted in the army. I guarantee to the minister that he will* be a good soldier.
I have another case to put before the minister, and this one refers to a young man with more education than the first one I mentioned. He is a fine fellow, but was not accepted in the R.C.A.F. because he had a year less in education than was required for the training. A notice was sent to him in French, and I see in that letter some mistakes in French grammar. The letter was sent by the commanding officer of the Quebec station. I say that officer should first learn French grammar, before he is in a position to tell others to be well educated. It is absurd!
There are other cases. I have many others, but I brought only a few with me to the chamber. The one I shall now mention concerns a cook who would like to join the army to serve in the kitchen and to prepare good meals. This man is a good cook, but he suffers a little from his feet. I understand that a cook is not required to be a professor of gymnastics; he has other things to do than playing the role of acrobat in the army. Because this man has sore feet he is not to be admitted. There are obstacles in the way all the time.

Supply-National Defence
I place before the house another case concerning a man whose name I shall not give, but who is at present in jail. This man would like to be in the army and his case is before the parliamentary assistant. He is in jail because he made a mistake, but that should be forgotten. He is a good marksman and would be able to kill the enemy. If there is a war he is the one I would recommend because he would not miss his mark.


Mr. Drew:: Is that what he is in jail for?


Jean-François Pouliot: In war everything is permitted. I am relating these stories to indicate that I am not alone in having some good will, as Mr. King would say. There are many others who have good will and who are ready to enlist in the army, but they cannot. Probably when this fellow was in jail the radio of the keeper was on full blast and he heard the famous programs, "Comrades in Arms" and "Tambour Battant". He then said to himself, "This is my chance to get into the army; it is a fine place for me and I am ready to go." Perhaps that was the result of the fine programs in English and French that are heard over C.B.C. at times.
I shall try to summarize these cases as much as I can. During the first days of the war I offered to raise a regiment in my county in one week for the defence of Canada, but my offer was turned down. I never thought that I would be again insisting that the wishes of those who wanted to get into the army should be fulfilled. But, the fact is that many of these men are born warriors.
Then a word about the reserve army. Many of the officers connected with this organization consider themselves very important. Probably they never saw a German or a Jap or any one of our enemies during the last war except from a distance when they were brought here as prisoners. Nevertheless they consider themselves to be important people. I have a letter here about the way cadet officers in the reserve army were dealt with. There was a Captain Schooley, the chief instructor, and a Lieutenant Ravel. I do not know if he is French or Huguenot, but he did not seem to recognize the French language in the camp. Captain Schooley said many times in the class that French was not a handicap to the men speaking that language; it only meant that they had to study three or four times as hard.
The lectures and examinations were all in English. No one spoke French. All the officers were strong personalities and they established an atmosphere in which it was not good for French-speaking people to live. This certainly was less attractive than the

broadcasts "Comrades in Arms" and "Tambour Battant." They were much more interesting.
I mention these things because I think it is positively unfair to invite a person to come to you and then close the door when he arrives. It is not even good manners. I want to bring these facts before the committee in the presence of the minister. The minister must not take it for granted that the brass hats in his department are infallible. I knew most of them during the war and I found them to be as stupid as stones. You could not get anything out of them. They were born stupid. Probably they had a fine education, but no one could see what benefit they got from them. I have never been in the army, but I certainly used the language of the buck private with regard to the high-ups.


An hon. Member:: That is why we like you.


Jean-François Pouliot: 1 appreciate that remark. It does my heart good to hear remarks like that when I say something that I dislike to say. We are not going to be bossed indefinitely by these brass hats. It is nonsense to ever think of that. A great many of them are still there. We won the first world war, we won the second world war, and they were there in their swivel chairs. During the war we heard much about the importance of swivel chairs. They were going from hemisphere to hemisphere in their swivel chairs.


An hon. Member:: Around and around.


Jean-François Pouliot: They were rolling around. I do not want to take up too much time, and besides my time is limited. Yesterday a return was tabled dealing with a private who had been accepted in the army and placed in category A. That meant that his health was good, that he was well, that he was ablebodied, that he was physically qualified to be a good soldier. When he was discharged his Pulhem test P dropped from 1 to 3; M dropped from 2 to 4; S dropped from 1 to 4. This man was well when he was taken into the army but he was no longer well when he came out. It was evident that he suffered disabilities during his service. He was accepted as being in category A, in good health, but when he was discharged his papers indicated that he was no longer well.
Why not be generous and give this man a pension? The minister may say that this matter does not come under the Department of National Defence, but that department was responsible for the medical examination in the first place. He was examined by army doctors, not by doctors of the Department of Veterans Affairs. That man was not on pension when he was examined for the first time. He was entering the army. He was

