1950-06-08

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


Mr. Knight:: 1.	What number and percentage of those examined for service during the second world war were rejected for combat service on account of (a) inability to meet the physical standards set for recruits; (b) inability to meet the requirements for the necessary emotional stability?
2.	What number and percentage of those examined and accepted were later found to be unfit for combat service due to insufficient (a) physical stamina; (b) emotional stability?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Comparative statistics for the three armed forces and for the full period of second world war are not available. Owing to the variation in requirements and statistical data available in each of the components of the fighting forces, separate figures are given for each service.
(a)	Navy, 11,509 or 10-1% (period 1 Sep. 39 to 30 Sep. 45); Army, 262,830 or 35-5% (period 1 Jan. 41 to 31 Dec. 44); Air, 46,881 or 18-6% (period 1 Aug. 41 to 31 July 44).
(b)	Navy, 436 or 0-38% (period 1 Sep. 39 to 30 Sep. 45); Army, included in (a) above, separate statistics not available; Air, 2,636 or 1-04% (period 1 Aug. 41 to 31 July 44).
The higher percentage for the army as compared with the navy and air force arose to a large extent from the fact that entries to the navy and air force were voluntary whereas the army had to classify not only volunteers but all personnel called up for the armed services under the National Resources Mobilization Act. After introduction of compulsory military training, rejection certificate for service in the armed forces could be issued by army only.
2.	(a) 5,833 or 5-7% (period 1 Sep. 39 to 30 Sep. 45); Army, 105,201 or 14-4% (period 1 Sep. 39 to 31 Dec. 45); Air, 18,021 or 7-3% (period 1 Sep. 30 to 31 Dec. 45).
(b) Navy, 1,093 or 1-07% (period 1 Sep. 39 to 30 Sep. 45); Army, 47,646 or 6-5% (period 1 Sep. 39 to 31 Dec. 45); Air, 6,363 or 2-5% (period 1 Sep. 39 to 31 Dec. 45).
55946-212J
The above figures include all those discharged for physical disability resulting from active service.



MILITARY EXERCISES AT PLAGE AUX BLEUETS, QUE.

Mr. Courlemanche:: What was the total cost of the military exercises during the night of May 13-14, 1950, at Plage aux Bleuets, Oka, Quebec?


Mr. Blanchette:: Estimated cost, $12,000.



AERIAL MAPPING AND SURVEYS, SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Wright:: In contracts let for aerial mapping and surveys in the province of Saskatchewan in 1949, to Survey Aircraft Limited, Vancouver, and Air Service Limited, Edmonton (a) what was the rate paid per square mile; (b) what was the number of square miles surveyed by each of these companies?


Mr. Maybank:: (a) Survey Aircraft Limited-paid $3.90 per square mile, plus federal sales tax; Air Surveys Limited-paid $4.35 per square mile, plus federal sales tax. (b) Survey Aircraft Limited-12,212 square miles; Air Surveys Limited-10,802 square miles.
Note; No contracts were let to Air Services Limited, Edmonton, figures above are for Air Surveys Limited, Edmonton.



BOUCHARD PLANT, STE. THERESE, QUE.

Mr. Bertrand:: 1.	Is there any ditch cleaning or ditch digging to be carried out this year at the Bouchard plant, Ste. Therese?
2.	If so, is such work to be done with machinery?
3.	Before reaching such decision, was consideration given to the number of unemployed at Ste. Therese at the present time?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mostly day labour.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	On what date were consultations or negotiations between the federal and British Columbia provincial authorities commenced regarding the taking over by the R.C.M.P. of police work in the province of British Columbia?
2.	Have negotiations yet been completed?
3.	If not, what is the present status of the negotiations?
4.	What steps are being taken to provide that personnel of the British Columbia provincial police

Questions
who wish to do so may remain in their present categories or categories of not less seniority in the R.C.M.P. when the transfer has been completed?
5.	What arrangements are being made to ensure that the pay of members of the British Columbia provincial police who continue in such equivalent categories in the R.C.M.P. will not be adversely affected?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	18th April, 1950.
2.	No.
3.	Still under discussion.
4.	The situation in this respect is being examined by R.C.M.P. personnel officers.
5.	The situation regarding pay is being examined by R.C.M.P. personnel officers.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	Are repairs or additions to be made to the armouries located at Dundas, Ontario?
2.	If so, is the work to be done on a cost plus basis or by contract?
3.	If by contract, were tenders advertised for, or was it by invitation?
4.	Who has been awarded the contract, and at what price?


FIRE LOSSES, 1946-49
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	What was the value of the damage caused by fires during the calendar years 1946 to 1949, in each of the provinces of Canada (a) forests: (b) industrial property: (c) dwellings?
2.	How many persons lost their lives in fires, and how many were injured for the same period?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.


DOMINION STEEL AND COAL CORPORATION- SUBSIDIES, ETC.
Mr. Gillis:: 1.	Was any money paid the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation for the calendar year 1949?
2.	If so, what amount by way of (a) subsidy; (b) subvention; (c) rebate under the Maritime Freight Rates Act on the operation of the Sydney and Louisburg railway?



LOANS OR CREDITS TO OTHER COUNTRIES

Mr. Low:: With reference to loans or credits Canada has extended to overseas nations, how much was granted to each nation, and/or spent by each nation in each year from June, 1945, to March 31, 1950?



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has he received an estimate as to the financial
loss caused by the Red river flood5 in Manitoba, and has he received any request from the province of Manitoba for an interim grant?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I had a very interesting visit to Winnipeg yesterday. I now have a progress report from the joint commission appointed' by the Manitoba and dominion governments to accumulate factual material to enable the dominion government and the provincial government to ascertain the measure of their respective financial responsibilities. I shall be discussing the matter with my colleagues today, and I expect to be in a position to table the report and make a statement to the house tomorrow.



SOUTHERN MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Prudham (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Resources and Development):: Yesterday the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) asked whether Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had made any representations to insurance companies requesting them to permit evacuees to forgo monthly payments while their families were evacuated. In reply I may say that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has no authority to make such representations. I understand, however, that the loan companies have been engaged in discussions during the last few days on this problem, and as yet no decision has been announced.



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Is it to his knowledge that in the electoral district of Cartier the official electoral notices and posters are all printed in English, although thirty-five per cent of the population are French-speaking?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: have had no notice of the hon. member's question, but I will take occasion to inquire into the matter at an early date.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, I directed a question to the


minister of external affairs; perhaps I may repeat it to the Minister of Fisheries today. When does he expect to be in a position to make a full report to parliament on the meetings which he attended in Australia a few weeks ago as Canadian representative?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I was asked by the Minister of External Affairs to attend the commonwealth conference at Sydney. I considered it to be my duty to make a report to him as to what we were able -to accomplish and I thought that he would make a statement. However, the minister has asked me to make a statement some time before the house prorogues, and I expect to do so when his estimates are before the house. I do not know of any other occasion on whioh I could make the statement.


Gordon Graydon: Does that mean the minister will make the statement before the external affairs committee which is dealing with the estimates?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No; I shall make the statement before the house.


PRIME MINISTER'S RESIDENCE
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 266, to provide for the operation and maintenance of a residence for the Prime Minister of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the maintenance and operation of the prime minister's residence. When the resolution was being considered yesterday there was some discussion about the construction of the house. I would point out that such discussion is not pertinent to this bill. Parliament has decided to construct a residence for the prime minister, and the house was informed that it was the intention to remodel an existing residence for that purpose. The problem that faced the government in connection with this property was similar on a smaller scale to that which faced the government of the United States with regard to the remodelling of the White House. It was known that it would be much cheaper to tear down the White House and rebuild it, but it was decided that in view of the historic aspect of the White House, the government would proceed to spend $4 million in remodelling the present structure rather than building a new house for about half of that sum.
I am not suggesting that the two cases are entirely parallel; however, there was
8, 1950	3343
Official Residence for Prime Minister some reluctance about tearing down one of Ottawa's fine older houses and replacing it with a new building. Consequently the cost of remodelling the house is whatever the cost must be. The government has appointed a reliable firm of architects with wide experience in building better-class houses, and has appointed a responsible firm of local contractors to do the building. The work is being supervised by the architects, as well as by a clerk of the Department of Public Works. I believe, therefore, a discussion of the cost of building this residence is not pertinent to this bill.
The question does arise, however, of the position of the prime minister in living in that residence. We have looked up precedents and we find that in England the prime minister is provided with two houses, one at 10 Downing street and the other at Chequers, both of which are wholly maintained by the government. In England the practice goes even further, in that a number of flats throughout London are provided for cabinet ministers and maintained at public expense. I am not suggesting any extension of the prime minister's residence principle in Ottawa; I simply draw that to the attention of the house as a precedent for the position we are now considering.
In the United States the White House is maintained by the government and a skeleton staff is provided by the government. The president .pays for the remainder of the staff and provides for the running expenses of the house. I point out that for that purpose he can draw on an expense account of $75,000 per annum, which is placed at his disposal to be used at his discretion.
The Prime Minister of Canada has no personal expense account.	The Prime
Minister does not wish to be better off as a result of occupying this residence than he is today, and has therefore insisted that he make a payment for the use of the house. According to the provisions contained in the bill the house will be maintained by the Department of Public Works, as to heating and repairs; the grounds will be maintained and improved from time to time by the federal district commission.	The government will appoint a steward for the house, who will engage the necessary staff and provide the services that are required in the house.
No doubt a question will be asked as to why the prime minister's annual payment is fixed at $5,000. Several considerations were taken into account. One was that the salary of the prime minister is fixed at $15,000 per year, whereas the salary of a cabinet minister is fixed at $10,000 per year. It was felt
3344	HOUSE OF
Official Residence for Prime Minister that the $5,000 would cover the additional expenses the prime minister would have above those of other cabinet ministers, and that that sum might be a fair gauge of the amount that the prime minister should contribute in return for having a house and living provided in Ottawa. There was also the fact that a man living in Ottawa, who finds it necessary to maintain a home elsewhere, would spend about that amount for living accommodation in the capital.
The bill provides that the prime minister will pay a rental covering food and lodging for the prime minister's residence of $5,000 per annum. I believe that what I have said explains the objects of this bill. Members in all parts of the house were desirous that the prime minister should have a home in Ottawa, which would belong to the government, and which would be a type of house befitting his position. It is ridiculous to ask a man living on a cabinet minister's salary- which I may say has not been increased in the last thirty years, and incidentally I am not complaining about that fact-to maintain at his private expense the type of house that is being provided for the prime minister.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I was unfortunately absent when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) began to speak. I understand that he suggested that it was not seemly to be inquisitive about the cost of the prime minister's residence. Let me say what I said yesterday, that I think everyone in this house wants the prime minister to have a dignified residence. I agree fully with what the minister has said about the prime minister being treated in a most generous manner. I would not cavil about the allowance which he is paying. As a matter of fact, I would not have cavilled if he were not paying anything. That is one aspect of this matter. But when it comes to the other aspect of it, which is an expenditure apparently well into $500,000, then to suggest, if the minister did suggest it, that we are really doing this, as the boys say, "sight unseen", I do not think is reasonable. So far it seems to me we have had no intelligible picture of this transaction. Yesterday everyone on the opposite side of the house who had anything to do with it seemed to pass the ball to somebody else.
I just want to say that when we get into committee we should have the details of this transaction put before us in a reasonable and intelligible manner. Up to the present time I think the only piece of definite information we have is that the coach house, or whatever it is, in front of the residence, is not to be used for the residence of a secretary. That may be highly interesting, but it does not


really cover the whole case. I therefore wish to say that I think we are entitled to an intelligible and detailed statement of the cost.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: When this matter was before the house, Mr. Speaker, on September 30 last, all parties in the house were in agreement that the Prime Minister of Canada should be provided with a suitable residence at public expense. The site that was chosen is, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful in the city of Ottawa, and is in every way suitable for such a residence. On September 30 I said, as reported at page 385 of Hansard, that I thought the government would be well advised to build a new house, with modern conveniences, and perhaps more suitable for the purpose in mind, instead of reconditioning or rebuilding the interior of an old house. I knew this particular piece of property when I spoke about it on that occasion. Yesterday at noon, after the discussion in the house, I went to see the property again and took a look at it. I think that a mistake was made in not demolishing the old house, and building something more in keeping with the purse-strings of future prime ministers of this country and perhaps of even the present Prime Minister of Canada.


Mr. Fraser:: You are one hundred per cent right on that.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the government itself may be disappointed at the cost of reconditioning this building, in spite of what was said to me yesterday as a matter of fact by one of the officials to the effect that this might be considered to be an historic building. It is of course different from the White House in the United States in that respect, because it has no history of any sort behind it which would recommend it to the public of Canada.
I also want to agree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) when he said that we should scrutinize the terms of this bill. It seems to me that it would be far better had we had a more modest arrangement and not included in the bill the $5,000 provision. I think that looks rather small on the part of this parliament. I can understand why the government put this provision in the bill, although I think it would have been better to leave the matter entirely open so that it could be dealt with, if it was felt necessary to do so, in some other way.
I want to say this, however. The emoluments of the Prime Minister of Canada, in comparison with those of some other offices under the crown, are exceedingly modest. We have for example, the governor of the Bank of Canada. I do not know exactly what his emoluments are, but I believe that they are

at least twice as much as the salary the Prime Minister of Canada receives. Then we have the emoluments of the president of the Canadian National Railways, and they are, I believe, three times as much as the Prime Minister of Canada receives. Consequently I feel rather badly about this $5,000 provision.
I am all in favour of our providing a suitable residence but, as I said before, I think a bad mistake has been made. We may criticize the expenditure and the cost of this building as much as we will, but the deed is done. The building is there. It is being remodelled, and I must say from what I saw yesterday that the minister was quite right when he said we have a competent firm of architects who are doing the best they can with an old building which, when they looked into it, was found to be in relatively poor condition. Much more had to be done in the strengthening of the walls and all the rest of it than was expected. The government made a bad guess, and whatever we can do now will not rectify the results of that guess. I am therefore suggesting that we must accept the situation as we find it and give consideration to the provisions of the bill.
I think our country is doing the proper thing, in conformity with what other countries have done, in providing the first citizen of this country with a residence in which he may receive distinguished guests from at home and abroad.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: should like to say a word about this matter, Mr. Speaker, in the first place because I intend to move an amendment to the bill when it comes before us. I believe I am in order in saying that I am going to move an amendment.
I come from a rural riding where we do not have pretentious places, but I object strenuously to that $5,000 provision, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I intend to move an amendment that the rental be $1 a year. After all, it does not matter what party is in power; the leader of that party is the Prime Minister of Canada, in a position analogous to that of the president of the United States. Naturally I hope that none of the parties opposite will be in power. But if they are, the people in my riding, and I as an individual member, will pay respect to the position held by the leader of it, whatever party it may be.
As the leader of the C.C.F. stated when he spoke last year, if I remember correctly, it would have been better to tear the old building down and build a new one. Two wrongs, however, do not make a right. We have
8, 1950	3345
Official Residence for Prime Minister a skeleton out there now, and the best we can do is to make it a credit to Canada, in keeping with the position we hold in the United Nations.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I intend to move in amendment that the rental be $1, not $5,000, for the Prime Minister of Canada, whoever he may be and to whatever party he may belong.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house has to distinguish between two things in approaching the second reading of this bill. On the simple issue whether the country should provide an official residence for the prime minister, I am quite certain that there will be no disagreement or difference of opinion in this house. If that were the sole principle of this bill, then of course it would be entitled to command unanimous support on second reading. But, sir, this bill goes further than that. This bill proposes to make a particular property in Ottawa the official residence. The bill sets out in detail a description of the property by metes and bounds. Therefore it seems to me that the acting leader of the government is quite wrong in saying, as he has intimated . this morning, that the house should not concern itself with an examination of this particular property as to the cost, and the expenditures made upon it, in trying to fit it for use as the official residence for the prime minister.
There is one particular correction that I should like to make in the remarks of the right hon. gentleman. Early in, his remarks this morning he used these words: "The house has decided to construct a residence." That may have been simply a slip of the tongue. What the house has intimated, informally to date it is true, is that it approves the idea of providing a residence. It seems to me that there was no suggestion in anything that has been said so far in the house that the selection of this particular property was approved; nor was the method that the government has pursued in renovating the property, and spending vast sums of money thereon, approved.
The acting leader of the government did not buttress his case one little bit this morning, sir, by bringing in the argument about historical values, and setting up the White House at Washington as an example. Certainly the White House at Washington is of the greatest historical interest. That would be a factor of leading importance to the government of the United States in deciding whether that building should be renovated or replaced by an entirely new building. Is anyone going to say that this particular property, the former Edwards residence, has such

Official Residence for Prime Minister historical value to the whole people of Canada that it must be maintained in its present form? I think that argument does not add one little bit to the strength of the case put forward by the acting leader of the government.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well) has said:	"True, the government
has made a bad guess; but here we are faced with an accomplished fact, and we have to accept it." Sir, it goes a good deal beyond a very bad guess on the part of the government. The government has botched this whole undertaking from the beginning. The idea started off on a perfectly sound basis, and then was mishandled to the point where it is very difficult, in a bill of this kind, for some hon. members to give approval to it when they realize that by giving approval to it they have to overlook completely the botch that the government has made of it.
I think it is time, sir, to face this situation very clearly. What the government has done is this: Without asking for specific approval of parliament, without bringing before the house last fall, as it should have done, a bill to set aside a particular property, if they thought that was the best property, they made an announcement in the house without mentioning anything of that idea. They proceeded by order in council to set aside a house that had been acquired by the government several years before by expropriation for a purpose that we did not then know, and then proceeded with the work of renovation. All that was said in the house on that occasion, on September 30, by anybody who spoke in the house was that the idea that the government should provide at the expense of the country an official residence for the Prime Minister was approved; but no one went beyond that. Whatever has been done in regard to selecting this property, whatever has been done in the way of expenditure of vast sums of money upon it to try to modernize an ancient house, has been done solely on the responsibility of the government and without any approval on the part of this house.
Now, sir, what exactly has the government done? The right hon. gentleman said this morning that the cost is not pertinent. Sir, that is an extraordinary proposition, when we are asked as a House of Commons to-


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend should not use half sentences. What is the rest of that sentence?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I must say that I have the full language of the sentence. The relevant part was this. He said that the cost was not pertinent and need not be discussed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said, was not pertinent to this bill. By deleting part of the sentence my hon. friend has completely changed its meaning.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not changed one iota of the sentence of the right hon. gentleman. What he said, sir, in a very plain statement to the house this morning was that the cost was not pertinent to the discussion of this bill this morning. There is no member in the house who could draw any other inference from it.


An hon. Member:: You did.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I submit that no hon. member can dismiss from his mind questions in regard to costs or the method of dealing with this property, in addressing himself to his responsibility in relation to this bill.
What did the government do, entirely on its own responsibility? I have said in the first place that by order in council they set aside a government-owned property for this purpose. I remember the occasion in the life of the last parliament when the exchequer court established the amount to be paid by the government on expropriation of this property. I believe the figure was $140,000. Being of an inquisitive turn of mind I remember rising and asking the prime minister at that time for what purpose the government intended to use the property. The answer was completely evasive. Nobody knew by the time the then prime minister had finished what the property was to be used for.
The government has taken the responsibility by saying this is to be the property which will be used as a residence for the prime minister. So far as the physical situation of the land is concerned, everyone I am sure will agree with what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said this morning, that it is a beautiful property, is handsomely located and from that point of view is very suitable. But what about the house? Would it not have been common sense on the part of anybody who has any claim to using his sense in reference to business to sit down first and -try to count the cost? That is one thing this government did not do. They make no pretence of having done it. What they did was to decide, again without any consultation with or approval by parliament, that they would maintain the existing structure. So far as we are told, they did not ask for the preparation of any plans or for the submission of estimates on the cost of construction of a suitable modern residence. Apparently that did not enter into the scope of consideration on the part of the government. They just decided they were going to take this old building-I am told

it is eighty years old. It goes back almost to the time of confederation. Perhaps that is what the acting leader of the government meant this morning when he talked about historical interest, an eighty-year old building-and they started in to disembowel it and tried to make an ancient structure suitable for use as a modern residence.
What is the cost? Well, at least at that stage one would have thought they would seek to have some estimate of the cost. Having failed to exercise any elementary sense of business in not ascertaining the cost of constructing a modern counterpart of such an ancient edifice, the number two mistake, the number two blunder was this. They did not even have an estimate of the cost of this type of renovation and reconstruction, because it is a major job of reconstruction, let there be no mistake about that. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) told this house that the alterations and improvements to the main building, so he was told, will cost $135,000. He also told the house that that was only an estimate. But, sir, let the house be quite clear on this. It was not an estimate given before the work was undertaken. The government decided on this task of renovation and reconstruction without having a firm estimate before them of the cost of construction. The government do not know even today what it is going to cost. They cannot even tell us exactly what the renovation of the grounds is going to cost. They cannot tell us today what the furnishings in the residence are going to cost; they cannot tell us in fact anything that I think most hon. members of this house making any claim to business sense would want to know or would have asked at the very outset of this undertaking before they gave approval to it. So I say that this government has taken a sound idea, an idea which will command general acceptance, the idea that the country ought to provide a suitable residence for the Prime Minister of Canada, and from that point on has proceeded to botch the whole job.
It may be that we are now faced with a situation from which it is difficult to retreat. The government exercised its power by order in council and as a result of that decision, which the house has had no opportunity to debate or to discuss, we are now faced with a situation where it becomes difficult to try to restore good business sense, in the face of what the government has done, and its series of blunders. One can only express in this situation the most profound regret that there was not somebody in the government sitting opposite who had enough common sense to stand up in cabinet council
8, 1950	3347
Official Residence for Prime Minister and say: Look here; are you going to prejudice this whole idea of providing the prime minister with a residence by going ahead and making a series of blunders, without sitting down first and asking yourselves, first, whether this is a suitable house for the purpose and, second, if the house is to be made suitable for the purpose, what it will cost? Apparently there was not one man in the cabinet yonder who had enough business sense or courage to stand up and try to defend a sound idea from botching on the part of those who have handled it since.
There is one other observation I should like to make about the bill, and it concerns a subject already touched upon by some hon. members who have spoken this morning. I refer to the provision which proposes to charge the Prime Minister of Canada $5,000 a year, and pro rata for any period less than a year, for his food and lodging for himself and family. I believe all hon. members will acknowledge and applaud the motives of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in his attitude concerning this provision, as related to us by the acting leader of the government this morning. He has shown a fine sense with which I am sure no one would quarrel.
On the other hand I do not think members of the House of Commons ought to make that fact the occasion for doing something that is wrong in principle. And, sir, it seems to me that the provision which proposes to charge the Prime Minister of Canada $5,000 for his use of the building is wrong in principle. The leader of the government indicated that this amount had been arrived at- at least, I so understood him; I do not profess to quote him exactly-from the fact that the Prime Minister's living costs on similar account today are approximately the same.
The Prime Minister is in office today. We do not know how long he will occupy this residence. It may be that the next prime minister will enter the residence under quite different circumstances. It may be that his comparable living costs will be somewhat less than $5,000 a year; on the other hand it may be that his comparable living costs will be considerably higher than that. Therefore, it seems to me that to relate this figure in the bill to the particular comparable costs of the present Prime Minister is to expose the entire fallacy in it.
Sir, there is nothing to prevent any incumbent of the office of prime minister who may now or in the future occupy this residence from making any contribution he may wish to the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, if he believes that in the occupation of the residence he is enjoying a benefit that he does not wish to accept without
3348	HOUSE OF
Official Residence for Prime Minister making appropriate payment. However, I say it is wrong in principle to insert in a bill Which is to become a statute of the parliament of Canada a provision of this kind, which names a figure which has been arrived at in the light of the circumstances of the present incumbent of the office, and may be entirely unrelated to the circumstances of any future prime minister.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has intimated his intention of introducing an amendment to this section of the bill, and I hope he will pursue his purpose and thus give the house an opportunity to express its opinion in the matter. I have a feeling that the house will not approve that section of the bill if it is given an opportunity to express itself freely in relation thereto.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, may I speak again?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Fraser Valley has already spoken. He cannot speak a second time on the motion for second reading of the bill.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there is one part of the speech of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) that I think requires some clarification. He introduced the subject of expropriation of this property by a charge of evasion against the former prime minister. With respect to his propriety or impropriety in using such language, I am quite sure history, and all members of parliament here, will know how to assess that charge and that language.
I think it only fair to point out that when this property was expropriated it was the last remaining piece of property, with the exception of that now occupied by the French embassy, along several miles of shore line of the Ottawa river, not held by the crown. All hon. members ought to know that all the shore line of the Ottawa river, extending from the property formerly occupied by the first prime minister of Canada, down beyond the Royal Canadian Air Force airport property at Rockcliffe, is owned by the crown, with the exception of the property I have mentioned. This expropriation, when made, was to complete that ownership by the crown of the shore line of the river. So that any charge to the effect that it was not stated at the time of the expropriation that a particular few yards of land was going to be made into a prime minister's residence, and then drawing from that the charge of evasion, is baseless and never should have been made at all.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think I can speak to a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is a question of privilege, the hon member may of course speak. But would it not be better to discuss the question when the house is in committee on the bill?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No; with all due deference, after what has been said by the hon. member for Eglinton to the effect that I had given notice that I was going to move an amendment, I think I should speak now. At the request of the Prime Minister himself I am not going to move it; but I am suggesting that every member in the house vote against that section.


Gordon Graydon: When did you see him?


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, when this property was first secured I read and watched closely editorials in newspapers all across Canada. Generally the press is a pretty good barometer. I did not see one unfavourable comment.
It is well known that the clergy and ministers all across Canada have their rectories, parsonages or manses furnished, and free. Why? Because these workers are allowed to pursue their work freely, and they are not bothered about homes and furnishings. This residence for the Prime Minister of Canada has been long overdue; in fact, each of the crown ministers should have a home of his own.
I would suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) confer with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) on another outstanding need in Canada, namely, a first-rate, well-equipped gymnasium for the young members of the House of Commons.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have been very patient for a long time with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), and as a younger member of the house I have felt that it would be unseemly for me to interrupt his perorations. However, I have been forced to the conclusion that the hon. member for Eglinton regards himself as a new Canadian Messiah. It may be unbecoming for a younger member to offer advice to an older member, but in this case I think advice should be offered. I suggest to the hon. member that instead of these querulous scoldings he confine himself to offering constructive advice. It would be much better for him, and would certainly be less tedious to other hon. members of the house.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put myself on record as being

in favour of this nation providing a residence for the prime minister, but I do not like to put myself on record as being in favour of providing the prime minister of this country with a residence that is to cost half a million dollars, if it is true that the cost of this residence will run to this amount.
I was interested in the reference made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to Downing street, but I suggest that the historical associations which Downing street has is the only thing which justifies its use as a residence for the prime minister, and therefore that was not a good argument to bolster up his contention in favour of the use of this house, which in my opinion is too expensive and unsuitable for the purpose. I think a new and modern house costing perhaps $50,000 or $75,000-


Mr. Gibson:: You will not get much for that.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do not want to be misunderstood. I am prepared to agree that the prime minister of this country should have a worthy residence in which to live, and I indicated that in my opening remarks. I still feel that a residence costing $75,000 would be sufficient for anyone in this country. A new and modern house, such as suggested by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), last fall would have filled the bill nicely.
Downing street has historical associations. I had the privilege of going through it once, and frankly I would not want to live there. Certainly if one had to cook on the stoves provided in the kitchen, at least when I went through the house, you would not want to live in the place at all. I would much rather live in a modern bungalow costing $5,000. As I say, to refer to the use of Downing street is no argument to bolster up the contention that this white elephant, if it is a white elephant, should be used. Although the hon. member for Eglinton did not use those words, that was his intent.
I am opposed to any rental being charged the prime minister of this country for the use of a house which I submit should be provided without cost. It is true that in one section reference is made to food that will be provided, but I do not think it is within the dignity of this chamber to discuss the matter of food that the prime minister may use either for himself and family or for his guests. The prime minister should have the use of this house free of cost, and whatever food he wants to provide for his family or for his guests is his own business.
The hon. member for Eglinton has suggested that a great deal will depend upon who is prime minister and what his circumstances
Official Residence for Prime Minister are, and in that respect his argument is well taken. But I still contend that the prime minister should have the use of whatever house is provided, without any strings being attached as to the food that will be used, and so on. Matters such as that should be entirely in the hands of the prime minister, just as it is in the hands of any other private citizen.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. Fulton:: Can the minister give the committee any idea of what it is going to cost to maintain this house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no such information. The position is that the government decided to use this particular house for a prime minister's residence. The question whether it should be torn down was discussed, and, rightly or wrongly, the decision was that the house would not be torn down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not ask for the cost.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have made your speech and I will make mine.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister misunderstood my question. I did not ask for the cost; I merely wanted to know what it will take to maintain the residence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I say, the decision was made to convert this house into a residence for the prime minister. It has been said that this house has no historical value, but whether that is so depends on one's sense of historical value. It has been one of the fine residences of Ottawa for eighty years. In discussing the matter some attention was given to the fact that people in this locality would be shocked if a residence which has long been a landmark of Ottawa were to be torn down and replaced by something else.
As the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Cold-well) has pointed out, once the decision was made to convert the present house the situation subsequent to that decision was cut and dried. In other words, the problem was then to make a modern residence out of the Edwards house. If anyone can suggest that the work is not being carried on economically, then he may have a case against the government. Hon. members would expect that when this building is converted it will be a first-class modern residence. That is what is being undertaken.
After reviewing the experience of a number of architects, the government secured the services of an architectural firm which

Official Residence for Prime Minister seemed to have the widest experience in work of this type. The government arranged for the services of a local contractor who has a first-class reputation in the district. The work has been carefully supervised. The suggestion has been made that it will cost twice as much to remodel the house as it would have cost to build a new house, but I know enough about the situation to know that that is not so. I think a new house of that size and with the same facilities could be built for about what it will cost to remodel this particular house.
It may be argued that a more modest house should be built for the prime minister, but when we consider that the prime minister's residence will on occasion be available for government hospitality I doubt whether a too modest house would have served the purpose. A house was recently built in my neighbourhood, fairly small in size and in my opinion totally unsuitable for this purpose, but yet I was told by the owner that it cost $85,000. This will indicate what it costs to build a house in this day and age.
I do not know what this house is going to cost. I have not even had the advantage that the leader of the opposition has had, because I have never been inside 'the house; therefore I cannot even guess what it will cost. Neither can I say what it will cost to operate the residence, because I do not know. I know what it costs to operate my house. It is not a modest amount, and I do not suppose this will be a modest amount. Just as hon. members expect that the residence will be converted into a modem house suitable for a prime minister, I am sure that they will expect that the necessary amounts will be provided to maintain and operate the house on the scale on which Canada's prime minister should live. That is all I can say as to operating costs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My question is not related to that point. While it may be said that we would be willing to support an adequate scale of maintenance, and so on, surely we should have some idea of what it is going to cost before we commit ourselves to it. I must confess that the way I would approach the matter would be to decide first what is adequate, and then how much it is going to cost, rather than simply say, in relation to any project, that we will commit ourselves blindly to whatever it may cost. I do not think that is an efficient way to go about it. My question was based on the assumption that the government had some idea as to the staff that will be required, what the annual cost of the staff will be, and what the annual [Mr. Howe.l
cost of maintenance will be. If they have not that information, then they cannot answer the question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do you know what a maid will cost next year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure my hon. friend cannot give any indication of how many official dinners will be required, or how many official guests will be entertained. Anyone who attempted to forecast the cost of government hospitality in a particular year would have some difficulty in knowing what the demands on that hospitality were going to be. I might point out that the prime minister has no expense account for the purpose. All I can say is that the cost of operating the house will be what the circumstances of the year may require. I think my hon. friend can expect that the house will be efficiently operated, and that the cost will not be higher than necessary to meet the requirements of the situation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know why this matter should be made so difficult. What I asked for was an estimate of the cost of maintenance, not the cost of hospitality or anything of that sort. If the minister does not know, perhaps he will say so.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It may take two lawn-mowers next year.


Mr. Knowles:: Can the minister say whether the amount necessary to provide for maintenance will appear in the estimates from year to year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under what department or departments?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Either under Public Works or the Prime Minister's department. I cannot say which.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to lift the debate out of the realm of a brokerage office or Eaton's catalogue to a somewhat higher standard of discussion.


Gordon Graydon: That is an insult to Ontario farmers. They read Eaton's catalogue.


George Matheson Murray: I should like to recommend to the architects engaged in renovating the house that they use some of the woods of British Columbia and other parts of Canada. This is not an ordinary home. It will be more or less a national shrine.


Mr. Casselman:: An auction sale.


George Matheson Murray: I should like to see the beautiful cedar shingles of British Columbia placed on the roof of the house. I should

like to see edge grain fir, a great product of the mills of that province, used in some of the rooms of the dwelling. I should also like to see Ontario maple, oak and other hardwoods used. I should like to see woods used which will be typical of the various provinces of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And Tyndall stone from Manitoba.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, every Canadian is going to be a critic of this house when it is finished, and that is perfectly natural, for every Canadian will have a stake in the property. I expect to be in the happy position that I can say I know nothing about what materials are going to be used in the remodelling of the house. The government has appointed a responsible firm of architects, and we expect them to protect the public interest. Therefore I cannot make the promise thait the hon. member would exact, although I was told that cedar shingles from British Columbia will be used on the roof of the house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And B.C. salmon served.


Mr. Hodgson:: I have done a considerable amount of building, and B.C. shingles are about the poorest thing you can put on a roof. They crack and warp. You have to be very careful how you nail them. If you want to have a shingle roof use good old Ontario shingles.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Imitation.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like to ask the minister whether my understanding is correct that the renovation of the house is not being done under contract?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Correct.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: How is payment to be made? Is somebody getting ten per cent plus?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. A contractor was appointed and his fee was fixed at $10,000 for the job. The work is being carried out on force account.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to point out that an attempt is being made,
I think rather foolishly, to suggest that the effort to introduce some common sense into this matter is in some way undignified. That was attempted yesterday, and I thought perhaps we were through with it. I think it is tiresome. We are all in favour of a dignified residence for the prime minister. Let us get that settled once and for all, and let us have a little common sense. At the present time we are being asked to approve something, and we know not what. I notice that the Minister of Public Works is not here.
I think it would be proper if he were here.
8. 1950	3351
Official Residence for Prime Minister I should like to read what he said yesterday, and I ask hon. members whether sensible people should be asked to vote money in this helter-skelter ignorant manner.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall read it to you and you can judge for yourselves. The hon. member for Lake Centre asked what was the estimated cost, and at page 3302 of Hansard the Minister of Public Works said in reply:
Those I have consulted so far dare not give an exact estimate, because in estimating the cost of remodelling an old building we are nearly always wide of the mark. I believe in the main estimates there is an amount of $80,000, but I am sure that will not be sufficient.
I guess we are all sure of that. Then the hon. member for Lake Centre said: "What is the general estimate?" The Minister of Public Works replied:
I think it will be somewhere around $100,000-that would only be a personal guess, and if I make a mistake it will come back on me. I would rather not give my opinion. I am not a contractor.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Allow yourself a
leeway of $100,000 for error.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: If that is the attitude of
my good friends, I would say between $150,000 and $200,000; that is about the closest I can come.
I ask whether it is sensible, Mr. Chairman, for grown men to vote money in that way. All we are asking is that we should have an estimate given in good faith. We all know something of the difficulties of renovating a building. At the present time all we have is figures thrown at us in bits and pieces. We have not had a figure yet from any responsible person as to what the total cost is going to be. If it will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars, is it unreasonable to ask that we be given a serious figure to show roughly what it is? We will not be foolish and hold the Minister of Public Works to $5,000 or $10,000. We know that cannot be done in a situation of this kind. At the present time we are left absolutely at sea, and an attempt is being made to suggest that because we are asking for this information, somehow or other we are being disrespectful to the Prime Minister. I never heard such utter nonsense in my life.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish to correct an impression left by the last speaker that the bill appropriates money to build the house. It does nothing of the sort. The estimates of the Department of Public Works will be considered in due course. At that time my hon. friend will be entitled to an estimate of the cost of the house. There is no reference in this bill, in any way, shape or form, to the cost of the house, and he would not be entitled to that information at this time even if it were available. I can tell him I have not
3352	HOUSE OF
Official Residence for Prime Minister such information although I have the information necessary to discuss this bill. I cannot discuss the cost of the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I presumed we would have that answer. It does not seem to me a reasonable answer. If we approve this, then when we come to the estimates we shall be told we have approved the whole thing, so what is the use of cavilling at any figures. I see no reason whatever why we should not have an estimate in good faith from a responsible quarter as to what the cost is to be. We have nothing now except a lot of jocular figures.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5-Annual payments.
Mr. Bradette:: I feel that there is only one way for me to vote on section 5. Until the emoluments of the office of prime minister of this country are increased from $15,000 to $25,000 or $30,000 per year, I shall have to vote against the section. I believe that this country is not being fair to the prime minister. As an example, I could cite men in my constituency who are working for large corporations and Who are receiving from two to three times the salary of the prime minister of this country. I believe those people deserve all they are getting, they are worthy of their hire, for they are working for large mining and corporation interests. I repeat that I do not see how it is possible for this committee to pass section 5 without a promise that parliament will rectify the anomaly that I have just mentioned.
During the general discussion on the first section of the bill, some members mentioned the cost of the food. Surely Canada ought to be able to provide adequately for the prime minister without quibbling about such details as the cost of the food. After all, we voted tremendous sums of money to send food to other countries for which we do not expect any repayment and over which expenditure we practically have no control. Surely it is the duty of this parliament to see to it that if this item is passed, then within a reasonable time, and not later than early next session, the emoluments of the office of prime minister and of the members of the cabinet are properly dealt with.
Someone said that a future prime minister might not be able to pay $5,000 a year. We parliamentarians realize what it means to be mere members of parliament and the calls that are made upon us. I may say that I am satisfied with what I am receiving


as a member of parliament, but how much money can any member save if he accedes to the requests made of him, and logically made, by his constituents?
On the other hand, consider the position of the prime minister, who always keeps himself at the entire disposal of every citizen and organization of this country. Let us visualize for a moment what the establishment of this government house will mean. It will come next to Rideau Hall as the rendezvous of officials, the place for receptions for prominent people from Canada and the rest of the world. Surely, we cannot afford to be niggardly about a matter of this kind.
Mention was made during the discussion of the estimated cost of the house, $100,000 or $200,000. If we cannot afford to provide proper accommodation for our prime minister, and to see that he gets a salary befitting his office, then this parliament does not seem to be fulfilling its duty in relation to matters such as this. The only way I can vote for section 5 is to have a promise that the emoluments of the office of prime minister will be increased before the next session. I am sure the majority of the people would wish that this be done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This section was put in the bill at the request of the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister wishes to be in the same position as every other citizen of Canada, namely, that he pay his living expenses out of his salary after taxes. Whether or not the amount is a fair amount has been given a good deal of thought. It is believed that it is a fair amount. I believe it to be logical that the prime minister's salary should be increased, but this is not the time or place to discuss that subject. The Prime Minister would not wish that his salary should be increased as a result of anything that might happen in connection with the prime minister's residence. I sincerely hope, therefore, there will not be too much objection to this section. I did not like it when I saw it, and I do not like it today. Nevertheless if I were 'prime minister I believe I would feel that I would want to pay for the board and lodging of myself and my family, and that is what this payment is intended to cover. As I say, it is at the Prime Minister's request that this section is inserted in the bill.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe the great difficulty with this clause, apart altogether from the objections which have been voiced thus far, is that it is going to be static. No one knows whether the cost of living will go up or down. It seems to me it is a mistake to put a figure of this sort in the statute. If this

were a regulation it might be a different matter, but to put it into a statute of the parliament of Canada is, I believe, fundamentally wrong. It would seem to me some better method could be devised if the Prime Minister insists on having this provision inserted. It could be stated that it be an amount to be decided from time to time by some organization responsible to this parliament, such as the treasury board. I do not like this section at all, and I quite agree with the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) that this is not the place to discuss the salary or the emoluments of office of the prime minister.
I well remember a discussion with the former prime minister and the leaders of the opposition parties of this house several years ago, when this matter of the emolument and residence came up quite accidentally. Perhaps it would have been better had these matters been settled when the former prime minister left the office a few years ago. We have to consider these two things separately, and so far as the emoluments of office are concerned we should forget them for the moment. This morning we have the question of the residence before us. Do we want to accede to the request of the Prime Minister and leave this section in the bill, or do we want to take it out? We have to remember that this bill deals with the residence of the prime minister, and not the residence of the present occupant of the office. While we would like to meet the wishes of the Prime Minister, and indeed greatly appreciate the fact that he wishes to do this, I think the house has to decide whether it is wise to write the amount into a statute.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it would not be wise to rephrase the section and say:
The prime minister shall pay to the Receiver General of Canada an amount to be determined by the treasury board for any period-
Perhaps that would meet the requirements.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that that proposal has been put before the Prime Minister. Council followed somewhat the same approach that is being taken in this house. There are reasons why it is better to have the amount fixed by act of parliament. The amount can be changed when the prime minister's salary is changed. This amount is one-third of his salary as prime minister, and something like one-quarter of his income before taxes from all government sources. I believe it is a reasonable amount for the purpose. There are tax questions that hinge on the amount fixed, and since this provision expresses the wish of the Prime Minister, after all considerations were put before him, I ask the committee to approve this section.
8, 1950	3353
Official Residence for Prime Minister


James MacKerras Macdonnell: While I
would be quite ready to vote for an amendment such as was indicated-in fact I would find it difficult to vote against it-it has been stated that the alternatives were discussed with him by those who are closest to him, and it does seem to me that his wishes should be followed.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The sum of $5,000 was decided by the Prime Minister himself. We all appreciate what he did in this respect, and Canadian people will appreciate it too. But personally, not knowing the situation of his office in all its detail, I believe that the sum of $5,000 is too high a percentage to be taken from his emolument. I believe that twenty per cent would be sufficient. It is not necessary that the amount should remain fixed rigidly at $5,000. Twenty per cent would be $3,000, which in my opinion would be more reasonable.
After all, the prime minister not only has the obligations of the prime minister to fulfil and all the responsibilities that this high office entails but is called upon in connection with all sorts of good causes and activities. When the late lamented Viscount Bennett was prime minister I remember that he himself told me that there was not a single day in which he did not have fifty calls made upon him, on his own money. If he had had only the emolument of his office, it would never have been possible for him to take care of them. There is no doubt that the calls on the Prime Minister are as great, if not greater, at the present time; I am sure he would have at least fifty calls a day involving payments out of his salary. We are speaking in terms of dollars and cents at the present time. It is just as important for the prime minister to live comfortably as it is for others; and it is important that he personally be kept free from annoyances of a financial nature which sometimes are exceedingly depressing. I believe that twenty per cent of the emolument of the prime minister should be sufficient. I believe that it would be satisfactory to the Prime Minister himself and to the whole of Canada if such an amendment were made to this clause.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Chairman; I can assure you that the Prime Minister would not welcome that amendment. He takes the position that his expenses while in Ottawa today are about $5,000 a year.- He does not wish to have that amount reduced in any way.


John Lambert Gibson: I appreciate greatly what the hon. member for Cochrane has said, and I understand the difficulty of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The hon. member for
3354	HOUSE OF
Official Residence for Prime Minister Rosetown-Biggar suggested that this figure of $5,000 should be somewhat flexible. I think that a figure would be difficult to arrive at, because we would be haggling about the amount, and we would not like to have that. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar does not like that.
The other consideration of course that arises is this. One prime minister may be a man of independent means, but his successor could conceivably be an ordinary member of parliament like the rest of us, and he might be short of money. We have a statutory allowance in order that some of my ministerial friends may drive motorcars, but once in a while I see them in streetcars just like ordinary folk. Is it not possible that the Prime Minister would accept the suggestion from the committee, which I am sure he must feel is made in all sincerity, that we provide his particular department, the Prime Minister's office, with a residential allowance of $5,000? Most of the cabinet are here this morning. I should like them to talk the matter over amongst themselves and see if there is any way in which they could make that request; because I think they will find it meets with approval in all parts of the house.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps, with every good intention in the world, some of the Prime Minister's best personal friends in the chamber are doing him an injustice in what they are attempting to do. No doubt the Prime Minister feels that he wants to be in an independent position with respect to this matter. He wants to pay his own way.


John Lambert Gibson: How about his automobile?


Gordon Graydon: I don't know. I have never had a ride in it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will take you in mine some day.


The Chairman:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: I think perhaps the committee ought to respect the Prime Minister's wishes in this regard. He would not want to be put in the position of being coaxed by the committee into changing his position with respect to the payment of $5,000, which gives him an independent status, and as a result of which he and his family will feel they are paying their way. I do not think that we ought to press the .matter any further, if it is the Prime Minister's wish to pay $5,000.


Mr. Lennard:: I do not agree with that suggestion. If the Prime Minister wishes to pay his own way, if he wishes to pay his
[Mr. Gibson.!

living expenses, that is his privilege. But it does not need to be in a bill to be passed by the House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Clarence Decatur Howe: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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.