accepted in the army as a man who was fit. Then he had some service, and when he was discharged he was not at all in the same condition of health as when he entered. When it is established in that manner that that man has suffered a disability of any kind, the presumption is that it was due unquestionably to his military service, but we are told that the disability from which he suffers existed before his enlistment or occurred after his discharge. No pension is paid to him.
I complain in the most severe language against the pension commissioners, but we must also complain against the army doctors who have not fulfilled their duty. To the new members of the house may I say that during the war I had to fight for the soldiers and against the doctors. I received protests from very high medical authorities, but after I had sent them copies of Hansard, in which statements that were according to the facts showed beyond any doubt that the doctors referred to were incompetent, then they said: We never thought that it was as bad as that.
I hope that these people will receive justice, and that justice will not be denied them because the departments concerned refuse to acknowledge the fallibility of certain doctors. I will have other opportunities to speak about this matter. I can tell the minister that some of the cases I have mentioned have amusing aspects superficially, but if we consider them seriously we will realize it is a pity that there are such obstacles in the way of patriotic young men who desire to serve their country, who are qualified to accomplish that noble duty, and who cannot do so on account of the stupidity and procrastination of some important bigwigs in the Department of National Defence. In my humble view it is time to stop it. After the sitting this afternoon I met many of my colleagues who told me that I was perfectly right, and that they realized the difficulties young men have to get into the army, especially if they are from the province of Quebec. As I am an advocate of voluntary service, I hope that those who are willing to enter the army will have no obstacles placed in their way, and will be admitted as the good Canadians that they are.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I shall not be able to bring to you the technical skill that the hon. member for Nanaimo did this afternoon nor the sprightly personalities with which the hon. member for Temiscouata has just delighted us. I certainly agree with him that I would much rather have a good cook with bad feet than a bad cook with good feet. Indeed, it seems to me there might be some possible advantage in having a cook whose feet were not too good because it might keep him beside
Supply-National Defence the stove on his job. I would say to the hon. member, however, that I had a very desolating experience in 1939 which perhaps throws some light on the different qualifications which apparently are now required from soldiers. A friend of mine, who like myself had been in the first war, received a letter from his son who had joined up for the second war. This was in the autumn of 1939, and the letter contained a sentence which was devastating to us. The young man wrote to his father and said: War has now reached the stage where an intelligent man can take part in it. I submit to the hon. member for Temiscouata that possibly that has something to do with the new regulations.
Tonight I propose not to talk about the technique of war, which indeed I am not qualified to do, but to discuss the question of how we in the opposition are to discharge our duty with respect to the expenditure of the huge sums of money that are now being brought before the house by the Minister of National Defence. I listened of course with great interest, as other hon. members did, to his speech this afternoon. Certainly when one thinks that he has been from Alaska as far as Berlin or farther in the course of his duties, it gives us an idea both of the way the world has shrunk and of the way in which our responsibilities have extended. I could not help taking a particular interest in the paymaster who jumped with the men. If he landed in Alaska I hope he had the proper qualifications from the foreign exchange control board before he started out; otherwise he may be in for great difficulties. I must say I sympathize with him in taking those risks merely for the sake of seeing that the men had their money. I would have thought that a little higher degree of organization might have enabled the men to have their money before they started, but maybe he was a sporting fellow and liked to jump.


Brooke Claxton: He landed in Alaska, he brought the money, the men received the money in Alaska in Canadian funds, made their purchases in Canadian funds, and everything was fine.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, I see; you had a sort of extraterritoriality there. At any rate, there it is. I think we agree with the minister that the meetings which he attends, and which produce the personal contacts that he mentioned, are valuable as he says. We find it easy to accept his assurance that our men compare very favourably with any others. When he says that our defence is in better shape than it ever was before in peacetime I think we will say it certainly ought to be, considering the amount we are spending on it.

Supply-National Defence
I feel almost apologetic in bringing the house to the sordid consideration of money and how it is to be spent, but after all that is our duty, and therefore I propose to do so.
I should like to remind the house again of the huge total sum which we are considering, some $579 million, more, if I remember correctly, than our whole expenditure in the last year before the war. I should like to refer the committee particularly to just one of the large lump expenditures that we are facing. I have picked this one out because it is the largest single gobbet that I see, that is to say, $80 million odd in the air force for stores, equipment, aircraft and so on. I mention that just to bring before the committee the astonishing size of the amounts that we are now dealing with.
I go on to ask what is the duty of the government and of the opposition-because after all we are part of the machinery of government in this country-in these circumstances; and I want to read just part of a sentence from a small book by a distinguished British parliamentarian, Quintin Hogg, which is called "The Purpose of Parliament":
It is not the right of the government to stifle criticism; it must, therefore, put down for discussion such financial items as the opposition wish to discuss.
That, of course, refers to the British practice, and I merely want to stress the one word "discuss". It is the matter of discussion I wish to bring to the attention of the committee; and I suggest that you cannot discuss a thing unless you have the necessary information enabling you to do so. It is this question of information which I wish to bat up to the minister, so to speak, tonight.
I want to say a general word about the way this house now deals with the estimates that come before it. If an intelligent citizen observed all the time this house spends in dealing with the estimates and saw what really happens, I think he might very easily come to the conclusion that he had been witnessing a solemn farce; for I doubt if a single member in this house has ever seen a single dollar lopped off a single item. If the hon. member for Quebec South were in his place he would be an exception, because I find that in 1922 he was actually instrumental in having some hundreds of thousands of dollars lopped off the defence estimates, when his own party was in power. But then, of course, the hon. member has qualities and capacities which are denied to us more ordinary people.
What happens now? I think all hon. members will agree that when an estimate comes into this house it is a government measure. We do not discuss it. We ask questions about it, but. we do not discuss it. What Quintin Hogg says should happen does not happen,
(Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).]
because when you discuss a thing presumably it is with the idea that something is going to be done about it. Since I have been in this house, as far as I can remember, not a dollar has ever been cut off any estimate that has come up. Everything brought in here is a government measure. Indeed, it is more than that; the ingenious Minister of Trade and Commerce-and I am sorry he is not here tonight-is able to use these estimates for the purpose of doing things for which there is no legislative authority whatever. Hon. members may remember that on April 7 of last year there was under discussion an item of some $800,000 in connection with the Canadian Commercial Corporation, I think; and after a great deal of wiggling the minister admitted in effect that there was no authority for it. But he said, "If parliament approves, the item will be confirmed by parliament." In other words, in effect he said, "We bring it' in here and if it is approved, all right; it doesn't matter whether or not we have authority for it."
I am just making the point that there is no real discussion; that everything goes; that estimates are brought in here as government measures; and that as far as I can see our procedure in dealing with these estimates comes close to being a solemn farce. They are a means of eliciting a certain amount of information; they provide an opportunity to make speeches which we hope will be read by the people at home, and all that sort of thing; but as far as service of the state is concerned, it just is not so. It is under those circumstances that I want to ask the minister what he proposes to do here. As was pointed out this afternoon, we have been refused a committee, and that is that. Now I want to know how we are going to have any real discussion unless we get the information; and how is the information to be given? Are we to get the facts here in this committee of the whole? I think we all know how difficult it is to get information here, with no experts present. We would require a system of orderlies running in and out if there were a real desire on the part of the government to answer questions. Of course what really happens is that we get tired, tempers get short, and eventually out of sheer fatigue the items go through. There is no really satisfactory discussion; there cannot be under such a procedure.
In the case of these defence estimates that is accentuated over and over again, because here we have many items on which, of all things, we need expert assistance. This afternoon, when my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo had finished speaking, the minister