Mr. Harkness:: When the estimates of the Department of National Defence were up for consideration on March 17, I did not have an opportunity of making any general remarks, and I propose to take the opportunity of making them now.
During past sessions members of this party have made several suggestions for improvement, as we saw it, of the defence forces of the country. I am glad to see that some of these suggestions have been or are being followed to some extent. Last year in particular the hon. member for Nanaimo urged that much greater attention should be paid to the development of the air arm. He urged that a larger proportion of the defence dollar should be spent on that service, and that equipment in considerably increased amount should be provided for it. During these past several months I have noticed that the minister has spoken about this matter on numerous occasions, and has made quite a point of the fact that there has been a considerable increase in the amount of the defence dollar devoted to the air force. Apparently he has been anxious to assure everyone in the country that the air force is getting what we might call major attention amongst the three services.

On several occasions in the past I have criticized the top-heavy organization of the Department of National Defence. By this I meant particularly the fact that in my opinion an unduly large number of officers and men were employed at the various headquarters and in administrative duties, with the result that relatively few people were in the fighting units. The minister has indicated that some changes in that regard are in progress or are contemplated. It was, of course, one of the recommendations of the Mainguy report that, with regard to the navy, a considerable number of naval officers employed at headquarters should be relieved from what we might call desk duties so that they could devote their time to active sea duties.
When the minister comes to answer questions in detail or reply to the various speeches that were made last March 17, I hope he will tell us more specifically what progress has been made in that direction and what is the ratio, as we might call it, between the number of persons in the actual fighting units and the number of persons on administrative and other duties at headquarters and so forth, particularly breaking the figures down to show what has been done in each of the three services. I think there is just as much necessity for that procedure in the army as there is for it in the navy, if not more. I must say that I do not know very much about the situation as to the air force, but I suspect it is much the same.
On November 11,	1949, the minister
enunciated the defence policy of Canada. It may be found in Hansard of that date at page 1663. I should like to make some comments on that defence policy and ask some questions in connection with it. In order to have continuity perhaps I had better read the seven points which the minister enunciated at that time. They are as follows:
1.	The only possible aggressor is the Soviet union.
2.	Any war would be a world war involving all western peoples who would be fighting for their survival as nations and their freedom as men.
3.	The best way to prevent such war is to confront the forces of communism with such strength as to deter them from attack.
4.	To provide such strength requires the cooperative efforts of the western nations, including the United States and Canada.
5.	Consequently Canada welcomed the North Atlantic treaty as supplementing the United Nations, and pending the strengthening of the United Nations, as an organization for world-wide security.
These five points are what you might call general points. They deal with basic concepts of what we look upon as facts. Later I shall have something to say in connection with them in relation to what our present concepts are, whether there has been any change in them or not, and so on.
Supply-National Defence
The sixth and seventh points are really the operative ones, the ones which concern the defence forces and what to quite an extent we are discussing.
The sixth one is:
6.	Since an attack on Canada could only be made by air or by sea, emphasis must be placed on defence forces: by air-radar stations and communications, backed by interceptors and a relatively small mobile brigade group; by sea-anti-submarine and anti-mine vessels for protection of shipping and coastal waters.
The seventh is:
7.	The best place to defeat the enemy is as far away from Canada as possible, and our forces should also serve as the nucleus for the development of our maximum potential.
In connection with the sixth point, which concerns particularly the permanent force, I should like the minister at a later time to indicate whether we have the radar stations and communications, the interceptors and the small mobile brigade group which are necessary to guard again any likely attack on Canada. In my opinion we have not. When the minister is replying I should like him to say, if we have not what is required at the moment, how much progress we have made toward getting it, and what we actually have. I think the committee is entitled to know just what we have in that regard. The same thing applies so far as the remainder of that point is concerned, namely, "by sea-antisubmarine and anti-mine vessels for protection of shipping and coastal waters". We should know definitely what vessels of that kind we have, and what they are capable of doing.
In introducing his estimates on March 17 the minister said that we have two interceptor squadrons at the present time and five more in mind, so that we would have seven all told. I should like to know whether the two squadrons we have at the present time are up to strength, both in men and in planes, or are they at quarter strength or half strength? As to the other five which are proposed, what progress has been made on them? Are they merely on paper, or have the nucleus staffs for them been got together? Have any planes been secured for them?
To revert to these more general aims of our defence policy, I asked last year, when we were considering defence matters, what our commitments were under the Atlantic pact. The minister replied at that time that we had none. It was interesting to note that about the same time that the defence discussion was going on in the house, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was down in New York where he made a speech at the United Nations, I think, in which he made reference to the commitments involved in the Atlantic
3356	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence pact, United Nations membership, and so forth. The result was this. I heard that somebody, having read in the press that the Minister of National Defence had said that we had no commitments for defence under the Atlantic pact, asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs this question: "Well, when is a commitment not a commitment?" That is still an appropriate query. When is a commitment not a commitment? We seem to be in a considerable amount of confusion as to what commitments we have under the United Nations, the North Atlantic treaty, and so forth. It is a matter which needs some clarification.
In his speech on November 17 the minister reiterated the statement that we had no commitments. I should like to read what he said at that time, as found at page 851 of Hansard, and to comment on it. He said:
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 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.
I take it that that means briefly just two things. First, we have undertaken self-help. That means the defence of Canada. We are going to look after our own borders. Second, it means that we have undertaken to take such action as we ourselves believe to be necessary for the common defence of the north Atlantic countries in the event of an attack upon any one of them. Only under these circumstances do we agree to pay any attention to what we might call mutual defence, other than protecting our own borders. It seems to me that this concept, and our entire defence planning, must be materially altered by the decisions which were taken in London last month, as set forth in the speech made in the house on Monday last by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In connection with what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said about defence particularly, there are these three short sentences that I should like to read; they are to be found at page 3189 of Hansard:
We have adopted the principle of "balanced collective forces1' as the basis for our defence.


That is for all the north Atlantic countries, and he was speaking in the house particularly so far as Canada is concerned. Further on he said:
We shall try to agree amongst ourselves which of us is the best able to concentrate on certain types of defence preparation.
I take it from that that each of the countries in the North Atlantic pact is going to concentrate on certain types of defence-to specialize on them, one might say. I take it also that Canada must follow that line and specialize in some certain line of defence, or at least direct the major portion of our defence effort to a certain line or certain lines of defence.
Then, a little further on-and perhaps this is the most important observation he made- the minister said this:
North Atlantic strategy cannot mean, and our agreement does not imply a strategy of liberation after destruction and occupation. There could be no hope for Europe in that strategy, because the next time there may well be nothing to liberate.
That means that the strategy agreed upon would be such as to prevent the overrunning of western European countries by the forces of Russia. It is of course obvious that in order to do that, the countries of the North Atlantic pact must have forces which can go in and stop any Russian advance over those countries. If we in Canada have any definite commitment to put that strategy into effect-and from the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I take it we have -this means that we must have forces which could be thrown into the struggle immediately.
We have abandoned the concept, which the Minister of National Defence has expressed before, that we have a small permanent force capable of meeting any diversionary raids which may be directed at our country, and looking after What might be called limited local defence; and, in addition, we were to have a framework upon which we could build up comparatively large forces which we could then send overseas in the general defence of western Europe.
If the new concept in strategy placed before us on Monday means anything at all, it must mean that in future we must have forces which can be dispatched at once. It would seem to me that the only forces which we could throw into action immediately would be air forces. Therefore, to a much greater extent than we have done up to the moment we would have to concentrate upon the development of our air arm. In addition I should think it would mean that if we are going to make to general western defence

a contribution commensurate with our ability, we would have to have a considerably larger number of air squadrons. Otherwise we could not make this initial effort which would be required.
Further, it would mean that the only other type of force which could be thrown into action immediately and effectively would be specialized armoured forces, so far as land forces are concerned, and especially airborne forces.
I suggest that the minister should make some comment on what this new strategy of defending western Europe from invasion, rather than liberating it afterward, would involve in our defence planning. What changes in our defence program are going to flow from this change in strategy? If we are to have a great deal more equipment capable of being thrown in immediately when required, it would cost us a great deal more money. This year 'we are being asked to vote very large sums for defence; but if the new strategy is to be followed effectively by us, then we shall probably be required to provide much larger sums to implement our part of the program.
There is one further point I should like to make in this connection. One of the most important considerations in the strategy set out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the protection of western Europe is what is to be done with western Germany. Russia is now arming the Germans in the Russian zone of Germany. In my opinion the decision is squarely up to the Atlantic pact nations to do the same thing in the western zone or, if we are not prepared at the present time to arm the Germans in our zone, we must accept the proposition that none of the western zone of Germany can be defended. We shall have to write it off in the beginning as an area to be overrun by the Russians, in the event of war with them.
Personally I think it is also extremely unlikely that, without the armed manpower of western Germany, any of the western European nations with the exception of the peninsulas-Italy, possibly, and more likely Spain, and of course Great Britain because of her island position-could be held successfully. But apart from those countries it would seem to me most unlikely that the North Atlantic pact countries, as the strategy enunciated suggests, could be saved from occupation unless that large pool of manpower in western Germany is utilized.
I should like to know whether this aspect of the matter has been considered in formulating our defence policy, and whaf the conclusions have been with respect thereto. I know that this whole question is a very thorny one,
Supply-National Defence concerning which most governments in western Europe do not wish to commit themselves, because there is still a large body of opinion mortally afraid of a rearmed Germany. However, in my view this is one of the most important questions to be faced-indeed, perhaps the vital one-if this new strategy is to be carried into effect.
If our government has any opinion in the matter, then we should be told about it in the House of Commons. If our military leaders have anything like the view I have enunciated, we should be told. If they do take that view, then we as a country should be prepared to press for its adoption. Someone has to take the lead in these matters, and, well removed from Europe, without any undue internal difficulty, we could quite readily take that lead, whereas, in a country like France the internal difficulty would be much greater.
This year the estimates were introduced early-and it was a good move. I had hoped that when on March 17 we began a discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Defence, such discussion would be continued shortly thereafter so that the entire estimates of the department might be dealt with more or less as a whole instead of having them broken up. But we find that this year the same thing is happening that has happened every other year I have been here. Almost three months has elapsed since the defence estimates were last discussed. We are now proceeding to consider them under circumstances which the minister described as terminal pressure. He tried to refute the statement made, I believe, by an hon. member in this party, that the defence estimates have always been considered right at the end of the session when there has been no time to deal with them properly. He made a lengthy statement which is to be found at page 755 of Hansard of March 14. At that time he indicated on what dates the estimates had been dealt with. I looked up those dates and compared them with the closing dates of the sessions, and I found that in each case these estimates had been considered a short time before the end of the session, and at a time when we were sitting, as we are now, in morning, afternoon and evening, with the committees sitting as well. I hope the minister will not try to argue that we are not under terminal pressure at the present time; we are under considerable terminal pressure. The suggestion this year that the estimates, particularly those of this department, which was the first one to be introduced, would be dealt with before the terminal pressure came on, when we could take the time required to deal with them without difficulty, has not

Supply-National Defence been carried out. We are faced with the same situation as that with which we have been faced every other year.
This year the expenditures under this department are lumped in two large items which are the only items that really amount to anything. The first item covers all expenditures for the army, navy and air force, while the second item covers defence research and development. I referred to this matter last year, and asked the minister to consider introducing his estimates in the same manner as those of other departments, and in the same manner as they were presented before the war and even during the war. This should be possible now that the war has been over for some time and the rehabilitation and reorganization period is almost completed. These expenditures should be broken down into separate items instead of being lumped together.
This method of indicating the expenditures does not present as good a picture to hon. members as would be presented if the estimates were shown in the ordinary way. It does not show how many people are employed in the different branches, what their jobs are, and so forth. There is a certain breakdown in the back of the book, but it does not give any of this information. As a result it is much more difficult for members to know just how the money is being spent by the Department of National Defence, and it becomes necessary to ask many more questions and take up more time than would otherwise be taken.
Last year the minister said that serious consideration would be given to breaking up the estimates for the coming year, but nothing has been done. I ask once more that this be done in the future. I see no reason why it should not be done in this department as it is done in the other departments. Unfortunately there has been a tendency throughout to give as little information as possible in regard to this department. The minister has maintained consistently that that is not so, but everything points to the fact that it is.
I should like to say a word about recruiting. When the minister was speaking in the debate on the proposal to set up a committee on national defence he said, as reported on page 758 of Hansard of March 14:
I believe it was the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) who said that if a committee were established it would help recruiting. Our recruiting for the active forces, the navy, army and air force, does not need any help. We are getting all the men we want. They are first-class men of fine character.
I was surprised to hear the minister make that statement. I should have thought he would have been glad to get all the help he

could. I was particularly surprised at the statement because at that time, and I think this still applies, the minister was carrying on an extensive advertising campaign for recruits. There was also a radio program, about which the hon. member for Temiscouata made quite a lengthy speech. I heard it myself at various times. Large advertisements were carried in the newspapers, and so on. All this must have been very costly, and when we are dealing with the details later I shall want to know what this campaign cost.
In view of the fact that this advertising campaign was going on at the time, it was surprising that the minister should say he did not want or need any help in the matter of recruiting, that they were getting all the men they wanted. If that was so, why were they putting on this extensive advertising campaign? I do know that a large number of the reserve force units require men, and in that connection I think the minister should welcome any help.


Mr. Claxion:: Of course I do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You said you did not.


Brooke Claxton: That was in a different connection.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I made the suggestion that
the Prime Minister and the minister should make special appeals to people to join the reserve forces, and I still think that that is a good idea.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned at one o'clock I was dealing with certain points covered in the speech the minister made on March 14. Before going on with that I should like to revert for a moment to a matter I dealt with earlier.
Speaking of the strategic concept adopted by the Atlantic pact nations at London last month to prevent the occupation of western Europe by Russian forces in the event of war, I overlooked one point which I should like to mention now. While the utilization of German manpower and fighting capabilities is, I think, the crux of carrying out such a policy and making it effective, the absence of Spain from the western military bloc is a serious defect. Up to the present time ideological differences between that country and the democratic countries of western Europe and North America have prevented the military co-operation that is desirable. I do not think ideological differences should

any longer prevent us from securing the advantages which close co-operation with Spain in western defence would bring about.
During the war we were very glad of Russian aid when fighting for our survival against Germany. The question of ideological differences between us and the communist countries did not enter into the picture at that time. With the situation we now face of extreme danger from Russian imperialistic ambitions I think the same attitude should be adopted and that steps should be taken to make Spain and its resources available to the western powers. If it were impossible to carry out the strategic concept of preventing the occupation of the other countries of western Europe, possibly the one country which could be defended and kept as a bridgehead in Europe is Spain. In the over-all strategy of planning for defence it seems to me a most important matter that steps should be taken at the present time to put Spain in a position to contribute materially toward that end. For example, there should be large airfields constructed in Spain from which our air fleets could operate, and also strategic roads leading to the border. This matter should receive careful attention from the Atlantic powers generally and our own defence administration. They might put forward that point of view, if it is agreeable to them.
With reference to the minister's speech of March 17, he mentioned that standardization of battle procedures and organization was going forward. When he speaks later I should like him to tell us exactly on what basis that is taking place. Is standardization general throughout the Atlantic pact countries, or is it a matter on our part of standardization with the United States forces, and the adoption by us of their battle procedures in lieu of the British battle procedures which so far we have used? The minister said at the same time that standardization of equipment was necessarily slow, and I can see that would be so. I should think the amounts of military equipment now being shipped and about to be shipped from the United States to European countries would speed up that process to a considerable extent.
The minister made note of an offer on the part of Canada to train officers from other countries on somewhat the same basis as the empire air training scheme. Provision is to be made for the training of 150 ground officers and 100 air officers of other countries. I think that is a good move in the direction of standardization, but actually it is a very small one. When he is dealing with this point it would perhaps be of interest if the minister could tell us how many
Supply-National Defence Canadian officers are receiving training in other countries at the present time, and what their services are.
The minister also made a statement in connection with the successful development of a Canadian jet plane, the CF-100. I am sure his announcement was received with great satisfaction by everyone in the house and elsewhere in Canada. Personally I am very happy that we are now producing a really up-to-date jet military plane. I trust that production will be sufficiently great that we shall be able to put large numbers of these machines into service in the near future.
The minister gave an interesting account of Exercise Sweetbriar. I am sure the committee was pleased to hear his report. He said that in our northern areas defence forces have the advantage, but in order to make that advantage effective they must be able .to prevent the leapfrogging of the enemy from one airfield to another. That suggests to me this question. Have we the air force, the airborne infantry and other arms to prevent such leapfrogging? In other words, is our mobile brigade group of sufficient strength to do it at the present time, and even if it were at full strength, would it be sufficient to carry out that task?
In dealing with Exercise Sweetbriar the minister also spoke of the need for more tracked vehicles. He mentioned bulldozers particularly, and indicated that probably at least one per company would be necessary. I should like to ask what has been done since that time to provide not only bulldozers but also other tracked vehicles capable of travelling over snow.
The minister said that the target for our forces is to become more and more operational. Of course that is something which we on this side of the house have urged ever since the post-war army was established. I think there will be many questions as. to the extent to which it has been accomplished. As I mentioned previously, a reduction in the number of officers and men in headquarters administration establishment and an increase in the number in the fighting units would be an important step in that direction.
With regard to the amount of the defence dollar which is being divided among the three services, there appears to be a discrepancy in the figures given by the minister. He said that in the past year, 1949-50, the air force was receiving 42-6 per cent of the defence dollar, while in the current year, 1950-51, they will receive 44-8 per cent. This statement appears on page 858 of Hansard of March 17, 1950. On page 857 of Hansard there is a chart which shows the distribution
3360	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence of the defence dollar. For the year 1949-50 it shows the air force receiving 38'8 per cent rather than the 42-6 per cent the minister mentioned, and for 1950-51 it shows the air force receiving 40-6 per cent rather than the 44-8 per cent. I should like the minister to explain that apparent discrepancy.
During the course of his statement the minister said that over one-half of the army 'brigade group were now tough, trained soldiers. That statement does not mean very much unless we know three other things. Is this half the present strength of the brigade group, or is it half the authorized strength? If the latter, is the authorized strength at the present time the full strength for the brigade group? Until we know those things, this general statement that over half the brigade group are tough, trained soldiers does not mean very much. If it were the first -case I mentioned there would be a smaller number involved than if it were the last. I should like some further light on that point.
There was a statement that defence research was carried on on an increased scale during the past year. No details were given to indicate on what line defence research was conducted, what increase there may have been, or anything else. I think the committee is entitled to a full explanation. We all agree that defence research is one of the most important bases of national defence at the present time. So far as I have been able to observe in the house, it is a phase which there has been no disposition to cut down at all. The disposition has been the other way, to increase it.
The minister also made a brief statement about civilian defence planning. He said that it had progressed satisfactorily and had finished at the federal level, I think it was, or something to that effect.
At page 859 of Hansard of March 17, 1950, the minister stated:
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.
I believe the minister will recall that I have spoken on this subject at length in each of the past three or four sessions. I believe that civilian defence is, in some ways, more important than any other phase of defence activities or defence planning. The statement that in civil defence we have completed the stage of planning at the federal level does not convey a great deal, and I should like to know what it implies. I know that General Worthington has been active for some time, and I noticed that the Secretary of State


tabled a report on civil defence planning this morning. I have not, of course, had time to look at that report, but I shall be interested in doing so. The floods at Winnipeg and the fires at Rimouski and Cabano impressed upon all of us the desirability of having some sort of civilian defence set-up which could be used in such emergencies, quite apart from the extreme need for civilian defence in the event of war.
The minister said that the effective revival of the Hyde Park agreement had been advocated by Canada in order to enable the Canadian and United States forces to buy equipment from each other. I was glad to see an announcement in the press that some arrangement had been made which would enable the United States and Canadian forces to purchase from each other. Perhaps the minister can indicate what general types of equipment we shall produce in Canada and sell to the United States under that agreement, and what material we shall be purchasing from them.
We are being asked to vote large sums for defence. There is an amount of $425 million to be spent this year, but that is only part of the picture. So far as I can ascertain from a study of the estimates, there are further commitments amounting to nearly $200 million, so I think the total amount which we are being asked to vote for expenditures this year, or commitments in future years, is closer to $625 million rather than $425 million. In view of these large proposed expenditures this house should be given the fullest information as to how the money is to be spent, and particularly whether we are getting value for it. This involves, of course, being given information as to just what we are getting for the money expended; whether the expenditures will provide the defence necessary to look after this country, on a minimum scale of course. Everyone recognizes that it is impossible completely to defend this country, and no one dreams of advocating that. We should know whether the expenditures we are making are being made efficiently so as to provide this minimum force which the minister and the government have declared to be necessary. Now that this new concept has been adopted by the Atlantic pact nations, we should be told whether these expenditures are being made in such a way as to enable us effectively to play our part in carrying those plans forward.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, in the observations I shall make on the defence estimates I shall be speaking as an amateur. Indeed, I do not think there is anyone in the house today who can consider himself an expert on what our naval, military and air force

tactics of the future should be. I do not think we have a yardstick by which we can measure that.
I agree with what the hon. member for Calgary East had to say about the matter of expenditures. They should be broken down. We should have some idea as to what portion of our defence estimates are allocated for this, that or the other purpose. His whole talk this afternoon, however, to my mind was definitely based on war and not on defence.
As I see it, the objective of the United Nations, and the main objective of the North Atlantic pact, is to build machinery which would be ready to meet any potential aggressor; but that machinery is not being built for the purpose of carrying on a war. Its main purpose is the prevention of war. In discussing international affairs in matters of defence we have to be careful not to lend fuel to the propaganda machine that is operating both in the United States and in Canada, and largely throughout the world, and make it possible for anyone to say that we are engaged in an armaments race for the purpose of making war in the future rather than in efforts to prevent war. Our language will have to be temperate.
I am a bit disturbed myself about all the emphasis that is given these days to military matters, war, and the possibilities of war, and the slight attention that is paid to the only instrument, in my opinion, that can prevent war in the future, namely, the United Nations itself. From what I have been reading in the press and have been hearing in the discussions in the house in the last few days, my impression is that we are getting away completely from the United Nations as an instrument of preserving peace in the future; and in my opinion, that is the only body that can preserve it. Unless we can get together there, fully implement the terms of the United Nations charter, and negotiate and iron out around the conference table matters of international conflict, I believe that we are headed for something that we may not be able to control.
I do not think there is anyone inside or outside of this chamber who can offer a valid criticism of the North Atlantic pact. We accept it as an outgrowth of the United Nations. The United Nations charter provides for regional pacts where they are desirable and necessary; and there is at this time no doubt about the North Atlantic pact being necessary. It is a "must". But that machinery, so far, is in the embryo stage. There is nothing concrete that one can fasten on. They have had a meeting. They decided on certain economic and military commitments, but they are not definite. The principle is
Supply-National Defence right, and as such we shall have to support it and pay our share. Farther than that I am not prepared to go.
I think there are a great many difficulties in the world that we shall have to understand; for example, the situation in Germany. In my opinion it is the most explosive point in the world today. While the Russians are building peace fronts and talking about peace all over the world, in that particular section in Germany, in my opinion, they are building a war machine. They are now setting up a force consisting of 50,000 policemen. It is, in effect, an army, with tanks, artillery and all the rest of it. Canada should look at what the United States, Britain and France are doing in that particular sector and see what we can do to help in any way we can. As I say, I think that is the 'danger spot right now. Unless the situation is handled carefully and the difficulties are ironed out, there may be an eruption.
This afternoon what I want to focus the minister's attention on is not the broad matter of defence, because, as I said, most of us can fasten on to nothing that is concrete at the present time. The minister has nothing in history that he can use as a measure for the purpose of instructing his officials. I think if we vote the money, get an accounting of it as well as we can in the committee, and have some dependence on and confidence in those who are going to spend it and handle it in the future, with the minister as a contact between us and them, that is about all we can do at the present time.
What I want to talk to the minister about is a matter that we can do something about, and it has defence implications. In the house a few days ago I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question with regard to the naval air base at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. According to press reports it is not in good shape. The Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time passed the question on to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport took a look at it and said: "It belongs to the Minister of National Defence". I think that is one good argument for taking away from the governor in council some of the responsibility for decisions that can be passed around from one to the other, and for pinning it on someone specific. This particular question has to do with all three departments. I am going to talk about the part of it that comes within the scope of the Department of National Defence.
As the minister knows, in defence matters pertaining to Canada, Halifax area is a fairly strategic spot. It contributed greatly to the carrying on of the last two wars. The only airport in that whole area today is the one