very generously thanked him for his suggestions, and if I remember his words correctly even termed them constructive suggestions; yet neither the hon. member for Nanaimo nor anyone else in this house is to have an opportunity of talking with any of the experts. I will have a little more to say about that a little later on.
What has the minister said to us in answer to the complaints? He said one or two things. If I remember well, he said that never had so much information been given as now. I am not particularly interested in that statement. It is possible that we may have passed out of black darkness into twilight, and I am not going to argue on that; but I submit that what we want is light-I mean information in a way it has not been given before. I think that situation has to be faced.
Now let us look at these figures; let me look at this $80 million I mentioned previously. I am going to be in my riding tomorrow morning, and I have a great many intelligent electors there. I can imagine one of them saying, "What about this $80 million? Do you know anything about that?" I will have to say, "No, I don't know much about airplanes." Then I can imagine him asking, "Then how are you going to vote on that? Is anybody going to know anything about it"? I would reply, "The minister is going to tell us about it." Then my questioner might say, "Well, is the minister an expert?" I would have to reply, "Well, no; the minister very frankly said he was not an expert." Then I think my friend would say, "Well, have you any experts in the house at all, either on your own side or on the other side?" I would say, "Yes, we certainly have on our side some I would consider experts, such as the hon. member for Nanaimo and the hon. member for Calgary East, and I think there are others I could name. I am quite sure in the other corners of the house there are some people of the same kind, who could be useful in that discussion." Then I can imagine my questioner going on and questioning me making me look very silly, and finally saying, "Do you mean to tell me you are going to pass an item of $80 million, not knowing a thing about it at first hand, except what somebody tells you, and that has been passed on by somebody else?" I think he would go on to say, "That is a funny kind of joint you are running down there," and he would be quite right.
I ask the minister what he would have to say to that, because as far as I can see that is the position we are in. My questioner, I think, might very well say, "Well, it would seem a sensible thing to get together a group of these men who are more expert than you
Supply-National Defence are and have them sit in with the minister's experts and discuss the whole thing." I would reply, "Yes, I should think that would be a very reasonable thing indeed, but the government would not allow that. That is the kind of government we have. They are so much better than the rest of us they do not need to discuss these matters with anyone in the house outside the government ranks."


Edmund Davie Fulton: And they even have study groups.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish I knew more about that study group. I really think the minister ought to help us a little on this. We are very modest people over here in the opposition. We read what the Prime Minister said the other day, that there are no people in Canada to be compared with the members of the cabinet; and I imagine he might include the parliamentary assistants as well. He did not say that, but they are a nice lot of chaps. And of course we know that he is going to Toronto, to that great university which I sometimes think is too pleased with itself, so that from time to time I have to remind it that smaller places have better quality than larger places; still it is a great university. The Prime Minister is to be there to establish the fact that there is no alternative to the present government. So, as I say, we approach this in a very modest manner; we are only asking for help in doing our duty, as far as it is possible for us to do it.


An hon. Member:: Just farm boys trying to get along.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is right. Just here I should like to correct one misapprehension the minister is under. This will involve going back for just a moment to the debate on the proposal to establish a committee. Of course I am not going to debate that question at all; I am just putting this on the record because apparently the minister had it in his mind that what we suggested here was something that would require a constitutional change.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I think we must have a stop to this sort of effort to restore the debate to the position it was in before the decision was arrived at by this house that there would be no committee. Therefore, I suggest to you that the hon. member is out of order.


George Alexander Drew: May I rise to point out that the motion that was before the house, and on which the house voted, was a motion for a general committee to inquire into the Department of National Defence and the connected problems of defence. There is absolutely nothing in the decision that was reached then

Supply-National Defence which would prevent the hon. member reviewing that decision. Certainly, there could be nothing in that decision to prevent the suggestion now that there should be a committee to consider defence estimates; that was not the motion before the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Now, coming back, Mr. Chairman, to the suggestion that would lead to the defence estimates going to a committee-as I said, I am not arguing about the other committee at all. I am putting something on the record, because I think the minister would like to withdraw a mistaken statement, if he thinks it is mistaken after hearing what I read to him. It is very brief, but I want to read what was said by the leader of the opposition on November 18 last:
If the answer to the request is there can be no committee-


Brooke Claxton: Really, Mr. Chairman, we have to have a ruling on this. Either this parliament decides one thing once, or it continues endlessly debating the same thing day after day, and week after week, after parliament has decided it. I do not think that makes sense. It is against the rules of the house, and I ask for a ruling.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I think the hon. member is out of order, because he is referring to a previous debate; that is out of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is from the last session.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot review a debate which has already been decided. I cite Beauchesne, third edition, 245:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I think-


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I thought the chairman had given his ruling.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I have given my ruling, and it is not debatable.


George Alexander Drew: A ruling may not be debatable, but if a ruling has been made in error, it is open to any member to point out the error that has been made.


Alphonse Fournier: You can appeal the ruling.


George Alexander Drew: Very well, Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling.