Supply-National Defence at Dartmouth; and it is a naval airport. T.C.A. uses it for some small aircraft, the ones that they can land. The DC-3's I think are the only T.C.A. aircraft that can land there. The matter has been under discussion for over a year. The city of Halifax wanted to know from T.C.A. what they were going to do with regard to providing in that area facilities that could be used to land the North Star, for example, and put the port on the map from the standpoint of air service. The Minister of Trade and Commerce visited the area, and his opinion at that time, as expressed in the press, was to the effect that it would be better to spend a few million dollars expanding that naval station at Dartmouth so that it could be used for the dual purpose of defence for naval purposes and of providing T.C.A. facilities at that point. That was a year ago. Nothing has been done about it since. The question was raised again as late as the end of May of this year. The Halifax members were actively interested in it, according to press reports. An examination of the situation was made. For the minister's benefit I want to read something that was said by a member of the flying patrol division in that area. This is from the Halifax Mail-Star of May 25, and it is official; that is why I am going to read it. I quote:
Information about the present condition of the runways was offered by Lieutenant D. M. MacLeod, senior flying control at the Dartmouth naval station. "The runways are breaking up," he said. "Right now water is coming up through the tarmac, which is caused by the subgrade breaking down."
He said all four-engined aircraft were included in the 60,000-pound ban, with the possible exception of Lancasters. Constellations which have used the base from time to time have a gross weight of
74.000	pounds, and the United States strato-cruiser which landed there about a month ago weighed
120.000	pounds.	.
"The runways were originally built to handle
65.000	pounds," the lieutenant continued, "and the present ban is to prevent the runways from cracking up entirely."
If the runways were further damaged, a serious landing accident could occur, he said.
"It's to prevent this, and the cost of reconstructing new runways, that the ban has been placed in effect," he concluded.
The proposed weight ban would have no effect at present on Trans-Canada Air Lines operations out of Halifax, T.C.A. officials said.
At present T.C.A. are using the DC-3 passenger types which have a gross weight of 26,000 pounds when fully loaded.
That report from an official of the naval section paints a pretty bad picture of that particular station in Dartmouth. The runways are cracking up. Despite the fact that an active investigation has been carried on into the matter for the past year, so far nothing has been done with regard to expanding that Dartmouth station, or coming to the conclusion that a new station, particularly for the T.C.A. services, is to be established in
[Mr. Gillis.l

that section. I am afraid this is another indication of no thinking in the matter of services east of Montreal. Halifax is one of the major cities in this country. It has been used very extensively in both wars for defence purposes. Apparently both trade and commerce, T.C.A. and national defence have written off that area at this time because a couple of million dollars would have to be spent in building or expanding the service there.
There is a large number of personnel at that point; it is strategic in relation to the European continent and to Europe. So far as I can see now, there are no facilities and no thought of any in relation either to defence or to general services by air, in the minds of any of the officials of the government.
In view of the fact that the Department of National Defence proposes to spend $419,985,500 this year, and in view of the importance of that section and the condition of that particular airport, which is a defence airport, and the lack of thinking by other departments which have already expressed an opinion on the matter, I expect the Minister of National Defence to make a definite statement, before his estimates are carried, as to what he is going to do with the naval station in that particular section.
I should like to refer to the matter of recruiting. The hon. member for Calgary East said that the minister made a statement some time ago to the effect that they were getting all the recruits they needed in the services now. That may be true. But I think that with the standards they have in all three services today it is not so easy to get recruits, I have had a good many representations from boys who were in the services in the last war, who came out medically fit, who made a good contribution during their service, and who could not find employment after they got out of the service and who made application to go back in. They then had to take an educational test to get into any branch of the service, and they found they did not have the necessary basic education, and they could not get back in. If a war broke out these boys would be accepted.
During the last war, when an emergency hit us and we were in a hurry for recruits, we found that the physical condition of about forty-five per cent of those who tried to enlist was a pretty sorry indictment against us. In addition to that, from coast to coast there was such a high percentage of illiteracy among the young service personnel coming into the forces that the Department of National Defence was compelled to establish a school at North Bay where these young

boys were taken in and given a pretty thorough basic education in a short time. The whole curriculum was short-circuited in order to give them the necessary mechanics to understand map reading, gun laying and all that kind of thing. I suggest to the minister that one of the main defence preparations today should be an effort to see that our young people are qualified technically, and properly fed so that they will be physically fit when they come in.
The minister and his department should take another look at the number of applications that have come in from young men who want to get into the services but have been rejected because they have not the necessary basic education. Then, of course, we have to keep in mind the high percentage of young fellows who came out of the services at the end of the last war, but were not in a position to take advantage of even the vocational training supplied by the government because they did not have the necessary basic education. This is one matter that we should take a look at before we get into difficulties, because the condition of the world today is such that we cannot take chances. It may be too late to wait until you are hit in the nose before you start doing something about defending yourself. The general world condition, from the standpoint of possible war, is such that we should be building up the reserve army to the greatest extent possible. We should at least be giving, to those who desire to take it, the necessary basic training so that in the event of an emergency, they will be called in with some knowledge of what is expected of them.
I think the policy adopted by the department shortly after the war is the correct one. They are building up a hard corps of well-trained personnel. They are keeping them in camps at strategic spots across the country. That is all to the good. That is what should be done at this time. In addition, emphasis should be placed on the reserve army, to see that in the event of an emergency, as many as possible have the necessary basic education in military matters. Next time it may be a matter of having to defend yourself, whether you like it or not. Everyone who is thinking at all will agree that if another war breaks out we shall be the Belgium of that war. It will not be a matter of going thousands of miles to get into the fight. You may find yourself in it overnight.
As I said, we hope that the formation of the North Atlantic pact, along with co-operation in economic and military spheres, tied in with whatever efforts we can make through the United Nations to fight to the last ditch in preserving peace-if that is possible-will keep the peace. If it is not possible, and we 55046-213
Supply-National Defence are forced into war by an act of aggression by the only country in the world today that is in a position to commit an act of aggression, then everyone in the country should be prepared to understand that situation and should be equipped so that we may be able to make the best possible fight under any circumstances.	.	.
My particular reason for rising was not to lecture the minister. I am prepared to pass these estimates. I have met some of the officials of the Department of National Defence. In those I have met I have confidence. The minister is here to be questioned at any time, and I think most of us have confidence in his ability and integrity. I rose this afternoon only to focus his attention on something concerning which he can take action; I refer to the naval station at Dartmouth.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the minister and the committee some matters in connection with the Department of National Defence which, I think, should receive some consideration. The point I am about to raise is one which affects not only this department but some other departments of government as well.
I have been interested in the case of a young airman whose name, for obvious reasons, I should prefer not to give. This young man was dismissed from the air force some time ago, apparently because of some charges made against him to the effect that at some time during his earlier life he had been connected with the communist party.
It so happens that I have known of this family for about forty years. It is a Roman Catholic family living in the province of Saskatchewan. The young lad to whom I refer was for a time a student in a Roman Catholic institution. That in itself is something by way of background that should reinforce what I am going to say. After serving several years in the R.C.A.F. this young man was suddenly let out-and he was let out under a cloud. He has never seen any charge made against him, and therefore has never been given an opportunity to endeavour to refute such charge.
So far as I am able to understand, some thirteen or fourteen years ago, during the period of unemployment, when protest meetings of all kinds were being held across the country, this young man attended a meeting -perhaps it was two meetings-in Regina of unemployed young men. When he discovered that the purpose of the meetings was to recruit young men for service in Spain, and to join the communist party as it was then, he went home and had nothing further to do with the matter. So far as I

Supply-National Defence have been able to find out that is the only action that gave rise to suspicion concerning his associations. I know of no other.
1 may add that Mr. Douglas, premier of Saskatchewan, has been acquainted with the family for the last twenty years, and perhaps has seen this lad and the other members of his family more recently than I have. But the point I make is this, that when any person in any public service is placed under a cloud and under suspicion, in a democratic country he should at least have the opportunity of knowing what the charges are against him. My criticism of the department is that, in this case, although they have been asked to state what the charge was, this has never been done and, so far as I know, no one has been given access to any of the information.
I have been keenly interested in the case and have gone so far as to suggest that if I could be given an opportunity to see the evidence and to be satisfied in my own mind, I was quite sure I could satisfy Mr. Douglas and that I could either give my word that the dismissal was deserved or, if it was not, ask the minister to look into the matter further. I know that even during wartime, when matters of a confidential nature arose concerning men in the air force, the minister's predecessors-and I am thinking particularly of the former minister for air-had no hesitation in trying to satisfy any member of parliament who was interested in a case that the action taken had been fully justified, and that there had been good reasons for taking it.
I have known the minister for a number of years. I have known him to be most insistent upon civil liberties, and it has been most difficult for me indeed to understand how this could happen under the minister's administration. I rise this afternoon not only in the interests of one young man who may or may not be guilty, and who may or may not have deserved dismissal from the armed forces. I raise the matter because, speaking generally, there is no opportunity in other departments for an accused employee to have a review of the accusations made against him.
We pride ourselves on our democratic traditions, and on the fact that to a large extent our parliamentary institutions are a reflection of the age-old institution of parliament in the United Kingdom. There a most careful screening is made, although mistakes occasionally do occur. However, when an individual is charged the minister receives advice from a competent and trustworthy committee to which the accused may appeal. While the committee has no power to reinstate or to take other remedial action, it can advise the


minister who, of course, takes the final responsibility. There is a method of review and appeal. I suggest to the government, not only to the Department of National Defence in which the particular case I have mentioned falls, but to the government in general, that in cases of this kind there should be an opportunity for an individual to clear his name, if he can.
After all, it seems to me that an accusation of this description places a man under a cloud and makes it difficult for him to find other suitable employment. The young man to whom I am referring was at the beginning of last month among the unemployed and, because of a lack of references and because of inability to explain properly why he had been let out, had been unable to get employment of a kind suited to his particular talents. I am bringing this to the attention of the committee and I do not think anyone who knows my point of view will misunderstand why I bring it to the floor of parliament.
Under the present circumstances I think the government has to be wary. Where you have within the country a political movement that is the agency of a foreign power you cannot be too careful, but in exercising that care equal care should be taken that no injustice is done to any individual. Under our traditional democratic rights, according to our idea of justice, a person who is accused should have at least the opportunity of knowing something of the accusation against him and be given opportunity to review that accusation.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has made reference to a particular case I think I should reply at once. I think he has inadvertently failed to refer to one part of this incident which in justice to myself should be brought up. I am familiar with the case to which reference has been made. It concerned a young airman who was engaged in radar and electronic work and who was screened in the ordinary way. Because of facts that were reported to me it was decided that he should be released from the armed forces. He was not released under a cloud; he was released.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the premier of Saskatchewan brought his case to my attention. Rightly or wrongly, not only did I review the case but I gave to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar the details of the information upon which a decision was made to release this young man.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the minister is under a misapprehension there.


Brooke Claxton: I have a strong recollection of it and I think as I give the facts the hon. member will recall that I did so. That information included a report which I had to accept that he had been an officer in the young communist party in 1938 and that while he had attended a Catholic college he had been released from that college for political activities. My recollection is that I told the hon. member both those facts.


Major James William Coldwell: Not the first fact.


Brooke Claxton: Perhaps my recollection is not correct. But we did discuss the matter. Subsequent to the hon. member making his representation I again had a special investigation made by the R.C.M.P. and by another means. On the reports, which I have mentioned, I could not do anything else but release this young man from the services. There was no finding of guilt.
I had the responsibility of deciding whether or not the circumstances were such that it was in the interests of the safety of the country that he be continued in a special kind of employment. It is interesting to note that about the time of his release this young man applied for employment with the national research council in similar work.
Here there was an honest division of opinion between the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and myself as to whether I should have acted on the information. I felt that I had to act. I did not like assuming that responsibility, but I did not see what else I could do. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the premier of Saskatchewan took a contrary view. There was that difference of opinion. As to how such a difference is to be resolved would involve matters far outside these estimates. The possible desirability of having some special machinery for review is a general question far outside the scope of the Department of National Defence. On the present basis of responsibility the minister must decide on the reports made to him.
I should say that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is completely correct in his assurance of complete fairness and disinterestedness and desire to serve the public good. This was shown when he brought another case to my attention and when I gave him the facts he was completely satisfied. Certainly he never brought it to my attention again.


Major James William Coldwell: I was quite satisfied.


Brooke Claxton: I assumed that that was the case. I thought that I had given the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar the information he wanted. In one case he was satisfied, in the other case he was not. But it was an honest difference of opinion and I do not see how else I could have acted.
Supply-National Defence Mr. Coldwell: The minister brings to my attention that this young man was at some time an officer in the communist party.


Brooke Claxton: In a communist group.


Major James William Coldwell: That is certainly news to me; that is something I was quite unaware of, and the minister could not have mentioned it. As far as political activities go, I think I know what they were. I believe they were in connection with the C.C.F. movement some years before. I do not think anyone can accuse our movement of having any relationship with the communist party. The fact is that this young man was expelled or threatened with expulsion from an institution which he was attending along with some other young men who had formed a C.C.F. group in the town; this was subsequently the subject of inquiry and, I believe, of disciplinary measures by the superior authority of the institution. I have correspondence to that effect with the superior authority and as a matter of fact was given permission to publish it, which I did in 1934, I think it was. If that is the incident-


Brooke Claxton: I do not know if that is the
incident.


Major James William Coldwell: That I think must be the
incident.


Mr. Stick:: Mr. Chairman, in taking part
in this discussion one is conscious of not having detailed information which for security reasons cannot be disclosed. One must therefore necessarily talk in general terms. That defence today is most important to democratic countries who would maintain their free way of life has been amply proven by event which have happened in many countries. General Eisenhower speaking recently in the United States has warned that if we wish to be free we must be strong. I quote:
General Eisenhower said last night that the United States has slashed her armaments below the danger point in a world that has not yet attained true peace.
And again:
But until true peace is attained, the soldier-president of Columbia university declared, weakness in the face of soviet strength is "well-nigh as criminal as war itself."
And again:
Plainly referring to Russia, Eisenhower declared that when even one power "builds and maintains a military machine beyond the recognized needs of reasonable security, a war of aggression remains a constant threat to peaceful nations."
And again:
"Let us not delude ourselves that, in 1950, establishment of real peace is merely a matter of 'very important personages' signing papers or 'talking tough' in Paris, Geneva, Washington or Tahiti-"

Supply-National Defence And again:
"No sane man will challenge under the present circumstances the need for defensive strength designed to secure against internal or external attack the independence and sovereignty of a free state," he added. "But the continued existence of even one purely defensive force-a force of which there is no apparent need based in the logic of self defence-denies enduring peace to the world.
Those who have spawned such a force must either eventually destroy it by demobilization and find justification for the heavy cost already laid upon their people; or use it, tacitly or actively, as a threat or as a weapon. There is no middle course."
It is sad to think that after two terrible wars fought for the preservation of our free way of life we have to spend $425 million or more this year on our armed services which could be spent much more profitably in developing our great natural resources for the betterment of the people of this country and of all mankind. To such a state has this world now come. Truly it can be said, "Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad." The honourable and gallant member for Nanaimo has spoken of the differences that exist in the higher command regarding which branch of the services needs priority of development. It is fitting that this should be brought to the attention of the house, and I do not propose to question the hon. member as to the source of his information. This difference of opinion amongst the higher command is not new. Those who have read military history know that such things have existed in all ages. In recent months we have had the spectacle of bitter differences of opinion between the United States navy and air force over which arm of the services will be most effective in modern warfare, and this wordy warfare still continues. It would be strange indeed if something of this struggle did not affect the thinking of Canada's higher command.
Therefore I am not unduly alarmed at such differences of opinion provided these officers are imbued with a high sense of their responsibilities, which I believe they possess, and their differences are animated by a sincere desire to serve the best interests of their country.
Since we evidently cannot develop all our services sufficiently to meet all our requirements, it may be necessary to give priority to one branch. This must be done by taking all the factors of defence into consideration. For myself I favour the air arm of the services for the following reasons: To those who have studied the lessons of the last war it must be evident that without air superiority armies are very seriously handicapped. It was the German command of the air that caused Poland to collapse so quickly. It was the same in the German break through
[Mr. Stick.l
to the channel ports. It was the German air force that captured Crete. It was this same force that prepared the way for the German armies in their advance into Russia, and it was only after the Russian air force became at least equal to the enemy air force that we saw the tide of war turn in that country. We would never have landed successfully in Normandy without command of the air, and it was that same superiority that made the break through possible.
It is the same story in sea warfare. It was the Japanese air force that first attacked Pearl Harbor and sank two of Britain's battleships in the China sea. It was the air arm that, unaided, found and crippled the Bismarck. The whole story of the United States naval victories in the Pacific is the story of the naval air arm destroying Japanese fleets almost single-handed. It was the air arm that played a large share in crushing the U-boat menace. I think I have said enough to show why our air force must be developed at all costs. Finally the lessons of Exercise Sweetbriar show that without proper air support you cannot fight successfully in the Arctic.
According to the latest reliable reports Russia has at least 300 modern submarines of the very latest design. When we consider that the Germans began the last war with about 60 submarines, and the great destruction they caused our shipping, the menace from this type of warfare becomes evident. That this is so recognized is demonstrated by the fact that the United States navy is pursuing antisubmarine measures with all possible speed and giving priority to them. We in Newfoundland know a good deal about what submarines can do. Our experience during the last war is not one we wish repeated. I am glad therefore to note that the Department of National Defence recognizes this danger and is building three ships specially designed for antisubmarine work.
It is pleasing to note that recruiting in Newfoundland is going ahead with excellent results. It is especially gratifying to know that the Royal Newfoundland Regiment has been reconstituted and incorporated into the Canadian reserve army. Without in any way boasting, but speaking purely from the record, I should like to tell the house that in Newfoundland we have some of the finest fighting material in the world, whether on sea, land, or in the air.
The times in which we live demand a strong defensive force, and if we are to maintain it in the highest degree of efficiency we have to Show our young men that we are solidly behind them in every reasonable way. One of the greatest soldiers of all ages laid

down as an axiom of war that morale is to the physical as three to one. If we are to carry out this great principle we must demonstrate our complete confidence in our armed forces. In this way we can do our part in building that morale which is so essential to any branch of the armed services. Finally I wish to say that the position Newfoundland holds is vital to the defence not only of Canada but of a large part of the North American continent. Canada must also play her part in that defence. Truly it can be said of Newfoundland, in the words of our national anthem, "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee".


Léon Balcer: In taking part in this debate I should like to limit my few remarks to the present policy of the department in relation to the naval service. During the last war the navy rendered tremendous service to the allied cause. For a while we had the third largest navy in the world, and we had what was then regarded as the best antisubmarine service in all the allied forces. At that time there were 90,000 men in the navy. They were well trained, and we had the equipment to do the job. It was strictly an antisubmarine navy. That was then regarded as the proper policy for the navy, and I think the situation has not changed much as we can see from the various press reports and other information we get about our potential enemy.
We see that at the present time Russia has more fast and well equipped submarines than Germany had before the last war. Therefore it is only natural that we should look to our navy from the point of view of antisubmarine defence, and that we should do everything to make sure that it is an effective weapon in that regard. Unfortunately I think we are not spending the taxpayers' money, so far as the navy is concerned, in the best way we could. At the present time we have one aircraft carrier. It is costing a lot of money for upkeep and necessitates a fleet air arm with proper training stations, equipment and aircraft which are very expensive, and most of which are obsolete. At the same time we have in operation, so far as A.S. ships are concerned, only seven destroyers and four frigates. When an aircraft carrier is at sea during wartime such a ship has to be escorted by destroyers. If there were a war tomorrow one of our coasts would be defended by an aircraft carrier with three or four or five destroyers escorting her. At the same time the other coast would be defended by four or five A.S. ships. A few Russian submarines could attack our shipping lanes, and even our harbours, without much difficulty. In my opinion the money
Supply-National Defence we are spending for a single aircraft carrier is not wisely spent, when one considers that for the same amount of money we could have more fast destroyers, and fast well-equipped A.S. ships, to fight submarines. These vessels could defend both the Atlantic and the Pacific coast lines at the same time, and we would not be in the position where a single torpedo could put half of our navy out of action. I believe this matter should be seriously studied by the department. I hope the minister will keep in mind the tremendous sum of money that has been spent for our single aircraft carrier, and I hope the navy will give careful consideration to these A.S. ships, which would be of vital importance if a war developed between Canada and Russia.
One other point I might draw to the attention of this house and the minister is that the parliamentary assistant to the minister replied to a question by the member for Nanaimo by stating that the cost of keeping up our single aircraft carrier in 1949 amounted to $2,940,000. For the two carrier groups, it amounted to $1,577,000, making a grand total for the carrier operation of $4,500,000. For the same amount I think Canada could maintain a fleet of fast and efficient antisubmarine ships which would give better protection to our shipping lanes.
One other point which strikes me, and I think this house should know about it, is that while the parliamentary assistant was giving this grand total for carrier operations of $4,500,000, the naval chief of staff was in Vancouver. According to a Canadian Press report he stated that the maintenance cost of the aircraft carrier H.M.C.S. Magnificent and the navy air arm was about $20 million per year. If the air arm is costing us $20 million, it could mean that we could afford to have even more A.S. ships than if the cost were the lower figure given by the parliamentary assistant, which was only about one-quarter of that mentioned by the chief of staff. We would still be able to do a more efficient job so far as the defence of Canada is concerned. If we decide to have these small A.S. ships, they can be built in Canada. In this way we could help our Canadian shipyards, which did such a tremendous amount of work during the last war, and which have been left high and dry since the end of the war. I believe it would be a good way to defend our coasts, and a good way to spend the taxpayers' money. It would also be a good way to help our Canadian shipyards.
These are a few of the remarks I wanted to make, and I hope the minister will explain to us why there is this apparent discrepancy

Supply-National Defence between the $4,500,000 that his department gave as the maintenance cost of our air arm, and the $20 million that the naval chief of staff says it is costing.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister one question? Under the recent decisions made at the North Atlantic council meeting in London, as indicated by the communique which the minister read to the house some time ago, a permanent deputy was to be chosen by Canada to attend the continued discussions of that council. Can the minister indicate who that permanent deputy is going to be, and, if he is not able to do that, when we may expect the appointment to be announced?