Mr. Speaker resumed the chair and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) was discussing the advisability of appointing a special committee to consider national defence estimates. I ruled the discussion out of order as reviving a debate already concluded.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
Mr. Dion from the committee of supply reports that in the committee of supply Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) was discussing the advisability of appointing a special committee to consider national defence estimates. The chairman ruled the discussion out of order as reviving a debate already concluded. From this ruling the leader of the opposition appealed to the house.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted aginst the ruling.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the chairman's ruling confirmed.
And the house having resumed in committee:


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for this interlude, when I thought I was getting on with the minister so well. I now begin again.
I wish to point out the situation as I see it. What we are now faced with is a situation where the only members who will be able to have a chance to form an opinion on these matters at first hand will be the minister, and anyone else with whom he chooses to take counsel

I presume his assistant, and possibly one or t"-o o+hers. The rest will have to form their opinions at second hand. Apparently they will have to judge what the experts say and think and feel entirely on what the minister tells them they say and think and feel.
I am not able to understand why this should be so. It does not make sense to me, at all. I would like to give an illustration from the business world. But first I would like to repeat a suggestion which has already come out, that although we may not have a committee on defence, which has been decided against, we could have the other different kind of committee to which the leader of the opposition referred, merely a committee to consider these accounts.
I wish now to give my illustration from the business world. I ask members to consider a situation where the general manager of a company-and I compare the minister to a general manager who, after all, holds a most dignified position-comes to his directors. I should think that in a sense the members of the House of Commons might be in the same position as the directors of the company. Then the general manager says that he proposes to embark the company upon very heavy expenditures in connection with very
Supply-National Defence difficult and important matters of a highly technical nature. He shows no sign whatever of allowing any of the directors to form any opinion, or to form their own opinions from a direct contact with the experts.
Finally I would suppose that some of the directors might suggest that it would be very desirable to have a committee of the board, and it might be suggested that there were on the board men who had expert knowledge- indeed, perhaps some with greater knowledge than the general manager-on these particular technical matters. It is suggested that a committee be formed so that these men may make up their own minds from firsthand evidence and be in a position to advise their colleagues on the board.
I suggest that that is exactly what has been put to the minister, and what I am putting again. We will suppose the general manager refuses. He says no, it is better that he should see only these experts. I would ask hon. members to consider what would ever prompt a general manager to make such an answer as that. Would it be, perhaps, that he was afraid?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. member has had enough experience in the House of Commons to know that he cannot do indirectly what he has failed to do directly. I suggest that the hon. member has been out of order in all his remarks since the last vote.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I submit that all I am doing is to suggest to hon. members an analogy with what we are being asked to do. I am suggesting to the minister that he might advise some way whereby we in this House of Commons could discharge our duty.


Brooke Claxton: I can answer that right now. By following the ordinary rules of parliament, the practice since this parliament has been in existence is to have the estimates discussed before the whole committee of parliament, as they have been tonight, and as they always have been.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But surely I am entitled to point out that that procedure has disadvantages. That is all I am doing.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I ask that you rule the hon. member out of order, because he is suggesting some other procedure, which has already been voted on by this house within this week.


George Alexander Drew: Is it out of order for anyone to discuss national defence at all? Apparently it must be.

Supply-National Defence


Joseph-Alfred Dion: It is out of order to discuss other matters in the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I give this illustration, and may I suggest that I think there are certain disadvantages if we are forced to follow strictly the usual procedure. I am leaving it to the minister to say if he will advise a better method than I am offering at the present time.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: We cannot discuss again the matter of a committee. It has been settled.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I have not made myself clear.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member must discuss the item before the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not discussing the matter of a committee. If you wish I will withdraw that suggestion. I am discussing the position in which we are being put if in this unusual situation we are forced to follow the ordinary practice. I am asking the minister if he cannot find some way of enabling us to have some direct means of forming our own opinions. The minister may say that he will bring the experts to the house; I do not know. Or perhaps there are other ways. I am not very experienced-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, the house, when it was meeting, decided that the estimates of the Department of National Defence would be called, beginning with item 202, and that is the item under discussion. And I suggest that every word said by the hon. member for Greenwood is out of order. We are discussing item 202, and following items.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
know much about the rules of this house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We realize that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is one thing that is perfectly clear and that is that on the first item of any department there has been wide opportunity for discussion. I submit that the minister is entirely wrong in saying one has to be tied to any narrow compass. All I am asking the minister to do is to see if he can think of some way to enable us to be provided with some information. As I say, he may have some entirely different method that I have not thought of at all.
I am only putting this forward. I am only making a suggestion which I do not think he will want to have denied. We on this side of the house feel that we are being treated in a most unfair manner. That is all I am saying, and I should like to go on.
I should like to give this illustration from business. I have given you the situation

of a general manager who comes to his directors and asks them to form an opinion without their having an opportunity to see the experts. I say that that is a most undesirable situation. I say further that I have no doubt we have experts in this house and I hope that in some way which the minister may devise better than I it will be possible for those men to form their opinions through direct contacts and then let the rest of us have the benefit of their advice. I cannot for the life of me believe that when the minister thinks this over he will not desire to do that if he can. If he does not, all 1 can say is that he is not the man I thought he was.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me take back those words and just say that I would have thought that the minister would be anxious to meet us to the extent of letting us arrive at an independent judgment on these important matters. That is all I am asking and I do not think it is unreasonable. There ought to be some way of doing it. I do not know whether it is good parliamentary procedure, but I do know it is common sense. I believe every voter in this country will say it is common sense.
I think I am stating the situation fairly, and the minister can correct me if I am not, when I say that the minister is proposing that no member of this house except perhaps himself and the parliamentary assistant, and maybe one or two members of the government, shall have any direct contact with the sources of information, that is to say, with the experts. If that is a fair statement, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong, then 1 just cannot believe that it makes common sense, or that the minister will want to stick to that.
Why should he not want people to talk with the experts? Is it because he has the same fear as the general manager?


Brooke Claxton: I ha-ve already raised this question and the hon. gentleman, for whom I have the greatest respect based on a friendship of 25 years, should know that he cannot get around the rules of this house in the way he is trying. He cannot raise this question again and again and again.


George Alexander Drew: And again.


Brooke Claxton: This is a new method of dealing with the rules of the house and the estimates that are referred to the committee of the whole house on supply.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I think on item 202 we should not discuss the manner of discussing the item, we should discuss the item itself. Standing order 58 reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am discussing item 202.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, you are not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who is the
chairman of this committee? I submit I am discussing item 202. I am asking the minister in all sincerity whether he can assist us in some way to form an independent judgment and not merely have to go back to our constituents and say, "We do not know anything about it; all we know is what the minister told us." As I say, that is not' common sense. I cannot believe that it is impossible to find some better method of dealing with it. I submit that I am discussing item 202 in every sense of the word.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: It may be common sense, but it is out of order.


Mr. Sinnoll:: On a question of privilege, the hon. member for Greenwood is not-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Have we a new Speaker?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am speaking on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Greenwood is not trying to discuss the situation; he is just telling the minister what to do.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I think it is high time we understood exactly what the procedure is. You will recall that the last estimates that were brought before the house were those of the Department of External Affairs. In calling those estimates, just as in calling these, the long accepted practice was adopted of the minister making a statement. Following that statement, those who cared to follow in the debate did so. It was clearly understood, and understood from the moment the minister began to speak, that, when the debate on the statement made by the minister ended, the motion would then be dealt with to refer the items to a committee.
The procedure now before us is precisely the same. The minister has used, and properly used, the calling of these estimates before the committee as a means of making his statement on national defence. He has covered the whole ambit of national defence, far beyond this single item. The practice is clearly established that the debate then continues in relation to the speech of the minister, and when that debate is concluded the ''terns are proceeded with item by item.
Supply-National Defence
That was the procedure followed in the case of the Department of External Affairs. It' was so clearly followed that we now have an adjourned motion in relation to those estimates which will be resumed at a later date, not to deal with the item itself but with the debate which was continuing in relation to the statement by the minister. That is what we are doing now and it would be a violation of long accepted practice to suggest that we depart from that at this moment.


Brooke Claxton: If I may speak on the point of order, I could not agree more with the leader of the opposition, because he has stated the position perfectly. I am completely in agreement with him except when we go on to discuss, as I submit the hon. member for Greenwood has been doing for some time, something which is in addition and which has been decided in this house by a vote this week. He is now getting to the point where he is wasting our time and where he is out of order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Apparently the minister has entirely misunderstood me. He thinks I am still talking about a committee. What I am doing-


George Alexander Cruickshank: What are you doing?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, Fraser Valley again. What I am doing is merely to ask the minister for help. I am merely asking the minister to exercise some common sense where we can be sensibly within the rules. I have very little more to say, but I do want to go back to what I think is a most interesting point. I am sure the members of the house should all be interested. Why is it that the minister feels that none of us must talk to the experts?
Let me say quickly that we recognize that there are certain matters of security. Of course we do. We are not irresponsible. We know there are certain things that cannot be disclosed and we also know that those are the minister's responsibility. But I am asking why it is that nobody can talk to the experts. Is it because the minister, like my imaginary general manager, is afraid that the experts may say things that are different from what they have said to him?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, perhaps my hon. friend is confused, but we have to follow the rules of the house. Standing order 57 reads:
The house will appoint the committees of supply and ways and means at the commencement of every session, so soon as an address has been agreed to, in answer to His Excellency's speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why bring that up?

Supply-National Defence


Alphonse Fournier: The first citation under that standing order reads:
The committee of supply controls the public expenditure by considering the grants of money that will be required by the government for the services of the year-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is just what I am talking about.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What?


Alphonse Fournier: It continues:
-upon the estimates of expenditure presented by the ministers of the crown.
My hon. friend knows that the estimates are considered in this committee, not elsewhere. You may suggest on going into supply that you do not like this rule. You may object to it, but once we are in committee of supply it is to consider these estimates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is right.


Alphonse Fournier: What you are suggesting is that we should bring along officials of the Department of National Defence so that you can personally cross-examine them.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Only if the committee approves it.


Alphonse Fournier: Just one second; be patient. The rules of the house say that the minister is responsible for these estimates, and the government also.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I said that too.


Alphonse Fournier: He is the one who will answer any question that is put to him. He is advised by officials of his department, by chiefs of staff and so forth. Nothing in the rules says that members of parliament are going to call before the committee of supply-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Nothing says they cannot.


Alphonse Fournier: Would you just listen patiently?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You are
taking up all the time.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. gentleman would want to have these officials here and question them because he says he is not too sure that the minister is right in what he is saying.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well-


Alphonse Fournier: Now we will change the procedure; we will take the minister away and you will have your dealings with officials of the department or chiefs of staff.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, Mr. Chairman.


Alphonse Fournier: I am only trying to explain the rules.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He would not understand them.


Alphonse Fournier: He will after a while. You have the minister at your disposal. You may agree or disagree with him, but when we are in committee of supply you cannot change the rules and the methods by which the estimates are considered at this stage.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I just ask the Minister of Public Works this question. Suppose the Minister of National Defence wanted to bring somebody in here. It has been done before in wartime. Let me repeat that I do not think the minister listened to me as carefully as I wish he had.