Brooke Claxton: That is really a matter for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but I can answer from my own knowledge that no selection has yet been made, and we do not know when one will be made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure the committee will appreciate that any member discussing national defence at' the present time can only do so on the basis of his own information, and it is extremely difficult to form any sound opinions in view of the extremely rapid changes which appear to be taking place in the over-all picture of defence policy, particularly with relation to the Atlantic pact conference in London. I am sure the minister will appreciate also that in the remarks which I, at any rate, will make this afternoon, although it is difficult to discuss matters of this kind and not to make a statement that at least appears dogmatic, whatever the result may be I am not trying to criticize his department but desire to secure an understanding of what our policy is. As I said, I do not wish to be critical, but I must say that I for one find it most difficult to get a clear picture of our defence policy, or whether any decision has yet been made as to the over-all constitution of our forces and the clear role which they are to fulfil, particularly with respect to joint Atlantic defence. It has not been made clear yet whether we are able to outline a policy of building up forces in accordance with a set design which is clearly formulated in the minds of defence officials. It is the answer to those questions which has been concerning me, and the questions which are raised by that consideration which I should like to discuss.
In approaching the matter this afternoon I s,hall confine my remarks mainly to an attempted analysis of the statements made from time to time by the minister and suggestions as to what it seems to me those statements mean, in the hope that if my analysis


is wrong the minister will correct me and that, in the process, we can get some indication of what our policy is. In his statement made on March 17 this year, when he introduced his estimates, the minister dealt first with the meetings of the Atlantic pact countries. At page 851 of Hansard he is reported to have made the following statement:
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.
Then he went on:
Since the Paris meetings, further action has been taken in the various regional groups.
As the minister himself pointed out in the course of the next few paragraphs, work in the north Atlantic group was being continued permanently and further meetings were taking place later that month. He himself left during the month of March for meetings of the military committee and the defence committee at The Hague on March 24, 27 and April 1 respectively. Those meetings were held subsequent to the minister's statement, and I should like to ask him whether he is able to tell us what has been done with reference to the four headings he gave us on which he said unanimous agreement has been reached.
As I read them, those four statements are merely over-all statements of policy. What I should like to know is whether the defence committee of the Atlantic pact nations has been able to agree on any concrete measures by means of which to apply its policy; and particularly I should like to know if the minister can tell us in at least a general way what has been done to implement the decision he has referred to under item 2, namely, the means to be taken to arrive at a program for the production and supply of armament and equipment. It certainly appears that one of the most important decisions to be taken and then to be implemented is on this question of the unification of our arms production program. If the minister was able to say in March that agreement had been reached at that time on the means to be taken to work out a program for the production and supply of armament and equipment, I hope that he can tell us now what steps have been taken as a result of that decision.
On several occasions the minister has told us in the house that Canada has not yet

accepted any formal commitment under the North Atlantic pact and therefore that he could not tell the house what was the role of our armed forces with respect to the pact. He has also, however, told us on several occasions the role of the various elements of our forces with regard to domestic defence. I hope that he can now perhaps carry the picture a little bit further forward and take us with him in telling us whether, as a result of those meetings at The Hague and the recent meetings in London, we are any closer to getting a picture of what is to be Canada's role under the integrated defence program of the Atlantic nations.
I refer there, of course, particularly to the communique issued after the London meeting and referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs the other day, when it was said that a decision had been arrived at to the effect that rather than each country of the pact having its own completely balanced forces of army, navy and air force, there should be joint balanced forces, with each of the member nations contributing that portion of the forces which its own position best qualified it to contribute. I am wondering therefore whether the minister can tell us whether any decision has been reached with respect to this country, as to what part of the joint Atlantic community defence forces will be Canada's main contribution. I use the phrase "defence forces". I realize that it might possibly be held that Canada's main contribution is not in the way of armed forces alone but rather in the way of armament, equipment and research. But I am using the phrase, in asking what contribution Canada is to make to the joint defence forces, I hope in a sense broad enough to include the question of armament production and research.
Coming to the question of immediate domestic defence, I should like to ask the minister whether he can give us any assurance or reassurance about what is being done to provide adequate defence for Canada's Pacific coast. The hon. member for Nanaimo -I realize that his opinion may not be fully shared by the minister, but I certainly do not hesitate to quote it as a qualified opinion- has stated in debate on this subject in recent years that there was a large defence gap on the Pacific coast, and that that defence gap consisted of Canada's British Columbia coast. I do not think that the point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo at that time was fully or completely answered by any of the statements made since. The remarks just made by the hon. member for Three Rivers seemed to me to reinforce the argument which the hon. member for Nanaimo had advanced
Supply-National Defence on previous occasions. In his statement on March 17 the minister gave us the present composition of our naval forces. This may be found at page 859 of Hansard. He stated:
In the R.C.N. we shall have in commission on the west coast the cruiser Ontario; the destroyers Atha-baskan, Cayuga and Siotix; the frigate Antigonish; the Algerine escort vessels Rockcliffe and Sault Ste. Marie; the auxiliary vessel CedarwoocL; 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 looking over that picture, it seems to me it is obvious that the naval force on the Atlantic coast is a much more integrated force-and I hope I shall not offend any of my friends of the navy because I realize that I am not familiar with naval terminology.


Brooke Claxton: You are doing very well.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems to me that it is a much more integrated task force, if that is the correct word, or potential task force than we have on the Pacific coast.
Again to refer to this question of antisubmarine work, my understanding of it is this, although I must confess it has been to some extent shaken at any rate by what the hon. member for Three Rivers has just said. My understanding of the current theory with respect to antisubmarine naval requirements was that the force was built largely around an aircraft carrier, and that the naval aircraft from this carrier did a large part, if not the main part, of the work of spotting the submarines which were to be destroyed. If I am at all correct in that understanding, it would seem to me that we have at least the elements of a composite antisubmarine task force in our Atlantic naval units, but we have not the necessary elements, or hardly any of the necessary elements, on the Pacific coast. Therefore I come back to the question, do we intend to close that gap with respect to our defences on the Pacific, to which the hon. member for Nanaimo referred?
In his review of our domestic defence program the minister did point out that we were doing very much indeed to integrate the active army brigade groups and the active air force training, particularly with respect to northern defence; that we had made great progress in that direction, as shown by Exercise Sweet-briar. Well, no one should in any sense suggest that we should pay less attention to that aspect of our defence program, but I hope I may be allowed to lay before the minister as strongly as I possibly can the suggestion that we on the Pacific coast certainly feel

Supply-National Defence that our defences in that region should not be neglected entirely as the result of an exclusive or over-emphatic concentration on northern and Arctic defences. I should like therefore to raise the question of the defence of our own installations in the Pacific area.
As the committee may know, the three main ammunition depots on the Pacific coast are in the vicinity of the city of Kamloops. We have the air force depot, the naval magazine depot and the army ordnance and ammunition depot. These are three very considerable establishments. The naval one particularly, I believe, is the largest of its kind in Canada. It does occur to me that in the event of hostilities these would be very likely targets of an attack on Canada. I should like the minister to indicate to us, if he can, without going further than he wishes for security reasons, as a part of the approach to the Pacific defence, what steps or plans are taken in the department for the defence of these three depots.
Dealing particularly with the role of the army in the domestic defence picture, the minister said, as it is reported on page 859 of Hansard of March 17:
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.
I am sure that all hon. members were very glad indeed to hear the minister report that progress made in the training and equipment of our brigade group; but I am reasonably confident that the minister will agree with me that, although this brigade group may be able, as he said, to fill the role which he himself laid down for it, namely, to provide the forces necessary to meet an immediate attack on our country any time and any place, yet it is not sufficient of itself to meet more than one initial attack, and that if the initial attack were multiplied, if it should come in more localities than one, then by its very nature a brigade group would not be able to deal with a diversified and sustained attack. Therefore I hope the minister will agree with me that in so far as Canada's own forces are concerned, to meet that type of attack

and I fully realize that in the event of a large-scale attack we will have to rely on, and would certainly receive the support of, the United States-in considering this problem from the viewpoint of Canada, it becomes obvious that in meeting, ourselves, any large-scale and diversified attack we do need a highly trained and immediately available reserve force in addition to that mobile permanent force brigade group.


Therefore I should like to refer to what the minister himself said on page 859 in analysing further the role of the army. He said:
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.
I would like the minister, if he can, to give us a statement on the state of preparation, the state of manning and training of the reserve army. This may be an exaggerated concept that I am about to put forward, but I think it is the sort of thing we should work toward. That is, that the reserve army should not be the type of reserve army we have had in the past, and I am in no sense attaching any blame to anybody in what I say here. The picture has changed. But I do not think the type of reserve army we have had in the past meets the requirements of today at all. I visualize our requirements as calling for a reserve force in which almost literally every man has his number and his place in the unit and, as it were, his place in the barracks, in stores, and has a rifle and complete equipment, so that the procedure of mobilizing a reserve army and of fielding at least an initial reserve force would not be one of six months but rather of six- I was going to say six weeks or six days- that within a matter of days we would know where each man was to complete a unit, and that each man would have his own equipment allocated so that the man and the equipment could be conjoined immediately and the forces fielded. I realize that is easy to say but difficult to accomplish. I realize too it may involve a higher degree of training for our reserve army, but I hope not a higher degree of training than I visualize.
I should like the minister to make a statement on the present status of the manning, training and equipment of our reserve army, and what program is in mind for bringing that reserve army up to that category of an immediately available field force.
I should like to refer to some of the implications, on the broader basis, of the statement made recently by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and in the communique issued following the Atlantic pact meetings in London. Here of course one does get very much into the realm of the uncertain. But the impact of these statements on the thinking of the people of this country has been very considerable. On the one hand, we hear some who suggest that what was done at the Atlantic pact meeting was not more than a

statement of broad general principles of no immediate application. But on the other hand there are those who say, and with a good deal of foundation for their statement, that the decisions taken at the Atlantic pact meeting involved an immediate and very substantial change, or necessity for a change, in our defence policy. If the committee will indulge me I should like to read at some length from a Canadian Press article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of June 7, the day following the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this house. The Canadian Press reporter says:
Atlantic pact arms developments in the next few years hold a strong possibility of working big changes in Canada's forces and in plans to send overseas a third expeditionary force mainly composed of infantry in any new war, informed quarters said today.
Within five years, they said, the use of massed infantry could easily be obsolete. Such military efforts as the tight, tough land battles in Italy and the D-day landings in Normandy would be ruled out by the violence of mass destruction weapons.
This trend is of obvious and vital importance in view of Russia's stress on land forces, her almost unlimited ability to reinforce them and her relative immaturity in the scientific and technical fields.
Then the article continues:
Defence officials here-
And this carries a dateline at Ottawa, June 6.
-said scientific advances now are moving towards push-button warfare at a pace which has defence headquarters constantly examining plans and revamping them.
Canada's plans to contribute are largely secret but may, it was learned, lead to loan of scientists, to work on guided missiles and rockets and to use of remote Canadian soil as ranges for testing those developed by Canada or her allies. Some secret projects now are on Ottawa drawing boards.
Then, skipping one or two paragraphs, the article continues:
Mr. Pearson said yesterday the pact's acceptance of the principle of balanced collective forces may mean new applications of scientific warfare and "abandonment of the old concept of defence by great masses of infantry . .
And later:
It doesn't mean that Canada would definitely not send another expeditionary force overseas. It does mean, however, that the proportion of infantry in any overseas force would be considerably less than before. In their stead would be the skilled technicians who handle rockets and missiles. The infantry division, as such, might vanish or be sharply altered.
The last paragraph states:
It is a "reasonable assumption," a reporter was told, that for the first time a new war would not be started the way the last one ended. The infantry's relative importance would drop and there would be a larger proportion of manpower dispatching mass destruction weapons.
Supply-National Defence
If one examines this in relation to the minister's statement of March 17, I think several questions arise. I am not suggesting that the statements in this article must be taken as a statement of defence policy, although I do point out that it is a Canadian Press article, refers to government sources and statements of defence officials, and that the article originates in Ottawa. On March 17, as reported at page 856 of Hansard, the minister said:
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.
One may recall that only a couple of years ago in discussions on defence matters it was indicated by the minister, and such other statements of defence policy as were made, that the thinking of the department was to the effect that we should not commit ourselves at the present time to any definite form of armed services, that is to say to any permanent division of effort as between the three services, nor should we commit ourselves to any permanent line of equipment for fear that we might embark upon programs which would be obsolete, or at least obsolescent in a couple of years, when perhaps an emergency might arise and we would need those forces and equipment.
When one remembers that that was the defence policy only two years ago-and I believe it was the same last year-then in the light of the statement to which I have just referred I think a very definite question arises as to what has brought about the change of policy, and the present policy in the department which places such great emphasis upon the expenditure of money for the acquisition of equipment as though- and I think this is the only inference that can be drawn-we have now decided what will be the design of our forces and what basic equipment-indeed,*in some cases what detailed equipment-we shall go in for.
I recall that only two years ago it was indicated that defence thinking was that there would be no war in the immediate future as a result of deliberate planning, that no country was contemplating waging a deliberate war, that we need not contemplate such an event for at least ten years, but that with the various tension spots around the world such as Berlin-it was the main one at that time, and perhaps still is-and with the various encroachments of communist imperialism in one country after another

Supply-National Defence new tensions might arise, that there might be an explosion and that a war might result more or less accidentally.
The theory was that such accidental war would be lought generally along the same lines as the one just concluded. There would be certain developments of certain techniques which would be carried to further perfection as a result of the last war, but that generally speaking such accidental war in the few years immediately ahead would be along the lines of the last one. It was urged therefore that we should not make too early a decision as to new techniques, new weapons and new formations which would form a permanent design for our defence forces. It was felt that their use would not be likely until the development of something more deliberate, and that such could not take place until some ten years in the future.
What has caused the change in emphasis? What has brought about the change in policy in the Department of National Defence which results in the emphasis now being placed upon the purchase of equipment? Let me point out that so definite was the earlier policy that we should not begin too soon to build up a permanent design for our forces and equipment that there was indeed a good deal of criticism. I am sure the minister is used to criticism, and that he is particularly used to it when it comes from the source from which I am now about to quote, But the point I wish to establish is that the policy to which I have been referring, a policy of wait and see, was so firmly established and maintained that considerable criticism resulted therefrom in the newspapers, in the press, and indeed in the House of Commons.
The Montreal Gazette, of March 17, 1948, carried an editorial in which it pointed out the danger of too rigid adherence to the policy of wait and see. This editorial is headed "Small But Efficient". I believe some of the principles laid down in the editorial are so sound that it might be well to place them before the committed at this time. Referring to the fact that in the view of this writer the insistence upon a policy of wait and see resulted in inefficiency in the design of our forces, because the men were not being equipped with what they should have, and because the very purpose and design of the forces was not clearly laid down, the writer had this to say:
This is not to say that the inefficiency of the forces comes about from their own failure to make the most of the opportunities that have been provided for them. But it does appear that they are not being furnished with every chance to attain true efficiency. For the only real test of efficiency in modern war is the adequacy of the new means to the new ends. It seems that since 1945 very few

new weapons have been provided to keep training in close relations with a rapidly developing reality. Some of the hesitation in providing the modern equipment would seem to come about from a chronic sense that something a little newer and better may be just around the comer. This feeling is well founded, as no weapon, however new, will ever remain unimproved.
Then continuing:
But the hesitation in providing modern equipment would seem to have deeper causes. There are evidences of a lack of decision as to just what purpose our armed forces are supposed to serve. Are we to have an offensive or a defensive force? Which of the three armed services is considered to be of paramount importance? Is our primary aim to defend our own borders from attack? With which of our allies is the co-ordination of our arms most important?
And finally:
The idea of a small and efficient force, if it is to be stated at all, could be stated as that of a "small but efficient force." The efficiency, in short, is the only justification of the smallness. There is no virtue or value in smallness as such. And yet there appears to be a very real danger that the smallness will be left to itself. And, from the figures, it seems that even that will be very small indeed.
I have read that to show that only two years ago the emphasis, in so far as it could be gathered from the statements by the minister and others in the defence department, was on "wait and see." The idea seemed to be that no deliberate war-if I may use that word-was likely for at least several years, perhaps up to ten, and therefore we should not go too fast in laying down a permanent design for our forces and adopting permanent equipment with which they would be finally armed.
Now the emphasis is all on bringing our requirements up to need, on equipping or catching up with the backlog of equipment for the forces which we have in existence. On several occasions in March the minister referred to the heavy proportion of our defence expenditures which was going to equipment, and I quote from page 852 of Hansard of March 17, 1950, where the minister is reported as follows:
The greatest shortage is equipment as other commitments have so far prevented much production in quantity. We appear-
I am adding the word "now":

now to be spending in proportion more on equipment than the other countries.
And then I quote from page 856 as follows:
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.

In other statements the minister has made reference to the fact that the reason why our defence spending is as heavy as it is now is in large part the fact we are spending so largely on equipment. 1 should like to ask now why there has been what can be described only as a change in policy. Is there any change in the approach of the department to the concept of our defence requirements or the dangers which we face and which make necessary this change in policy in so far as equipment is concerned? Are we closer to an actual threat than was thought to be the case only two years ago when the other policy was formulated?
There are just one or two particular matters I want to refer to before I conclude and these arise out of the fact that we are spending so heavily on equipment. The hon. member for Nanaimo has referred already to the dangers inherent in our heavy commitments with respect to the purchase and construction of the United States jet fighter, the F-86. On March 17 the hon. member made this statement as reported on page 863 of Hansard:
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 should 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.
The grave doubts cast by the hon. member for Nanaimo in his well-founded statement on the wisdom of equipping ourselves with F-86 machines has not yet been cleared up by the minister. In view of the current emphasis on uniformity in arms production it seems to me that those doubts are further accentuated, particularly when we understand that the United States now regard this particular jet as obsolete. Is Canada to be the only country using this fighter while the United Kingdom and other Atlantic pact countries, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Nanaimo, are adopting the use of the British Vampire and Venom machines, of which we already have the basic type here? It does seem to me that we are making a mistake in adopting the United States F-86 instead of using the up-to-date British jet fighters until our own are ready for delivery in Canada.
55946-214J
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: I think I should say at once that there is no truth in the report that the United States are dropping the F-86.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope the minister will deal with that.


Brooke Claxton: It was anticipated and dealt with before in the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope the minister will deal with it at some greater length after this general discussion is completed.


Brooke Claxton: The matter has already been covered, but I shall go into it again.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think so. The final
question I wish to raise is being raised at this time because it concerns large numbers of people in this country. First I should like the minister to state whether the Canadian war graves in Europe come under his department?


Brooke Claxton: They would be under defence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the permanent headstones and crosses of the graves of Canadian soldiers who died in the last war there is no reference to the unit to which they belonged. This matter has been referred to before in a question and answer on the order paper. I am sure that other hon. members as well as myself have received reports about this from former members of the forces who have visited the graves of relatives or friends, as well as from relatives of soldiers who are buried overseas. The Canadian graves seem to be the only ones where no mention of the unit is made on the headstone or cross. Some of these reports have been couched in quite strong language. I am not going to use the same language because it seems to me that this is a matter which is bound to cause distress to the relatives of those who are buried there. Therefore I think the more moderately one can discuss the matter the better. My feelings are very strong. I do not really see any justification or reason for the identity of the soldier not being preserved, and it is regarded by those who served in the units that their identity existed-I will not say was submerged-with that of the other members of the unit with whom they served. It is only proper and fitting that such identity should be preserved on the headstone memorial marking their last resting place. It is a matter which I know has caused grave distress to many of the relatives in Canada.
I make no apologies for bringing it up at this time although, as I say, I am going to deal with it in as moderate language as I can. Nevertheless I say to the minister that I feel very strongly about it, and I know I represent the views of many others who feel equally strongly that there is no good reason or justification for it, and that the policy

Supply-National Defence should be immediately reversed. Those who go to the burial grounds of Canadian soldiers overseas know so well the traditions, ideals, fortunes and adversities which their relatives shared with their fellow members of the same unit. The first question they ask is: Where are the members of the Edmonton regiment? They look for some reference to the regiment to assist them to find the burial place of their own relatives. It comes as a distinct and distressing shock to them to find that no reference to the unit is embodied on the memorial stones.
I think the minister should, and I hope he will, review the policy and change it so that the name of the unit may be carved on the headstones marking the last resting place of those Canadians who fought with and were proud of their units. A nominal roll by units of those who rest there should also be preserved in the records of the graves.


Mr. Dickey:: Perhaps first of all I might say to the minister that I am not one of those who agree with the point of view expressed earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres concerning the fleet air arm of the Royal Canadian Navy. It is true that the operation of our aircraft carrier and the fleet air arm generally is expensive. Looking at it from that point of view alone, it is perhaps not too difficult to conclude that there might be some justification for a reduction of the expenses involved in the operation of that service. I think, however, that point of view does not take into consideration the development of operations and policies in naval services throughout the world, and the particular role that the Canadian navy will be called upon to play in any future hostilities. In spite of the fact that it is expensive I think we must keep a naval air arm and provide it with adequate facilities and the necessary equipment and training to maintain it as an efficient fighting force.
Consideration of naval air policy brings me to the main reason for my saying anything this afternoon on the defence estimates. I wish to refer to a problem dealt with earlier by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the airport facilities at Eastern Passage, Halifax county. The airport at Eastern Passage is the main operational and training base for the fleet air arm, and is known as H.M.C.S. Shearwater. Everyone will fully appreciate that as a military base the Department of National Defence must see that it is an efficient operation, that its facilities are what are required for the immediate purposes of the service, and that its utility to the service is not unreasonably affected by any other consideration.


I should like to point out to the minister that ever since this airport was constructed at Eastern Passage as an air base for the R.C.A.F., it has also been used as the only civilian airport serving Halifax and the whole of the central section of the province of Nova Scotia. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of National Defence must take into consideration the use of that airport for civilian purposes ever since it was brought into operation. Turning for a moment to the use of the airport for military or naval purposes, I should like to point out to the minister that, while the airport may be suitable for the main use to which it is being put at the present time by the naval air service, the landing of carrier aircraft, it is an unavoidable conclusion that developments in military and naval aviation are going to be in the direction of heavier and larger planes. I think that the Department of National Defence must see the necessity of having facilities for a purely military or naval airport in the Halifax area which will be immediately able to accommodate exclusively military traffic of all types in the event of an emergency.
The fact is that the facilities of the Dartmouth air base are apparently not suitable now to carry present military traffic of the heaviest type, and, unless considerably improved, certainly will not be in a position to take care of the military traffic which it may be required to handle in an emergency within even a very few years. From the civilian point of view the airport is not capable now of accommodating civilian traffic of a heavy type, and in this field development is also bound to be towards the use of larger, heavier and more economical planes. I would submit to the minister that the Department of National Defence, from a purely military point of view, in the near future will have to make some provision in the immediate Halifax area for the accommodation of much heavier aircraft than are being used by the fleet air arm at the Eastern Passage base. The other departments of government should, at the same time, consider the provision of facilities of a civilian nature for the accommodation of heavy aircraft traffic.
I am going to ask the minister to give us an assurance that the request will be considered, which I have already made to him in correspondence, that the officers of his department consult with the officers of the Department of Transport, and if necessary the officers of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and investigate carefully the immediate and future requirements for airport facilities in the Halifax area. If these

requirements, both military and civilian, can be met by an extension or improvement of the facilities of the airport at Eastern Passage, and if such extension can be carried out and the airport's use for civilian traffic continued without unreasonably restricting the use of the airport for necessary military and naval purposes, then we request that his officers co-operate with the officers of the other departments concerned in carrying out such improvement and extension. If after careful consideration by all the departments concerned it is not felt that the extension or improvement of this airport at Eastern Passage could be carried out to conveniently provide the facilities that are required, then we ask the officers of his department to give any assistance which may be necessary to the other departments of government in providing additional facilities elsewhere.
The minister is aware that he and other ministers concerned have received a copy of a resolution adopted by the Halifax city council on May 26 last. This resolution, and other communications which have been received by the minister, indicate the importance of this question and the interest which is naturally being taken in it in the Halifax area. I hope the minister will be able to give me the assurance that I ask, and that the consultations which I have suggested to him in correspondence as well as on the floor of the house will take place with the greatest possible speed, so that the unsatisfactory situation which now exists will be dealt with adequately.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, hon. members in discussing these estimates have made a number of comments, and put forward a number of suggestions, and asked a number of questions which should be dealt with at this time. The nature of these would require considerable time to deal with in detail, because a good many of them involve questions of opinion concerning an appreciation of the present situation from a defence point of view, about which there are conflicting views. I should like to try to answer some of the points as briefly as possible.
In the first place, with regard to the effect of the announcement made following the London meeting of the council of the North Atlantic treaty, I think hon. members should read with care the statement made in the house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on June 5 of this year, which appears at page 3189 of Hansard. He was careful to indicate, in that part of the
Supply-National Defence statement dealing with defence, what the effect of it would be in so far as we could see. He said:
As far as this government is concerned, in our defence policy we have already accepted this principle and have been trying to relate our policy to the defence of an area rather than merely to the defence of a country. We have been going on that principle and we will gladly do what we can to continue its application.
Now that follows from the nature of the problem of Canadian defence, because our defence has never been envisaged as the defence of Canada alone but the defence of Canada as part of a continent, and indeed the defence of Canada as part of the defence of the western countries which would all be involved in the event of a war for our freedom. It is not envisaged that this principle of balanced forces, forces that will be balanced internationally, will have any immediate effect on our own defence planning or on our own defence program. It must be evident that the only immediate effect of great consequence would be in the case where the north Atlantic powers had a surplus of weapons or of personnel of any particular type. If they have a surplus over all, obviously it would be unwise for any country to begin to construct new equipment that would duplicate existing equipment which is considered adequate.
For example, and I only mention it as an example because this has not received consideration yet, take the case of battleships or cruisers. It is quite possible that the view of those responsible for north Atlantic planning may be that we have enough battleships and enough cruisers. If so it would not be in the interests of total defence of the area to go ahead with the construction of more battleships and more cruisers. That is of course an extreme example, but it is an example of the way in which this will work.
We regard this principle as of great importance, indeed it is implicit in the idea of collective defence principle. It makes sense. But we do not believe it will have any immediate or very considerable effect on our own defence forces, because our defence planning has envisaged the operation of our defences in conjunction with other nations at all times. While I assure hon. members who asked questions on this point that it is not expected it will have any immediate effect on our defence program, I add that we will be ready to sit down with the representatives of the other nations and consider what should be done to attain the best possible results. We will enter those discussions, as we have in the past, with a free mind and with a strong desire to secure the best possible result.

Supply-National Defence
Perhaps I might supplement this by another statement on the question of commitments. The position is just as I have stated it in the house time after time, that is that the undertakings we have made in the North Atlantic treaty, particularly those contained in articles 3 and 5, are of a political character. When my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to those as "commitments", I think the expression "commitment" is equivalent to the expression "undertaking". But when I was asked if we had any commitments, I was considering this question from the point of view of specific military commitments; and I told the house then, as I tell the committee now, that we have not. I am not too sure that the North Atlantic treaty organization will ever develop in a way in which there are specific military commitments. That remains to be seen. It remains to be worked out. But if there are to be specific military commitments, those commitments will be the ones which are agreed to by the government of Canada made known to the parliament of Canada. That is expressly provided for in the terms of the treaty itself.


Mr. Green:: Which article contains that provision?


Brooke Claxton: That we are to determine it
ourselves?


Howard Charles Green: No, by parliament.


Brooke Claxton: It is article 11, which refers to constitutional authorities of each country.
With regard to the development of this principle, as I say it is implicit in the very nature of collective defence and the concept of collective defence from the start. It grew out of our own meetings of the defence committee on April 1. A most significant statement on the subject was made by General Bradley in an address given before the executives club of Chicago on April 14, 1950, in which he definitely anticipated the nature of the decision with regard to balanced forces. I will not delay the committee by reading it, but it is an important statement indeed and one which I am sure will carry with it the judgment of all hon. members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where is it found? Where is it available?


Brooke Claxton: It appeared in the New York Times for the following day.
With regard to another allied subject which was raised by the hon. member for Kamloops, as to whether our emphasis on the acquisition of equipment has changed, I can assure him that any change there has been in that respect was envisaged at the time when I made the statement I made in the house on June 24,


1948, when I referred to some dangers in defence planning. I said that one danger is that the Soviet union, without any genuine change of attitude, may suddenly appear to be seeking co-operation which might result in a slackening of effort.
And I said that:
A second danger is that we should come to regard war as inevitable.
And also I said:
A third danger is that we should commit our future resources to expenditures, equipment and plans that will be out of date when needed.
In that statement I do not think any hon. member can find anything to cavil at for an instant. That was the only basis, as far as I know, for that "wait and see" editorial of the Montreal Gazette of March 17, 1948. I must say that that editorial and similar statements are typical examples of first distorting what I said and then criticizing me for the distortion. I think our attitude on this matter has been perfectly plain.
May I give an example. We have a large number of anti-aircraft guns in Canada. They are of the most modern type at the end of the last world war. They are still good guns. They could be modified with the addition of types of equipment at a cost of about $180,000 a gun. The question is:	Is that type of gun
going to be useful five years from now, and should we incur the expenditure of $180,000 a gun in respect of this particular weapon? That is a question of judgment on which we have got to take the advice of the experts in this and other countries. If we had at our disposal unlimited sums of money, then of course we should make the modernization just as soon as we could. But since our money is not unlimited by any manner of means, we have got to do the best we can with it. If now we believe that at the end of five years we may anticipate another means of effectively dealing with aircraft, then we have got to balance the pros and the cons and make the best decision we can.
Then with regard to the provision of aircraft and antisubmarine vessels, may I say that we did not proceed with the production of the CF-100 in 1948 and 1949 because the CF-100 had not yet been developed. We knew that it was in course of development. We had been working on it already for two years and we hoped that it would be a successful aircraft. As soon as it began to seem likely that it would be a successful aircraft, we placed an order for tooling, and a preproduction order; and we are now negotiating an order for a larger number of aircraft.
The same thing is true with regard to the F-86. We did not order the F-86 or start production on it because there were not

F-86's in 1947. But as soon as that aircraft had been tested and proved to be successful, we made the decision to go ahead with the production of 100 of them at Canadair Limited.
With regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo about this particular aircraft, I must say that the figures he gave as to its performance, when the matter came up in the house before, are not in accordance with the information we have. This is not an obsolete aircraft. I was in the United States not long ago and went with the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defence, the Hon. Louis Johnson, and saw a great demonstration of the air power of the United States at Eglin field in Florida. It is the air proving ground. There we were given a book of photographs of the different types of aircraft. Here we have one of the photographs with the caption:
The air force's B-36, giant intercontinental bomber, beating off an interception attempt by the crack F-86 Sabre.
Then over the page:
The North American F-86 "Sabre," first line operational fighter of USAF tactical fighter groups is paced by the North American B-45 "Tornado," jet fight bomber. The "Sabre," fully armed, holds the world's speed record of 670 plus.
This aircraft is the fastest aircraft in production known to us anywhere in the world. Far from being obsolete, it is the 'first-line aircraft in the United States. The rate of climb given by the hon. member for Nanaimo, when the matter came up before, was quite different from the actual rate of climb. Information about this is restricted in the United States, but I saw this aircraft and three others climb in a demonstration; and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that this one overtook the others as if they were virtually standing still.


Mr. Brooks:: Can the minister tell us what the others were? It is a matter of comparison. What were the other aircraft?


Brooke Claxton: I can give the hon. member the numbers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Were they propeller aircraft?


Brooke Claxton: They were the second and third fighter jets in the United States at the present time. With regard to the choice of the F-86 vis-a-vis the Vampire, I have already given the reasons for that in the house. We wanted to have an aircraft made in Canada that could be made according to North American specifications and produced in the event of an emergency here. It seemed to us to make sense that the capacity of the British plants to produce aircraft should be used in Britain and in the other countries
Supply-National Defence in Europe under the North Atlantic treaty. Further, the Vampire to which the hon. member for Nanaimo has referred, if there is one having anything like the specifications he mentions, is still not beyond the development stage. There is not even a prototype yet. We will have the F-86 in production in Canada according to North American standards and specifications before we could possibly obtain the Vampire to which the hon. member made reference.
The hon. member for Calgary East asked me a number of questions with which I should deal. He asked about the two fighter squadrons and whether they were up to strength. Yes, they are up to strength in personnel, and they are up to peacetime strength in respect of aircraft. Then he asked whether the brigade group was up to strength. I can tell him that it is at 80 per cent of the establishment. I might say, since the hon. member has expressed interest in it before, that at the present time we have more trained paratroopers in Canada than landed in the low countries in the German invasion in May, 1940.
Then the hon. member asked if the radar equipment we had was adequate and if the interceptor plans were adequate. I have already dealt with this question at some length in the house before, and pointed out that if we were to endeavour to have an air interception system on anything like the scale they had in England during the second world war we would be putting not only $425 million into defence, but a great deal more, and we would not be doing anything else.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just so there will be no
misunderstanding, I did not ask whether the radar net and so forth were adequate for our defence. As a matter of fact I specifically said that they were not. I admitted it was impossible to produce in this country a defence which was really adequate to the country; that all we could hope to achieve was what you might call a minimum necessity. What I asked was whether the minister's own statement of what was to be provided in the way of a radar net, fighter squadrons and so forth, had been met.


Brooke Claxton: I am very much obliged to the hon. member. I misunderstood him. We are making progress on it. We have a plan under which we will do a certain amount of construction of radar sites and equipment each year. We have on order, in the way of equipment of the latest and most powerful sets, equipment to the value of approximately

Supply-National Defence $25 million. We also have a considerable quantity of mobile equipment, which can be used in any locality at any time.
We are moving ahead with the organization of reserve air force radar units. There is a very successful one in Montreal, as the first, with a strength today of some 500. That is being spread throughout the province of Quebec, -with sub-units in Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Sherbrooke, Three Rivers and Quebec city. That will be followed by the establishment of similar units in Toronto, Vancouver, and in other places. We have acquired the building necessary for the unit at Vancouver, and the organization, of the unit will be proceeded with at a very early date.


Howard Charles Green: What building is that?


Brooke Claxton: It is a building formerly used as a club in the centre of the city.
The hon. member for Three Rivers asked about the justification for the Magnificent. He was rather opposed by his colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops, which just indicates-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, he was not opposed.


Brooke Claxton: I think the record will show that whereas the hon. member for Three Rivers questioned the desirability of having one aircraft carrier on the east coast, the hon. member for Kamloops endeavoured to make an argument in favour of having one on the west coast as well.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The record will not show that.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. member.
To answer the hon. member for Three Rivers, the justification for an aircraft carrier in a country like Canada of course is that an aircraft carrier is considered to be an essential weapon today for antisubmarine activities. Whether or not that will be so five or ten years from now remains to be seen, depending on the development of other types of equipment. At the present time I should think that certainly it is the view of everyone that aircraft carriers are necessary for use in connection with antisubmarine work. If that statement is accepted, as I think it should be, the question is, can we rely on having the use of an aircraft carrier from the United Kingdom or the United States on loan in order to enable us to do the training on our antisubmarine vessels. Our view is that since we had this aircraft carrier-it is the property of Britain-since we had a naval air arm established at the end of the last war, we would not be justified in making any radical change in the immediate future, but should carry on
[M*. Claxton.]
with the one aircraft carrier, watch the development of the art, keep up with it, and then if any alternative method of dealing with it, or if this concept of planned forces developed to a very great degree, then we might reconsider the position; but certainly so far as we can see ahead we mean to maintain the aircraft carrier.
With regard to the expenditures on it, the answer to the question put in the house related to the cost of operation of the aircraft carrier only. I think the hon. member mentioned the figure of $4,500,000. My recollection is that that is substantially the answer given. Then he referred to a statement credited to the chief of the naval services in Vancouver that it was costing $20 million. The chief of the naval services has told me that he did not make any such statement. The actual figure for the over-all cost of the operation of the aircraft carrier, including the maintenance of the base at Dartmouth and everything that should properly be included, is approximately $10 million a year.
We could, as has been suggested, operate a destroyer at a cost of $2 million or $2,500,000 a year, but it would not provide nearly the same training facilities for active and reserve personnel; and of course it would mean that we would not have the services of an aircraft carrier for training in antisubmarine work.


Léon Balcer: Which of the figures must we take? Which is the true figure? The minister said that the upkeep of an aircraft carrier, or its total operational cost, was $4,500,000. The minister then said that the chief of the naval services did not mean $20 million; what he meant was $10 million. There is still a difference of $5 million between the two figures.


Brooke Claxton: No; I am sorry. I did not make myself clear. The cost of the actual operation of the aircraft carrier and of the aircraft is $4,500,000. However, if you include major refits, new equipment and capital cost, it brings the cost of having the aircraft carrier up to $10 million per annum. But the cost of operation-that is fuel, oil, and stores -is $4,500,000.


Léon Balcer: What about this $20 million?


Brooke Claxton: No figure of $20 million was ever given.


Léon Balcer: What I read was a Canadian Press dispatch.


Brooke Claxton: It was mentioned in the press, but-


Léon Balcer: And there was another report in the Vancouver Herald of the same date saying that-
Vice Admiral Harold Taylor Grant, C.B.E., D.S.O., R.C.N., Chief of Naval Staff, said Thursday the Magnificent cost about 19 per cent of the navy's $83 million budget. He considered that a definite asset to Canadian naval training, and he also said it cost Canadians about $20 million annually to maintain the aircraft carrier Magnificent, and the navy's air arm.


Brooke Claxton: As I said, the chief of naval staff told me that he did not say that.


Léon Balcer: Both papers are wrong, then?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, or. else the chief of naval staff is wrong in his recollection. However, he told me that he did not give the figure of $20 million.
The hon. member for Calgary East asked for an explanation of the amounts I had given with respect to expenditures on the air force. The table which appeared in Hansard gives a figure of 40-6 per cent whereas in a statement later I mentioned a figure, he said, of 44-8 per cent. The reason for that is that in the second figure I was giving the proportion of the defence dollar spent for the navy, army and air force. That gives the result the hon. member mentioned. However, if you include pensions, grants, defence research and the like, and take them separately, as is done in this table, the result is 40-6 per cent. Pensions, grants, research and so on are applicable over the services roughly in proportion to the other expenditures.
The hon. member then asked as to the state of training in the reserve forces, and what the target was. The target is to have the reserve forces trained up to the standard of the active forces. That is being achieved with officers, N.C.O.'s and tradesmen. However, it takes considerable time, on the basis of present training, to bring the rank and file up to those standards. It is hoped that those standards would be achieved over a period of approximately three years.
As to the state of equipment: the reserve forces have more equipment than they have ever had before. There is adequate equipment of mo'dern types for all units-in fact, most units have more equipment than they have storage space in which to accommodate it.
I was asked about the state of recruiting. The hon. member for Calgary East referred to a statement I had made that recruiting did not need help. What was intended was acceleration. At that time the rate of recruiting in the active force-and I specified the active force-was quite satisfactory. It has been moving along in a satisfactory way for the last
Supply-National Defence three years. Recruiting for the reserve force has been good in recent months. We would like to see it continued and better. We have in the active force 47,000 and in the reserve force 49,000, so that it is increasing steadily. However, we would like to have another 4,000, or 5,000 just as soon as we can get them in the reserve force. I think that in proportion to population Canada has more men in the reserve force than has any other country in the commonwealth. As I have indicated time and again to hon. members, and also to others, we are exceedingly glad to get every possible help we can in recruiting. I have made appeals to that effect to hon. members, to branches of the Legion and to others.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to educational standards for the armed forces. We are in the position that at the present time we are getting men, at about the rate we want them, who have the very high standards we think we ought to get. If we accept men with lower standards we will have to give them in-service education, which will cost both personnel and money, and postpone their incorporation into the units in which they are to serve. It seems to us we should not seek to diminish the standards, but that we should endeavour to raise them as high as we can.
The hon. member for Calgary East expressed satisfaction with the procedure of having officers from North Atlantic treaty countries trained at our expense in the army and air force of Canada. I was glad to hear him say that. He said that the figures were small-only one hundred for the air force and one hundred and fifty for the army.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said "comparatively
small".


Brooke Claxton: Yes, comparatively small. Well, in comparison with the numbers actually being trained, particularly in the air services in other countries at the present time, those are quite satisfactory figures. He also asked how many men we had training abroad. We have as staff and students in service and training abroad 405 officers and men of the three services.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How is that split up?


Brooke Claxton: It is as follows:
Branch of service	Staff	Students
Navy			129
Army 			63
		42
Defence research board 			2
	169	236
This makes a grand total of 405.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What countries are those for?

Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: The United States, England and a number of other countries. These include officers and men serving abroad as well as training abroad, because if they are serving abroad they are usually developing useful experience as well as training.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does that include air attaches?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, there are seven or eight air, naval and military attaches. The hon. member for Calgary East asked about civil defence plans. I have already made a statement to the effect that we have completed a plan of organization at the federal level. I should explain that when General Worthington was appointed co-ordinator of civil defence we had him look into what has been done in the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries. Then he went about to discuss the matter with the provinces. Following that we worked out a basis for a plan with all the government departments concerned. At the request of the provinces General Worth-, ington put before them the results of that work. That part of the operation has just been completed but late in the summer or early in the autumn we propose to get together the representatives of the provinces in order to carry forward the organization at the provincial level. As we envisage civil defence we consider it largely a matter for co-operation of the closest kind with the provinces, and through them with the municipalities.
The hon. member for Cape Bteton South and the hon. member for Halifax referred to the airport at Dartmouth which at present is operated as a land base for the fleet air arm. The airport is quite adequate for that purpose but if aircraft heavier than 60,000 pounds are to land the runway strips would be damaged and major damage would be caused. There is an item in the estimates this year for the maintenance of the runways and we will endeavour to keep them in condition in order to maintain the existing use.
With regard to developing the airport or increasing its size and capacity, I shall be glad to discuss again with the representatives of the Department of Transport the possible desirability of increasing the capacity of the airport along the lines suggested by the senior member for Halifax, both today and in correspondence, and also by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
The defence of the Pacific was raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. I think it is axiomatic that a country like Canada can be defended only as part of the continent. It is obvious that we are in the fortunate position of being well to the east of lines of defence which include Japan and the islands to the south and the Hawaiian islands, and Alaska in the north. We are not in the same


exposed position in the Pacific as we are in the Atlantic. However, the approximate size of the fleets and their distribution are much the same. The concept of coastal defence by static means seems to be passing out. It is much more likely that goastal defence will be secured by the operation of aircraft that are largely shore-based, and by the use of amphibian aircraft. On that account we are keeping our hands on the base at Patricia Bay and the other airfields, and are maintaining the air force establishment at Vancouver.
The hon. member for Calgary East asked about the progress made in standardization. We have made great progress in the standardization of procedure and battle orders and the like with the United States and also with the United Kingdom and other countries of the western union. There is now a generally accepted system of communications and battle procedure which would enable the forces of the countries of the North Atlantic pact to operate together. As a matter of fact, as hon. members know, great progress was made in this respect by the end of the second world war and that progress has been continued since. We can operate, certainly without any difficulty, with the forces of either the United Kingdom or the United States. Exercise Sweetbriar showed clearly that the staffs and the communications systems and everything necessary to operate armed forces, even under the difficult conditions of the sub-Arctic, could work together very well. I think I have covered most of the points raised by hon. members. If not, I am sure they will bring them to my attention.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was one matter in connection with Pacific defence I should like to have cleared up. I did not say that we should have an aircraft carrier on the west coast. I was simply asking whether I was right in assuming that aircraft carriers were an integral part of the antisubmarine task force. I then went on to ask what would be done to bring the Pacific antisubmarine defence up to at least a par with the Atlantic. The minister indicated that they are part of such a task force and answered my question in part, but I should like him to deal with the matter of naval units on the Pacific coast.


Brooke Claxton: If we had more money to spend on defence and if we did not have to do other things that have greater priority I would like to have an aircraft carrier on the west coast as well, but, as has been indicated, that would cost $10 million a year and our view is that one is better than none.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is not a great part of your cost in maintaining shore establishments and

headquarters and could not a second carrier be maintained without duplicating entirely that expense?