Brooke Claxton: Never done.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to bring up the point that we are now left in the position where no one except the minister can see these experts. I want to raise that point, and that is my last point. I cannot see any reason why it should not be done, and I hope when the minister thinks it over he will not feel it is desirable to pull down the blinds and keep out the light.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege tonight to say a few words as to defence and the armed forces of Canada on these estimates. I think it is most appropriate that I, as the member for Kingston City, should have a few words to say as to this matter. I wish to say that I consider it a great honour to represent Kingston City not only because of its historical, educational and military background but also because it was once represented by the late Hon. Norman Rogers, who was formerly minister of national defence. I think it is fitting at this time that I should pay a tribute to this man because time does not lessen a tribute paid to so great a statesman.
It is also fitting that I should direct the attention of the house to the Royal Military College at Kingston. The Royal Military College is not exactly within the confines of my constituency, but just beyond the boundary thereof. I should also like to say that it is not the only military establishment in the city of Kingston and vicinity, a fact of which many hon. members are well aware. At this time I wish to direct the attention of the house particularly to the Royal Military College in order that hon. members may be aware of its activities and the good that it is doing in the building of Canada as a nation. I also wish to direct attention to a statement of the hon. member for Middlesex East to be found at page 90 of Hansard of the 21st of February of this year. He said that he considers the

education of officers at the Royal Military College at Kingston as a waste, and that we might better train officers in the C.O.T.C. at universities. It is not my intention to make any personal attack on the hon. member for Middlesex East because I am quite sure that he was sincere and earnest in his remarks. He was directing attention to expenditures which he considered exorbitant in the education of young officers at the Royal Military College. He expressed the view that they could be trained elsewhere.
To understand fully the activities of the Royal Military College I think it is necessary to make a slight review of its history and the activities which are carried on there for which our money is being spent. It was brought into being in 1876 and is the oldest military school in Canada. I may say that in past years a number of its graduates were among the first presidents of the engineering institute. It is also a point of history that the stone frigate which was built in 1820 is still used, and is one of the main buildings at the Royal Military College.
Geographically the college is situated on a projection of land which ends in Point Frederick. On the east is Navy bay and on the west the Cataraqui river. The college is also blessed with many fine limestone buildings which at the present time are being extended. There is a dormitory now under construction for the accommodation of cadets who are being trained at the college to be officers. We must consider the military and educational role that the Royal Military College has played in making a nation of Canada. I might mention to the house that a large number of ex-cadets of the college have died on active service. Many of them have risen high in our present defence organizations. Up to last year there were only 2,032 graduates of Royal Military College since its opening in 1876 arid 272 ex-cadets have died on active service. The proportion of its graduates killed on active service is greater than in any other Canadian university.
I think it is also significant to point out that between 85 and 90 per cent of the ex-cadets of military age were on active service during world war I and world war II. It has produced renowned and successful leaders, which is borne out by the fact that of the relatively small number of graduates it has produced three generals, nine lieutenant-generals and forty-six major-generals.
We should also consider the use to which the Royal Military College was put during the war. There was very little maintenance carried on during that time and we should consider what it is necessary to do now. It ceased to operate early in the war and was used for
Supply-National Defence officer training for special courses. I am sure many hon. members of the house attended them. It reopened in September, 1948, and it is significant to note that it reopened as a joint services college. The courses are designed to train officer cadets for the active and reserve forces of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. I might say at this point, with reference to the expenditure on the training of officers in Canada, there is also the Royal Roads college which has a two-year course. The distinction is that the Royal Military College of Kingston has a four-year course. With the exception of the final year, this college has no summer term. Each year consists of eleven months of instruction, and the year is divided into three terms, fall, winter and summer.
During the fall and winter terms 85 per cent of the instruction is on academic subjects and the remainder on service topics, including physical training. The summer term is devoted entirely to practical service training at the various armed forces establishments, and with different units to which a cadet may be attached during the summer in order to get what we might call his practical training in the services. This summer term of practical training must be taken by all cadets who successfully complete the fall and winter terms, and commences in May, continuing until late in August. In this term the cadets follow courses of practical military training in their own service, whatever it may be. The pay for the cadet during the summer term amounts to $153 per month plus board, lodging and clothing.
Naval cadets are appointed to the naval reserve with the rank of cadet. Studies include instruction in navigation, seamanship, engineering, communication, gunnery and other subjects. The practical aspects of the naval instruction are emphasized in the four to six weeks they spend at sea during the summer on board ships of the Royal Canadian Navy.
Army cadets are enrolled in the C.O.T.C. and are given the status of second lieutenants during training. Officer cadets receive training in the branch of the army in which they will be commissioned. Training is conducted at the various schools under a progressive syllabus during the three years of summer training. On completion of the three years of the C.O.T.C. program an officer cadet is qualified as a lieutenant in the active force or as a captain in the reserve force if he so chooses, which I will speak about later.
Air force cadets are appointed to the R.C.A.F. supplementary reserve class "F", with the rank of cadet. They receive flying
890	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-National Defence training as pilots, navigation officers or radio officers during the three years of summer training before graduation from college; and on completion of their course are awarded their wings and join whatever branch of the air force they may prefer.
I wish now for a moment to deal with the details of these courses which these young men receive. The first two years are the same at both Royal Military College and Royal Roads. The third and fourth years of a general or engineering course are taken at R.M.C., with specialization starting in the third year. Four to five hours a week in all courses are devoted to physical training and service subjects. I think this is significant. We must realize that if these cadets who take their third and fourth years at R.M.C. are to be properly trained in engineering, there must be reasonable capital expenditures as far as laboratories are concerned.
It will have been noted that since the beginning of the year Canadian newspapers and magazines have been carrying advertisements with respect to enlistment at R.M.C. We as Canadians cannot but feel proud of the Royal Military College because of the democratic way in which the cadets are chosen. The requirements for admission are high, but the procedure is democratic. A candidate to become a cadet must be a Canadian citizen or other British subject normally resident in Canada. Candidates must have reached their sixteenth year but not their twentieth birthday on the first day of January preceding entry. Naval applicants, except in the case of candidates from French classical colleges, must not have reached their nineteenth birthday on January 1. A high standard of physical fitness is required of all candidates, and I am sure we will all agree this is very necessary for anyone about to enter His Majesty's service. The examinations are held at convenient centres by boards consisting of service medical officers. Candidates are also required to appear before a regional board of service officers and college officials for a personal interview. Both medical examinations and personal interviews take place each year about the first week of July. I think we might condense it by saying that any boy, no matter who he is, providing he is physically fit and has a sufficiently high academic standing, may be admitted as a cadet at R.M.C. Half the candidates are selected under a provincial quota determined by population, while the remainder are selected in open competition. In both cases selection is based upon the academic standing and the recommendation of the service board as to the physical and personal characteristics of candidates. Later I will discuss the matter of the fees which the candidates must pay the receiver general. I 
am quite sure that hon. members will agree that they are sufficiently low that almost any lad who can qualify as to physical fitness and academic standing may become a cadet at R.M.C.
Before any member of this house or any Canadian citizen attacks the expenditures being made by the Canadian people to maintain the Royal Military College, that person should carefully weigh the advantages of this college to Canada as a whole. They should also make a comparison with other forms of military education such as the C.O.T.C. which, it is granted, does an excellent job at the universities, where education in arts, letters and sciences is predominant. At R.M.C. cadets receive an education in arts, letters and sciences and a military education, with none of these being stressed at the expense of the others.
I should like to review briefly the role of R.M.C. It is a military educational establishment maintained primarily for the training of cadets for entry into the commissioned ranks of His Majesty's service. It has the educational status of a university college, and is a full member of the national conference of Canadian universities. It is one of the three sources for the production of officers for our armed forces in Canada; and in considering the Royal Military College I think it important to remember that it does not depend upon quantity but rather upon the quality of its products. I believe we should pay attention to the fact that it sets a standard pattern which serves as a yardstick for the various officer production schemes we have in Canada.
The unification of the services is one of the latest developments in military science. In this development R.M.C., in its training of .cadets for all armed services, plays a key part. It is appropriate this week that I should speak about R.M.C. and its importance in the national life of Canada, because a week ago tonight the West Point hockey team motored to Kingston to play the annual hockey game with the cadets of R.M.C. It is regretted, but shows signs of good sportsmanship, that those boys came up here with the idea of winning their fourth straight hockey game over R.M.C. I must say they did very well this time, as the minister stated the other day, but West Point were repelled by R.M.C. by a score of 6 to 4.
By way of deviation, may I stress the importance of the hockey game between West Point and R.M.C. These boys came from the United States to play against R.M.C. They spent the week end with our cadets, dined with them, were shown around the buildings, went on parade with them, and went to church with them. We in Canada