Brooke Claxton: Our experience is that because of the geography of Canada there is a necessity to have the forces divided between the Pacific and the Atlantic. The overhead and operation in each case is separate and distinct. You must duplicate virtually every service. If Canada was fortunate in having only one major naval establishment we could reduce that overhead substantially, but as it is now we have to duplicate the dockyard machinery, equipment, personnel, stores, magazines and everything else on each coast. There is a considerable amount of duplication which is inevitable because of the geography of the country.
I shall look over my notes and if there is anything further I can deal with it at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr.   Coie@Malapedia-Malane: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I should like to refer to page 3237 of Hansard for Tuesday, June 6. The hon. member for Peel is reported as saying, in reference to myself:
He has no question of privilege; he is just trying to make another speech.
I am reported as having said:
I know, but I shall not be long.
What I said was-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did you say all that?


Mr. Cote (Malapedia-Malane):: -"I know it will hurt but I will not be long".


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-	.


Alcide Côté: Just a minute. Let me finish.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Gordon Graydon: I understand that the proceedings upon which the hon. member is about to comment were held when the Speaker was in the chair. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is not the time for the hon. member to raise his question of privilege.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The point of order is well taken.


Mr. Cole (Malapedia-Malane):: If it is well taken let me finish.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. It is a matter to be dealt with when the Speaker is in the chair and not in committee.
Supply-National Defence


Charles Delmar Coyle: Well, get the Speaker.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall item 202 carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


Brooke Claxton: I told the hon. member for
Calgary East that I would check my notes and answer all the points that he and other members of the opposition raised. In addition to the other points the hon. member mentioned before, he referred to the position of western Germany and Spain. Surely that is a matter for external affairs and one of general foreign policy. I can assure him that the status of western Germany and Spain are matters of great concern to the North Atlantic treaty nations and as he indicated himself they are thorny questions. I do not think he would wish me to express any view on them at this time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I said was that if the defence chiefs of our services had expressed any views on these matters I thought the committee should have the advantage of them.


Brooke Claxton: These are matters which concern not only ourselves but France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and all the other nations under the North Atlantic treaty. It would not be proper for me to express any views to the committee at this time with regard to the question raised by the hon. member. I do not think that would help the situation, which is one that has to be worked out over quite a long term in conjunction with our allies. As the hon. member indicated, they are "thorny" questions, and I am not in a position to make any further comment.
In the same passage of his remarks the hon. member referred to a new strategy to the effect that we should not simply attempt the liberation of the countries of western Europe after they have been overrun. I can assure him that there is nothing new in that. That has been the view of the countries of the western union since it was formed, of Benelux and of the North Atlantic treaty nations ever since their inception. There would not be very much point in the alliance of the countries of western Europe if it simply provided that after they were overrun by an aggressor they would subsequently be liberated by other countries.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is the first time it has been definitely stated.	.


Brooke Claxton: I do not know whether or not it was stated before in the communiques issued by the North Atlantic treaty powers, but certainly it has been implicit in the North

Supply-National Defence Atlantic treaty organization from start to finish that we would endeavour to organize and perfect a system of defence so that we can defend our freedom and that of the other countries with which we are associated in the best place to defend it, wherever that may be.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister permit a question on that point? I should like to refer to an article written for the London Observer and printed in the Globe and Mail of June 2. It is apropos of what is being discussed. The article reads in part:
It is impossible to overrate its importance.
The reference is to the importance of the decision made.
It commits America, Canada and Britain, no longer only to the rescue of Europe but to the defence of Europe.
I do not suppose it was ever consciously said that previously it was only for the rescue of Europe, but is it not correct, as has been repeatedly stated since the London decision, that this decision now brings it much nearer the realm of practical policy?


Brooke Claxton: I think it may be so that this is a decision on a question of principle which will help to assist the north Atlantic powers to achieve what was their object before. Nevertheless it was always their abject to defend each other. That is stated in the treaty, and one of the undertakings therein is to come to each other's defence if any one is attacked.
Then the hon. member for Calgary East asked what has been done with regard to the provision of tracked vehicles. I can tell him that work with regard to the development of tracked vehicles of a suitable type is being carried on in Canada at the Ford Motor Company and at Churchill. We are continuing to work on our own types of tracked vehicles, but we also hope that in consequence of the experiences of the exercise we will develop even better tracked vehicles in co-operation with the United States.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask if any increase has been made in the number of tracked vehicles provided to the active units of the permanent force?


Brooke Claxton: Not yet, no. We have tracked vehicles of the type I mentioned in my previous remarks on this subject available for issue if we should have an exercise of this type or .the opportunity to use them again.
The hon. member said that the disasters in Winnipeg and other places showed the need of civilian organization. I believe that is a matter for the provinces and municipalities

across Canada. But I can assure him that at no stage of the operations, either in Winnipeg, the Fraser valley, Rimouski or Cabano, was there any indication that there was any failure on the part of the federal government agencies, including the armed forces, to co-operate with the civilian authorities. We propose, in consequence of these experiences, to develop further the doctrine of aid to the civil power in the event of emergencies, which has I think admittedly worked so well in these cases, and also extend to the provinces and municipalities the result of our experience with regard to disasters of a civil character not related to an emergency of the nature of war. What we aim to do is co-operate with them, and work with them in every way possible.
Then the hon. member asked about progress with regard to United States-Canadian procurement. A statement was made about that in the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said that.


Brooke Claxton: Yes. It represents a very great step forward. In consequence of the announcement made in Washington that authority had been given to permit the procurement of $15 million to $25 million of defence equipment in Canada, we are endeavouring to negotiate with representatives of the United States to see how the matter can best be dealt with, and what items can best be made available.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I asked was, in a general way, what sort of equipment, material and so forth would be produced by Canada and sold to the United States; and what, in a general way, would be the type of thing the United States would produce and sell to us.


Brooke Claxton: That is one of the questions that have to be explored. There is hardly any type of equipment that Canada could make which has not already been produced by the. United States.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is one of the reasons I asked the question.


Brooke Claxton: On the other hand, there are many types of equipment which we could produce in Canada just as economically as they could be produced in the United States, provided we got an economic run to permit us to arrive at the lowest possible price. What those items will be depends on negotiations. We could, for example, produce any type of guns up to possibly the 105 in Canada just as economically as they will be produced in the United States, if those guns were required in large numbers. On the other hand, it might possibly be more economic for us to acquire heavier equipment, heavier motor vehicles,

from the United States. Our general aim is to achieve a rough kind of balance with regard to defence procurements from both countries. At the present time we have under purchase from the United States components of the F-86 totalling $11 million, plus a great deal of other equipment. We would like to see that figure balanced by similar United States purchases of equipment from Canada, but that is a matter of negotiation. The announcement made last week in the United States resulted from a considerable period of negotiation.
The hon. member referred to the total amount we were asked to vote, and said we were committing parliament to $625 million. The actual amount sought by these estimates is, of course, $425 million. No other cash appropriation is sought under these votes, but we do ask an additional current commitment authority for accounting purposes of $54,245,696, and then future commitment authority in respect of future years amounting to $144,181,470. That is in order to permit us, with some authority from parliament, to make long-term contracts for the production of aircraft, shipbuilding, electronic equipment and so on, which cannot be produced within the current fiscal year. That applies to a great range of defence equipment, even cloth and uniforms for the armed forces. The actual amount sought is $425 million.


Douglas Scott Harkness: To clarify that, does it mean that, including the vote for the research branch, we are being asked to make commitments for this year or future years of an extra $200 million, approximately?


Brooke Claxton: No, sir; the money that must be found for any commitment must be found out of each year's appropriation. On the other hand contractors would like to have some authority at least back of the contracts which we make with them extending beyond the current fiscal year; that is the effect of the future year's commitment authority. It enables us, for example, in the case of aircraft to undertake a program extending over a period of several years; but in respect of the payment to be made for each year, we must of course obtain appropriations from parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I had quite a long discussion with the minister last year over the appropriateness of having the future commitments included. I shall not go into that again at the moment. Nevertheless, I think he will agree that the general effect of these commitments, which he says are to enable him to place contracts more readily, is to make it appear that the present session of parliament has entered into commitments for approximately $200 million.
Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: That is always subject to the money being voted by parliament year by year. The appropriation for this year is $425 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then, what is the real need for them? Would any contractor refuse to fake a contract if you were not able to point out to him that you had this authority, as you say, for what it is worth? It is not worth much, if you can imagine an appropriation not being voted. When I first heard of these future commitments, I was rather impressed by them. The more I think of them, the less I am impressed by them as either proper or appropriate.


Brooke Claxton: With regard to the propriety, I can assure the hon. gentleman I did not introduce this practice. It was done in order that we might plan defence in a sensible way over a period of years, and so that the officials of the treasury department and finance department could see what would be involved in future years' commitments in respect of contracts undertaken this year. It strikes me that is a desirable thing to do. It does not obligate parliament later to vote the money, but it does indicate to the contractor that parliament is likely to vote the money. I have never heard of parliament refusing to vote money for such a purpose before.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what I was going to say. It seems to me it works against this.


Brooke Claxton: It seems to me it does put on the department the responsibility for planning its future commitments over a period of years. For example, in respect of the sum of $144,181,470, about $50 million odd is applicable to the year 1951-52; $41 million to the year 1952-53; $27 million to the year 1953-54; and $24 million to the year 1954-55. It therefore provides for an orderly way of defence planning in order to achieve treasury control.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I might just comment on that matter for a moment, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that a commitment of this sort either binds or it does not bind. If it does not bind, it is of no value whatever. If it does bind, it means that we are in effect voting a further $200 million, approximately. The minister evidently thinks that it has some value. If it has any value, it must have some value to bind us to make these commitments. In that event I think we have got to get back to the original point that I brought out and mentioned when I spoke this morning and immediately after the noon adjournment: that is that we are in effect this year voting about $625 million,

Supply-National Defence $425 million of which is to be spent immediately and the other $200 million of which we are to some extent, at any rate, bound to expend.


Brooke Claxton: In order to comply with the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, before we can have a contract we must have a commitment authority. In order that we may have a contract extending beyond the current fiscal year, we must have a commitment authority extending beyond the current fiscal year. The alternative to doing it this way,
I suggest, would be to make a contract, let us say, for ten aircraft in respect of 1950-51. We would then arrive at a price per aircraft that would be fantastic. Then towards the end of that year, as we got authority from parliament, through the appropriation, we would make a contract for another 50 aircraft to be produced in 1951-52, and so on. The proposal practice permits us to conform with the terms of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act and to make a forward commitment which will enable us to secure the advantage of a continuous run so as to secure an economic price. I understand this is also done in the Department of Public Works which is about the only other department having a similar problem.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not arguing with the minister as to whether the practice is valuable or whether it is not. On the basis of his explanation, it would appear that it was a valuable practice. Without studying it further, I cannot subscribe to it. Nevertheless, as I say, it would appear that that is the case. The basic point I think is this. Whether it is good practice or whether it is not, the practical effect of it is that we are in effect committing ourselves to expenditures of $625 million rather than $425 million by this action.


Brooke Claxton: But the hon. gentleman must be fair. In respect of the year 1950-51, the only commitment and the only money available for expenditure by the Department of National Defence is $425 million. In arriving at the size of the estimates for next year, as was done in the case of the estimates this year, we had to take account of our forward commitments that had been made previously as authorized by parliament. Parliament has full control over the cash; but it makes sense for us to be able to make a contract in respect of deliveries and possible payments beyond the current fiscal year. I suggest that is fundamental to defence procurement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I quite appreciate what the minister has said and I agree that the actual amount which it is estimated will be spent this year will be $425 million. There was


just one point that I do not think was quite correct. The minister said that is all that they can possibly spend. In item 202 this language is used: "to make commitments for the current year of $438,178,000", not $384 million as appears in the column on the right-hand side, and "commitments for future years of $141,123,670". As I read the thing, the department, if it wanted to, could spend not $384 million under this item but $438 million.


Brooke Claxton: No, sir. I am sorry, but the hon. gentleman is not right. All we can spend is the money voted by parliament; which is, $425 million. But in order to facilitate the work of the department and also to comply with the provisions of section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, we can make from moment to moment commitments up to an additional sum of $54,245,696.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is for this year?


Brooke Claxton: That is for this year. We can make commitments but we cannot spend anything more than $425 million. The reason for that is to permit us to deal with this kind of situation. In the preparation of the estimates of a department like Defence, every unit commander must provide let us say, for the fuel of his unit: coal, gasoline and so on. He puts in an item which will be, he estimates, sufficient to take care of anything that may be required. There is no extra factor included. There is nothing for contingencies. He puts down, however, a figure which he is reasonably certain will take care of the requirements of his unit for that year. If all the units put in figures on that basis, the average experience of the units will be less than the expectancy. If we did not have this additional commitment authority, around about the month of January or February we would not be able to make commitments against unencumbered funds in respect even of salaries, wages, pay and allowances, and food because of the necessity for each person ensuring that he has enough to get by with until the year is ended, irrespective of the actual experience that year. By this means, therefore, I think we can secure the greatest possible safety and also the greatest possible economy under the control of parliament over the total sum appropriated. Otherwise we would have a larger estimate to do the same work and an extremely large unexpended balance at the end of each year because of the nature of the defence operations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not been arguing here, Mr. Chairman, against the necessity of these things. I say they may be quite necessary. But as I understand the minister's explanation of this last point about this $54 million, the actual fact is that under this item

the department is able to incur debts of $54 million during the current year. In other words, they can run up bills, just the same as you and I might do at the grocery store. If we did not have enough money to pay our bill this month, we would have it run; and if we were still short of money next month, we would have it run during that month, and we would always be assuring the grocer that, come March 31, we would get the money and be able to pay him the amount of the bill. It seems to me that that is the position this $54 million is in. Under this item the department is given authority to run up a bill of $54 million which, of course, will be paid when we vote the estimates for the next year, 1951-52. Therefore the total effect is that in addition to voting this $384 million we are making a commitment to pay a further $54 million.


Brooke Claxton: No, I am sorry. We do not
incur liabilities toward the public in excess of the money made available by parliament. This is only done by seeking an extra appropriation by a supplementary estimate, but this is purely to conform with section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to enable a contract demand to be made in respect of things that are needed, despite the fact that other demands may have been made which will subsequently be found not to be necessary.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister himself used
the example of a unit commander running up a bill for fuel in January and February.


Brooke Claxton: No; these are estimates. We
build up our estimates on the basis of what each unit and service need. They are built up and they are criticized on every level and then they result in a total.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister used an
example of a unit commander running up a bill for fuel.


Brooke Claxton: No, not a bill, an estimate.
He makes an estimate of what fuel he will need in respect of the approaching fiscal year, and he must play safe, of course. He puts in the average amount that can be expected to be spent in that fiscal year. Our experience is that over the whole realm of the defence expenditures the amount of the estimates put in in that way is not actually expended because of the safety factor that each person puts in, even though there is nothing for contingencies. Therefore it is the way in which we carry out economies rather than the reverse.


Mr. Herridge:: I do not consider myself
qualified to make comments or criticize the technical application, distribution or use of defence funds. It is sufficient for me to say
Supply-National Defence that I have every confidence in the minister in the administration of his department; but I do rise, Mr. Chairman, because I was particularly interested in some remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar. I wish to draw to the minister's attention a case similar to the one he mentioned. While I may not be an expert on military matters, I think I am quite competent to raise my voice as a member of this house to defend the civil liberties of the soldier and the civilian.
On my return home from the last session of parliament I was told by several people in my constituency that there had been a visit from someone in the army to a certain district with respect to a man who had long service in the forces. The general gossip in the village was that he was going to be discharged because he was a member of or sympathetic to the Labour-Progressive party, or something of that sort. I understand that later this man was discharged, and his discharge certificate read:	"Not likely to become an efficient
soldier". Later, on protests being made, that certificate was altered so that there was no objection to the terms of the discharge. I want to bring to the minister's attention the facts of this case. This man served four years in the first world war; he served five years in the second world war; he served five years in the permanent forces after the second world war. Then his department discharged him as not likely to become an efficient soldier. I think that was most unfair to that man in view of the fact that unfortunate gossip was general around the village and it was completely unfounded.
If an official of the minister's department goes to a small village and visits the butcher, the baker and the gas station operator and tells them why he is there it takes only twenty-four hours for everyone in that district to know what he was there for. I rise on behalf of that man, who served his country well. Fortunately the mistake has been corrected, though of course there are still some people who think the former gossip had some foundation.
As a matter of fact, this man is altogether unpolitically minded. I do not think he would realize the essential difference between the policy of the Progressive Conservative party and the policy of the C.C.F. I wish he would. I have talked to him on several occasions without any effect. He is one of those members of the working class who still have a great deal of faith in Toryism.
I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the minister because I think great care must be taken to prevent that sort of thing being done by an indiscreet official who visits

Supply-National Defence a small village or community. I do hope that the greatest care will be taken in a case like this and in cases such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, where there are supposed grounds for suspicion. I realize the necessity for security and support every care being taken to protect our defence arrangements, but I do ask again that great care be taken in a case like this, particularly in small places, because these things are not easily forgotten, and in this case a grave injustice was done to a very decent chap indeed.
Before sitting down I want to mention to the minister that several representative groups in my riding and responsible individuals have suggested to me that I bring to the minister's attention the fact that they are particularly interested in some permanent plans for civil defence. It has been mentioned to me that even if a skeleton organization were established so that these men could be getting some training they could be used in such emergencies as flood disasters and fighting forest fires. Even if there were a skeleton group of some organization they would gain experience in training and all the rest of it, and they could be used in the local district to support the forest branch in the event of forest fires, and other emergencies.
I should also like to return to the matter with which I dealt yesterday, namely, the question of chaplains in the defence forces having commissions. The minister explained the situation very well, and I am quite satisfied with his explanation to me at that time; but I want to repeat that I have met a large number of men of the three forces, and a good many members of the major religious denominations in this country, and some of the clergy of all the major denominations, who have expressed to me the opinion that it is not in the best interests of the men in the armed forces, and not in the best interests of the church, for the chaplains to have commissioned rank.
I should like the minister to advise the committee what are the pay allowances and what cars are provided for the chaplains of the honorary ranks of colonel, major and captain.


Brooke Claxton: In reply to the hon. gentleman I can assure him that on the facts that he has disclosed to the committee it certainly was a very improper note to put on anyone's discharge certificate. If he will draw the case again to my attention-I think he has done it before-I will make sure that everything possible will be done to ensure that such action is not taken in the future.


With regard to the chaplains, they have no cars. They have the pay of their rank, which I can give it to the hon. gentleman if he so wishes. Whatever it is, it is the same pay as any other officer holding the same rank would get.


Mr. Drew:: I propose to have some other remarks to make, but there is one point I should like to clear up in regard to the section of the audit act that has been referred to. There has been constant reference to section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. I would ask the minister if that is not in error, and if it should not be section 39?


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


George Alexander Drew: It is section 29 in the printed estimates.


Brooke Claxton: I am rather inclined to think that the leader of opposition is correct. I shall check it up.


George Alexander Drew: Unless there has been an amendment of which I am not aware, section 29 refers to the appointment of the Auditor General, and nothing more, whereas section 39 is the section which refers to payment upon warrant by the minister, and appears to be the section to which reference is made in item 202.


Brooke Claxton: I shall send for the act and check it up.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations of a general nature. I am not going into any involved discussion on training or equipment. I got a lesson in that in the autumn of 1939, when the second war broke out, which I think will do me for the rest of my life. I was asked to go to a meeting of members of my old battery, and I found that they were terribly anxious to be allowed to do some training with the new units.
As I listened to them for a little while I began to laugh. They said, "What are you laughing at?" I said, "I am trying to imagine what you would have felt like in 1915 if you were told you were going to be taught by veterans of the South African war." I never made such a successful argument in my life. They dropped it like a hot potato, because they realized that our war in 1914-18 was several years further removed from the second war than our war from the South African war.
However, I should like to say something about the general situation. We are engaged here in the voting of hundreds of millions of dollars for defence. To me it is an astonishing thing that there should be comparatively little interest throughout the country in this matter. I go further and say it is astonishing that in a democracy apparently in peacetime we cannot prepare for either peace or war.