should feel grateful we have a college of that nature, because here we find friendships being established between the future generals, admirals, and air marshals of these two great American countries. Regardless of who won the game, I am sure that both countries will be better off in the future, owing to this intermingling of our defence leaders of tomorrow.
If we are to fully appreciate the value of R.M.C., one must look at least 50 years into the future of Canada. No one knows what lies in store for Canada, and what troubles are ahead. We do know that between world wars I and II there appeared in our universities an almost complete lack of military training, and such periods will likely return. Therefore, we should be congratulated on having two military colleges.
The Royal Military College has a large investment in buildings, starting with a stone frigate in 1820. It also has an extremely capable staff of civil servants, backed by a powerful alumni who, after leaving college, take an active part in defence developments in Canada. They are also interested in the service training in Canada, and I believe are always available for their suggestions. There is another role which R.M.C. plays in the national life of Canada. It helps to weld together the English and French-speaking Canadians. French is a compulsory subject at R.M.C., and the college attracts a good percentage of French-speaking cadets. I believe statistics show that last year around 15 per cent of the cadets were Frenchspeaking, and it is expected that this proportion will increase with time.
Prior to this last war we often heard that if there were a world war II it would be a war of great scientific proportions. Towards the end of world war II we learned of the atom bomb. Now we are speaking of the H-bomb. If there is a world war III it will call for a greater number of scientifically trained officers than world war II. Every dollar spent on capital equipment for R.M.C. in peacetime increases our war potential. It could be compared to the British Military College of Science, a unit with a highly qualified technical staff whose teaching and research facilities, on very short notice, could undertake the training of a large number of technical officers for the services. R.M.C. is like the military college of science, in that it trains officers for the technical corps and the army, but R.M.C. differs in that it does the same for the navy and the air force. In so far as research is concerned, R.M.C. and the military college of science are parallel.
There is no more important investment that Canada could make in peacetime than the education of an officer, no matter what
Supply-National Defence service he chooses to enter. Such an officer corps undoubtedly becomes the nucleus of our forces in wartime. When we compare the cost we might say, by way of comparison, that one jet fighter and its accessories would buy the equipment for all the laboratories at R.M.C., and maintain them for a period of 10 years. At this particular time in our history, the value to the services of the engineering graduates trained on this equipment, over a period of 20 years, would certainly be greater than the value obtained from one jet fighter, which might either be destroyed or become obsolete in a few years.
It is important, both in Canada and in the United States, that there be a means of introducing into our universities compulsory physical discipline and training, in order that we can make our young men physically, mentally and spiritually fit. R.M.C. is one of the few educational establishments on a military and university level which fulfils this role. The quality of officers produced at the service college will depend, in the long run, on the quality of the staff and cadets that can be attracted to the college. Unless both the staff and cadets are of high calibre, there is no way of producing a product of the high calibre required to form the nucleus of our wartime army or to lead our peacetime army. Upon admission to R.M.C. or Royal Roads, each officer cadet must undertake, upon graduation, to serve as a commissioned officer in one of the three services, either in the active or in the reserve force.
A brilliant young cadet, keen to make a reputation in civilian life, plays an important role in the well-being of R.M.C. He acts as a leader and pace-setter while at R.M.C., and builds up the prestige of the college in civilian life. Experience shows that this type of graduate finds time to serve with distinction in the reserve force in whatever part of Canada he may choose to reside. Again, this contributes to the standardization of our training.
I have mentioned previously that Kingston is an educational city. I am sure you are all aware that Queen's university is located there, and I know that many graduates of Queen's are on the floor of this house. But Queen's plays a greater part than merely being an educational institution. It is a most important factor in making R.M.C. an attractive seat of learning. It is significant to note that the faculty at R.M.C. takes an active part in all the activities at Queen's. Last year five of the R.M.C. staff lectured at Queen's, and several members of the Queen's staff lectured at R.M.C. It must be realized, though, that such an association will last only as long as R.M.C. contributes its share of instructors equal in professional status to the instructors

Supply-National Defence at Queen's. I think it is most important, therefore, that the staff at R.M.C. be as well qualified as the staff at Queen's, or equivalent universities, in order that we may maintain a high standard of training for our officer cadets. If the staff at R.M.C. is to be as good as at other universities, it is only natural that those in charge at R.M.C. must be prepared to pay an equivalent salary. I understand the staff members of this military college are not allowed to take consulting work in the summer, but are retained in research or training in summer courses.
Canada has traditionally based her defence on a nucleus force built up in peacetime. We are also dependent upon voluntary enlistment. I think it is to the advantage of the defence of Canada that our nucleus force, either active or reserve, has available as officers those trained in a standard pattern, which makes the unification of the services easier. The member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) has stated in substance that it would be better to train officers in the C.O.T.C., at a cost of $500 per cadet, than by operating R.M.C. at a cost of $30,000 per officer. I think, before we can accept his view, we should review the cost to the government of training a cadet at R.M.C. According to the information which I have obtained, there are at present 170 cadets attending that college. You will recall that it only reopened in the fall of 1948, and it was estimated that for the next four years there would be 100 entrants in each class. The plan therefore would be to accommodate 400 cadets who, it is estimated, will be in attendance in the year 1951. The full cost of operating R.M.C. at full strength would be in the neighbourhood of $1 million per year, exclusive of capital costs. If the fees which are paid to the receiver general, and of which I will speak later, are deducted plus a reasonable deduction for the use of equipment, staff and other facilities of R.M.C. by the services, defence research boards and other government departments during the three and a half months in the summer when the college is free of cadets, we therefore could estimate the cost of training the 400 cadets at $740,000. The cost per cadet per annum therefore would be in the neighbourhood of $1,850.
In the brief submitted to the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, dated July, 1949, it is pointed out that the cost of training a medical student in Canada is approximately $1,200 per year. When the cost of medical research and maintenance of medical research is considered, which is important, the cost of training this medical student would be $1,600 per year. Of this total annual cost, I think we will find from that report that the student

pays 25 per cent. Therefore I think that this sum of $1,600 for training of a medical student should be borne in mind in the consideration of the training of a cadet at R.M.C. As 1 have said, the training of the cadet can be estimated at $1,850 per year per cadet; but at R.M.C. it is necessary for the cadets to live in dormitories in order that they have the advantages of a military mess. In other words, it is a military unit in order to train them as young officers. This part of their training normally should cost in the neighbourhood of $550 per year. When this is deducted from the $1,850, we get a figure of $1,300 per year per cadet. We should also consider during that period of time-those eight and a half months when they are taking training there-the staff is also carrying on research to the benefit of the defence research board.
Let us now consider the fees which are paid by cadets attending R.M.C. There is an annual tuition fee of $100 payable in advance, and in addition a charge to cover the partial cost of room, uniforms, laundry, books, etc., of $450 per cadet in the first year and $200 in the subsequent years. There is another $30 which is the normal athletic fee paid at other universities. Therefore, to sum it up, each cadet pays to the receiver general in his first year $580 and in his subsequent years the sum of $330. It is also to be noted that he receives transportation costs of $25 once a year from his home to the college.
I am sure that the hon. member for Middlesex East cannot say that the expenditures entailed in educating a cadet at R.M.C. are exorbitant. I agree with him that there have been large capital expenditures this year owing to the preparation of laboratories for 300 to 400 students in the year 1951; but I think it is proper to assume that these capital expenditures will not go up, and such expenditures made in peacetime are war potentials for the future. We must also bear in mind that during wartime R.M.C. was used for officer training and its laboratories and equipment were put to use by the officers trained there; and I doubt very much if there was much time for maintenance in those days. If we did not have R.M.C. or if we did not have a college for training our officers, as has been suggested, I think that we would be unique among the leading countries of the world, because most countries have their officer training schools. The United States has West Point, England has Sandhurst and the Military College of Science and Belgium has its Military Academy. I think it is also significant to compare the establishment of the total staff of R.M.C., including cleaners and cooks, up to strength, and students; I think we shall find that the ratio is [DOT] 7 of staff to 1 of

the cadets, which is about one-half of the figure for West Point and much less than that for Sandhurst. The pre-war figures at R.M.C. were -85 to 1. We shall therefore be running a post-war R.M.C. with a smaller comparative staff per cadet; and from what I can find out, R.M.C. is being operated at the present time at the lowest staff-student ratio of any military college.
It may also be of interest for the committee to know that during last summer, which was the first summer of vacation since R.M.C. reopened in 1948, an all arms course was carried on by the army at R.M.C. This, I understand, was mostly for students who had three years C.O.T.C., and who spent their fourth summer, for final training, in the college grounds. I might say that we must always beai in mind that this is one way to train our officers in which we can have one standard and have unification of the services.
I also wish to make a short remark with respect to a report in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 4, 1950, of a speech made by the hon. member for Middlesex East in which he states that, as he saw it, the R.M.C. is merely creating and nurturing a military caste in Canada, that it might better be closed and the training of army officers turned over to the universities. As one who resides in
Supply-National Defence Kingston, I wish to say that I have many friends and neighbours there who are graduates of R.M.C. and are connected with it. There are many other such persons in the city. I doubt whether there is a larger group or aggregation of cadets and staff of a military institution in any other place in Canada; and I have not found these gentlemen to be as described, a caste separate and distinct from other people or other citizens. They seem to be successful, to take an interest in civil life and to retain a keen interest in army affairs. I might say that they are a benefit to any community, whether in the active army or civilians in the reserve force, or retired. They are also among the best of citizens and are a great contribution to the backbone of any community.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Monday being private members' day, we shall follow the order of business set out in standing order No. 15.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pipe lines.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 20, 1950