After the first war I was one of those-and they were regarded as rather a queer lot-who tried to do something for the League of Nations Society. But you could not get people interested in peace. They were bored with it then. They would not do any work about it. I think it is reasonable to say, looking back, that if people had been more keen about it something might have been done.
Today the difficulty is greater, and I have no doubt whatever that those who are trying to do work for the United Nations are having the same trouble as we had twenty years ago -and probably more. On the other hand it is extremely difficult to get people to be interested in the question of defence, as we understand it. It is for that reason I am on my feet this evening. I should like to make a few observations because I think that that is where this government and parliament comes in.
The fact that we had a report made to us a few days ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs raises the question as to whether we are not stepping into an entirely new phase in the matter of defence. I have one or two paragraphs I should like to read on the point. I wish to suggest that we think it is terribly important that the government somehow or other should let the people know about this. I do not know how they can do it, unless they let us know. If defence is going to be the private enterprise of the cabinet, and if the cabinet is not going to take the House of Commons into its confidence, then how much less will they be able to take the people into their confidence, and how much chance will the people have to realize the seriousness of the estimates which we are here about to discuss.
I should like to read briefly from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Friday, June 2, and, I have no doubt, in other newspapers. This is written by a responsible authority, although the author remains anonymous. It is headed "Defense of the West", and is written by "A Student of Europe". I take it that it is serious comment, because the article is a "special" to the London Observer and the Globe and Mail. First of all the writer says this:
Now the Atlantic treaty nations have "resolved by their united efforts, to build up a system of defense . . . capable of withstanding any external threat directed against any of them."
The article then states that there are two historic decisions, and he proceeds to set them out.
This is the first of the historic decisions taken by the Atlantic treaty council. It is impossible to overrate its importance. It commits America, Canada and Britain, no longer only to the rescue of Europe
Supply-National Defence but to the defense of Europe. It further commits them to build by "united efforts" with the western Europeans, a unified system of defense.
And one further thing I should like to read:
How will this Atlantic defense system have to be shaped to be effective? Some useful guidance can be had from a book which, by an odd coincidence, appeared on the very day of the Atlantic council's decision, Defense of the West, by Mr. Liddell Hart. He was writing long before that decision, and some parts of his book are outdated by it; but his main argument gains added pertinence.
Summarizing the rest of it he says, in effect, that it is not going to be numbers that count. He points out that a few German armoured divisions with 200,000 men overran the whole of Europe and defeated millions of opponents. He then goes on to make very definite suggestions as to changes in military preparation which are involved in the present situation.
The only reason for my bringing this up is that we have had differences of opinion as to how much information should be given to those of us in the opposition and, indeed, to private members on the government side. But I do suggest to the minister that if he desires, as I am sure he does desire, that the people throughout the country should take this matter seriously and understand the importance of it, then he has got to begin by taking it seriously in this House of Commons.
I should hope that he would bear in mind what has been said before to him, that it is quite impossible for members of parliament to make up their minds for themselves- and by that I mean, something more than just saying that the minister is a good fellow, and that everything is all right in his hands. It is easy enough to do that, but it does not enable us to know what is being done or to answer the questions we will be asked when we return to our constituencies.
There is another thing which the present method does not cover. I said to a newspaper friend of mine this afternoon, "Do you think there is any real interest in the matter of defence?" He said "People cannot be interested in millions". What he meant was people have to have something definite and practical in which to interest themselves.
I do suggest earnestly to the minister that, with this new situation before us, and with the new problems which have to be faced, the minister should consider-even reconsider-whether it is not possible that this House of Commons might be given much more information than it has been getting. I am not overlooking the question of security. No one but a fool wants things to be told that should not be told. But on the other hand no

Supply-National Defence one who is living in this world today can doubt that the great part of what we are doing is known to the Russians as well as it is to ourselves.
Of course we do talk much more frankly about these things than we did a few years ago. I think the minister should be more realistic in thinking about it and not merely back away from it, and give us what is inclined to be a service view. Years ago, during the first war when there was a question of information being given, a very responsible journalist commenting on this and on the withholding of information said, "We all know that there are many things which must not be told and we expect those things to be withheld. But, on the other hand, we can well imagine that there is a certain type of serviceman who says, 'What, the public wants to know? Well, damn them, they won't know' ". It is that kind of thing that we want to be protected against, both from the serviceman and, quite frankly, from our political associates.
I said I was going to be brief. I think I have covered all that I wanted to say. I take my seat saying this: We are being asked to spend-I will not haggle at the moment about a mere couple of hundred million; I will leave it at the lower figure-$425 million, which is quite a bunch of money. We in the opposition feel, and are entitled to feel, that unless we are taken into confidence more than we have been we cannot vote on this in an intelligent manner, by which I mean that we cannot make up our minds on direct evidence which is the only proper way for even semiintelligent people to make up their minds.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I should like very much to enable the hon. member for Greenwood to get the kind of information on which he can make up his mind; I should like to do that, but I just do not know how to do it. Day in and day out we have been subjected by the opposition to the charge of withholding information. Today some hon. members opposite said that we had held off presenting the estimates for the department of defence until the end of the session for some obscure purpose, which no doubt they were implying was a wrong one.
I want to tell this committee that I do not know of any information that has been withheld except that a year and a half ago when the hon. member for Calgary East asked for the strength of a parachute battalion which was trained and ready to face the enemy. I think that is the only specific question that I said I could not answer on security grounds, in addition to one or two others of a similar nature. On

the advice of my advisers I felt that it was not in the interests of our country to give to any prospective enemy the one bit of information he wanted. Apart from that, time has been spent unreasonably with the suggestion that we are withholding information, time that might have been better occupied in requesting information which I would have been glad to give.
With regard to the consideration of the estimates, may I say that in the years I have occupied this position, that is since the end of 1946, the discussion of the estimates of this department has not been curtailed by the lapse of time on any single occasion in any one of those years. It has ended when the questions that were put, which were not rhetorical questions but those seeking information, were answered and there were no more questions. I feel that this committee is entitled to get everything possible, and that has been my view right through. If there is anything that we can give that we have not given, tell us so that we can give it and not keep on saying that you have not information that you have never asked for.
Comparisons are frequently made, and properly so, between the practice in this house and that in Westminster. If hon. members will look at the debates of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom they will see that four days were set aside for the discussion of the defence estimates. They will see also that the discussion proceeded very much as it has this afternoon, with few inquiries for specific bits of information but a good deal of observation and suggestions, a good deal of puzzlement being indicated. That is all quite proper because these are puzzling and difficult times. But in the end the parliament at Westminster did not get anything like the quantity of information that is given to this parliament in respect to defence estimates. I do not try to justify our position because we have no position except to give everything that is reasonably possible. But I do say that when we are continually charged with refusing to give information when the information is not even asked for, then I think we ought to get on to the next question.
With regard to the observations of the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. -member for Calgary East and the hon. member for Kamloops, may I say that these are difficult times indeed. It is very difficult for us to know exactly what the next ten years will hold. We cannot report history until events have taken place. But the same difficulty occurs in every country. Our desire is to work together with those other countries in order that we may make the best possible use of the

resources put at our disposal by this parliament, speaking for the people of Canada, for the defence of our country, and not only of our country but of all countries with which we are allied.
I suggest that that is our object, and I am sure that that is the object of all members. I am sure that that is the desire of the people. Contrary to the views expressed by the hon. member for Greenwood I believe that the interest in defence has never been greater than it is today. I believe that the support for national defence throughout the country has never been greater than it is today. By reason of that support and by reason of that interest we are having very considerable success in the development of our reserve army as well as of our active forces. They are people of whom the Canadian people can well be proud.
I would be only too glad to deal with these questions in any way in which they can be dealt with properly according to our rules and in accordance with the decisions of this house, but I really must resent the continual suggestion that I am withholding information. If hon. members feel that I am doing that, then I assure them that it is for no other reason than that the uncertainties that are ahead cause one who is in a position of responsibility to be pretty cautious about his prophecies for the future.
If you look at the discussions in congress or in any of the other parliaments of the commonwealth you will see that there has been expressed exactly the same point of view as was expressed by the hon. member for Greenwood. I must say that I feel sympathy for his point of view, and I think he sympathizes with me in mine.


Mr. McLure:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make any lengthy remarks about defence, but I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Greenwood say a few moments ago that there was no interest in this country in the estimates now before the committee. I shall go a step further and say that there is very little interest in them in this house. Between 4.00 and 4.25 this afternoon I counted the number of members in the house. At that time there were 14 Liberals, 10 Progressive Conservatives, 2 C.C.F.'ers and 4 Social Crediters, a total of 30.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: How many committees were meeting at that time?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You will have your chance later on. That shows the amount of interest taken in these estimates. I was glad that the minister said that now we can get an answer to any question we like to put to him. I have
Supply-National Defence two or three questions concerning defence, and he can answer them very quickly. When his estimates were up a year ago I asked him at that time about the naval barracks to be built at Charlottetown, and I got a very interesting answer. He said that it was under consideration and I could look forward to seeing them built almost before I got home. I should like to ask him the same question again. In this vote of $384 million is there anything for the naval barracks at Charlottetown?
I also asked him a year ago about the armouries and he gave me the pleasing answer that it was under consideration. Charlottetown was the second place where armouries were to be built. Then a short time ago I asked the minister a question with reference to the bombing range off the north shore of Prince Edward Island. I had previously asked the Minister of Fisheries the same question because the interests of the fishermen of Queens county were involved. The Minister of Fisheries had no answer for me at the time but his parliamentary assistant gave an answer that did not answer the question in any way at all. About ten days later I asked the Minister of Defence the same question, and he said his answer was the same as that given by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries. That was nothing, so I had two nothings. I am asking the question once more because the fishermen of Queens county are nervous about the matter. They are wondering whether they will have a bombing range in the neighbourhood of their best fishing territory off the north shore of Prince Edward Island. Surely we can get some information whether it is going to be within the three-mile limit or outside the fourteen-mile limit.
If it is outside the fourteen-mile limit I would not have much to say about it. If it is just outside the three-mile limit it will be the ruination of the best fishing grounds on the north side of Prince Edward Island, which provides a living for a thousand families. I cannot see why they desire to have a bombing range there. Is it only because the R.C.A.F. unit want a range nearer to their base? There is a range off Chatham. It is marked as a danger zone, and it is only a few more miles for them to fly over there where they can conduct their bombing practice. I would like the minister to give a definite assurance to the fishermen of Queens county in Prince Edward Island as to where the bombing range is to be placed this coming summer.


Brooke Claxton: As to the naval barracks, as I told the hon. member, there are three places
3390	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence in Canada out of twenty-one naval reserve divisions where new barrack accommodation is needed. Charlottetown is one of them.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Good.


Brooke Claxton: As I told the hon. member
before, just as soon as we can reach Charlottetown in the order of priorities we will try to provide adequate accommodation there. In the meantime the naval reserve division has very good accommodation in Charlottetown. It so happens, however, that the provincial government, from which we lease it, wants it back, and we are anxious to accede to their desires as soon as possible. The need of the army for an armoury was also referred to by the hon. member. In proportion to the number involved the army needs more armouries than the navy needs barracks. We have acquired several armouries during the last year and commenced the construction of one new one. We are commencing the construction of several others. The last time I was at Charlottetown the impression I got was that for the short term Charlottetown is rather well off because the armoured unit had been moved out to the gun park and the other units were able to use the space left which they found ample. That is not a long term solution, but having regard to the needs of other places that appear to be greater it struck us that Charlottetown was in relatively good condition.
As to the bombing range, we are working with the Department of Fisheries and the people on the spot to try to secure an area which will be adequate for bombing and firing practice, and which will not destroy the best fishing territory off the maritime provinces.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Will it be within the three-mile limit or without the fourteen-mile limit? That is what they are anxious to know.


Brooke Claxton: We are working on that now. The hon. member for Kamloops raised a question of considerable interest and importance that I have not dealt with before, the matter of headstones on Canadian graves. I think it was first raised recently in an article in the Vancouver Sun and another article in the Victoria Times. It was raised first in the house by the hon. member for Nanaimo. Since then I have had it looked into, and it was found that in 1946, when arrangements for permanent headstones on Canadian graves were being made with the imperial war graves commission, instructions were given that resulted in infantry and armoured corps personnel being described in exactly the same way as members of the artillery, engineers, army service corps and other similar units, without reference to their


particular unit but with reference to their corps. The headstones would have the name, number, rank and the Canadian maple leaf. Then if they belonged to the Canadian infantry corps the headstones would have Canadian infantry corps on them in the same way as the artillery would be described as artillery. That was done before I took over this post. On the matter being raised again I have looked into it. I must say, having had a mixed service career in that I was in the artillery, like the leader of the opposition, and before that a member of an infantry unit, I can see both points of view. But I do think that the matter having been raised, and knowing the regimental traditions of the famous units of Canada, including the armoured corps-they are largely succeeding the cavalry-and the infantry, probably a considerable majority of the members of those units, and of their next of kin, would desire to see the names of the units put on the headstones. I found that a number of headstones have been erected with "Canadian Infantry Corps" or "Canadian Armoured Corps" on them, but pending further examination as to the possibility and desirability of what should be done I stopped further erection of headstones. We are actively exploring the possibility of having the names of the units of infantry and armoured corps put on the remaining headstones to be erected, and also replacing those already erected. At the present time that is certainly my own view, that it should be done; and that would be in accordance with the wishes of a great number of the men in the units and their dependents. That action has already been taken, and just as soon as we can secure a report on the situation from the imperial war graves commission, I shall make an announcement to the house. I hope it will be along the lines hon. members would like.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to express immediately, on behalf of all the members, and those who have brought up the matter with the members, their gratification at the sympathetic attitude shown by the minister to that request. I hope the report receives the kind of consideration 'which will enable the steps to be taken which the minister has indicated he personally favours, namely, the placing of the individual units of infantry or armoured corps on the headstones of the graves overseas.
I should like to refer to the statement just made by the minister to the effect that he feels there is not much justification for the criticism that information has been denied. My attitude towards that question is not so much that we say the minister refuses to answer questions when asked during the course of the discussion on his estimates, as

that we are not in a position, owing to the manner in which the estimates are discussed in the committee of the whole, to direct the questions which will elicit the key information we desire. This matter has been discussed before, and I am not going into the details again, but so far as I am concerned that is the gist of the complaint. It is not that if we ask some general question we do not get a general answer. We do. But it is extremely difficult if not impossible under the procedure which we have in the committee of the whole, without any background information, for us to ask those questions which will produce the information we really want concerning the basic defence policy considerations which result in these estimates before us. That side of the problem has not been dealt with by the minister in the statement he just made. I do not think it could be dealt with except by adopting the procedure we have suggested before, and which the minister knows we have in mind; but I shall not press that matter now in view of the earlier decision.
There are some questions which were asked today and which, in the light of the minister's reply, I should like to follow up. I refer particularly to the question concerning the effect on our defence policy of the decisions taken at the London meeting of the Atlantic pact nations. This afternoon the minister said there would be no immediate consequences on our defence planning or defence program. As I recall his words this afternoon in that respect, he said that the formal adoption of the principle of balanced forces would not have an immediate effect on Canadian defence planning, because we have always regarded the defence of Canada as a part of the defence of an area, and the defence particularly of the North American continent. Then he went on to say, with respect to the question of commitments which Canada had accepted under the North Atlantic treaty, that we had undertaken no military commitments. I believe he doubted whether the working out of the Atlantic treaty would involve the acceptance by various powers of military commitments. If we are going to confine the word "commitment" to the dictionary meaning, I suppose that would be an acceptable answer. But surely, Mr. Chairman, if, as we are given to understand, the theory on which the Atlantic powers are working is that there shall be a joint over-all scheme of defence under which one of the powers when attacked will be immediately assisted and defended by the others, that calls for an over-all military planning. Surely it calls for the creation of planning and the preparation, in the initial stages on paper and later I would hope in being, of a joint or composite defence
Supply-National Defence force. If we are to have that defence force which will be available under any one of a given number of circumstances to defend any one of the Atlantic nations which may be attacked, then surely the joint over-all military command must know which nations are going to furnish which part of the forces, at least in a general way. Even though we may say we are not going to accept military commitments in the technical sense of the word, surely we are going to indicate we are prepared to accept certain responsibilities with respect to our contribution to that joint force. It is that aspect of the matter about which we are seeking information. What is the basis of Canada's approach? Which element or elements of the joint force does Canada feel she can best furnish? Which elements do the other nations with which we have been in consultation, and which elements do the Atlantic defence committee, feel Canada should undertake to furnish with respect to that joint effort?
In referring to my suggestion that there had been a change in emphasis resulting apparently from a change in policy with respect to the acquisition of equipment, the minister said that there had been no change in emphasis. He answered the comments I made this afternoon by saying the editorial in the Montreal Gazette to Which I had referred was based on an inaccurate interpretation of one of his earlier statements. Mr. Chairman, I did not criticize, nor did I intend to imply any criticism of, the emphasis being placed on equipment. What I did say was that statements made in recent months to the effect that a heavy proportion of our defence expenditure was going towards equipment did indicate to me, on the basis of a comparison with earlier statements, that there had been a change. We are now, as a matter of policy, concentrating heavy expenditures on equipment, whereas earlier we had said, and the minister referred to the statement he made two years ago which I think substantiates it, that in this changing world we should not commit ourselves to any formal design for our forces, or any substantial commitment on equipment, because we might find when we needed it in an emergency we were saddled with equipment of an obsolete type.


Brooke Claxton: I have not said anything of the kind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is certainly my interpretation of the minister's own statement of 1948 which he himself referred to. I cannot see any other. As I recall the gist of his remarks at that time, he said that we should not undertake any heavy expenditures on equipment- and I am really just trying to interpret or paraphrase what the minister said. I hope he

Supply-National Defence will correct me if I am wrong. I hope he will explain what he did mean. As I understood him, he said we should not make any heavy outlays with respect to equipment which might result in our being equipped and armed with weapons which were obsolete at the time when an emergency arose and when we might require them.
I am afraid that I cannot be satisfied by the minister saying that he did not say that. He may not have said it in those words but certainly it seemed to me that was the implication of what he said in 1948. I ask the minister this direct question. Is there not an increasingly heavy emphasis being placed in this year's estimates and in the forecast for next year's estimates on the provision of equipment? And if it is a heavier emphasis than was placed on that aspect in 1948, what is the reason for the change in emphasis? Is there a change in value? Is there a new assessment of the situation which has brought about the increasingly heavy expenditure on equipment?


Brooke Claxton: I can answer that question quickly, Mr. Chairman. There is no change yet in plan, because what is being done now was envisaged then. What I said at the time, after pointing to several dangers, was that there is a danger of getting large stocks of equipment that will become obsolete. But I did not say that we were not going to get any equipment. What has happened is that we have been using up stocks of equipment that we had left over from the war, and we have to replace them. In addition, aircraft and antisubmarine vessels that we were planning to construct in 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953 were still in the design and development stage in 1947, 1948 and 1949. That is perfectly sensible, as the hon. member I am sure agrees.
I did not for a second suggest at that time that we should not require the equipment. But I would remind the house that in 1946 and 1947 it was not possible for us to spend all the appropriation that was voted by parliament at that time because of the rapid expansion of civilian industry and great need for civilian goods. At that time we felt that civilian needs took priority over military needs, particularly in view of the fact that we had considerable stocks left. But the next year that situation had eased and we moved into another period. We are now spending, as I say, 28 per cent on equipment. I should like to be spending more but I still think we are spending more proportionately than most of the other countries with which I am familiar.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister anything to say with reference to my further question about


our responsibilities under the Atlantic pact and how far the joint defence committee may have proceeded in dealing with the question of what countries are to furnish what elements of a joint or balanced force?


Brooke Claxton: There I cannot go beyond what I said before. Up to the present time we have an undertaking to do our best. That is What it amounts to. We are doing what we think it is right and proper for Canada to do at this time. It may be that circumstances will develop which might require us to do more. That would be for parliament to decide. But at the present time we feel that we are doing what we can.
With regard to this question of commitments, surely the hon. member and the committee recognize this fact. Staff planners may tote up a list of requirements in order to meet a possible act of attack or act of aggression in the year 1952 or 1953, showing a requirement for so many divisions, so many tanks, and so many aircraft. Then they look around to see where they can get them. That is a proper and necessary part of staff planning, and that is going on. But when it comes to the actual provision of what will be necessary or what can be done, that is a matter for each government to decide. But the Canadian government will only make decisions of that kind after consultation with our partners, and we will work together with them. We will only be able to implement any decision if we get the consent of parliament. In the United States and in the United Kingdom I have seen, on their records of congress and of parliament respectively, inquiries as to what their commitments were; and exactly the same answers have been given in both countries as I am giving now. We simply cannot anticipate decisions before they are arrived at.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I was really asking is perhaps answered. The planning under the Atlantic treaty, or the defence committee aspect of it, has not proceeded to that stage. That is the real meaning of the minister's answer, is it not?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, the members of the North Atlantic treaty organization met in three or four different committees. The council of foreign ministers met at London. The defence committee of defence ministers, met at The Hague, in Paris and at Washington. The military committee composed of the chiefs of staff have met similarly on three occasions. .We agree at the end of each meeting on a joint press communique and that is issued in consequence of each meeting. That is what is disclosed, and that gives the main gist of the result of the

meeting. II my hon. friend will look at the statements made by my opposite numbers, Mr. Shinwell in the United Kingdom, Mr. Pleven in France and Mr. Louis Johnson in the United States, he will see that the statements they make are on all fours, I believe, with the statement I am making about the present stage of defence planning of the North Atlantic treaty organization.


Mr. Jones:: The minister intimated that he would welcome specific inquiries for information. I should like to make a specific inquiry about the department's policy with regard to Vernon camp. Vernon camp represents an exceedingly heavy investment for the department. They put in a water system, a sewerage system, a first-class hospital and several excellent buildings including drill halls and everything else. All these buildings have apparently been abandoned by the department. In view of the ideal situation of this camp and the great use to which it was put in the first and second wars, and in view of the fact that both the ground, the climate and the surroundings are ideal for proper training, especially as it is in the interior of British Columbia, and is not as vulnerable as it would be on the prairies or at the coast, I feel that the department has neglected this camp, which is its own asset. I should like to ask the minister if he contemplates, in the increased estimates, making greater use of that camp on a permanent basis and bringing people from the various parts of Canada to be trained there. There are available there facilities for long-range fire, for commando training, for hill climbing, for tank training and for practically every mode of defence training. With the investment that we have represented there, I feel that some use should be made of that camp. I was wondering if the minister has that in mind.


Brooke Claxton: Vernon camp at the present time is certainly being used as a oadet camp. We are keeping up the buildings and are maintaining the camp. At the present time the general policy is that major units, particularly armoured, artillery and infantry, will go to very large camps, to large centres where there are very large ranges, for exercises during the summer months and also during the winter months. Generally speaking, the British Columbia units go to Wainwright, Alberta, where we have a magnificent exercise ground of something like a thousand square miles. That is the general practice. However, we have in mind the natural beauty and advantages of Vernon and there is no intention to give it up, but to keep it going. I will look into the question of further use.
Supply-National Defence


Owen Lewis Jones: Will consideration be given to the city of Vernon being used for exhibition purposes again?


Brooke Claxton: My information is that it is being used now as an army cadet camp.


Owen Lewis Jones: Not all, only part of it.


Brooke Claxton: We will look into it.


George Alexander Drew: I raised a question before in regard to this item, which is contained in vote 202. I believe that the minister now has the statute before him. I would ask him if it is not his opinion that it is section 39 that is referred to instead of section 29?


Brooke Claxton: No, it is section 29.


George Alexander Drew: Oh?


Brooke Claxton: The section as it appears in the Statutes of Canada, 1930-31, 21 George V, chapter 27 reads:
29. (1) No contract, agreement, or undertaking of any nature, involving a charge on the consolidated revenue fund, shall be entered into, or have any force or effect, unless the comptroller, or an officer of the Department of Finance designated by him and approved by the treasury board, shall have certified that there is a sufficient unencumbered balance available, out of the amount authorized by parliament for the particular service, to pay any commitments under such contract, agreement or undertaking which would, under the provisions thereof, come in course of payment during the fiscal year in which such contract, agreement or undertaking is made or entered into.
Section 39 reads:
39. The governor general may, for the more complete examination of the accounts of Canada, and for the reporting thereon to the House of Commons, appoint an officer, under the Great Seal of Canada, to be called the "Auditor General of Canada" and such officer may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund a salary at the rate of fifteen thousand dollars per annum.
That deals with another matter. I think some possible misunderstanding may have arisen since the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act was re-enacted in 1931 and the enumeration of the sections was completely changed. The section I have in mind is 29.


George Alexander Drew: If that is so then it of course does give strength to the point that was raised, because this would be quite meaningless unless the effect of the voting of 202 is to commit this parliament to expenditures beyond the figure that is indicated.
The effect of section 29, which the minister has just read, is that amounts caqnot be paid beyond the amount actually voted. The result of the wording of vote 202 is that such a limitation is removed, and consequently the whole commitment made by vote 202 becomes the commitment that this parliament approves. The word "commitment" is actually used, because vote 202 reads as follows:
To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services, and to authorize total com-
3394	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence mitments for this purpose of $579,301,670 including authority, notwithstanding sectipn 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.
I submit that the effect of that is perfectly clear. This parliament, by voting this item, makes a commitment of $579,301,670 under this item alone. Then under another item it makes a commitment of $27,983,161; under another item $316,120; under another item, $15,814,215; or a total of $623,415,166. The importance of that is this: Without in any way at the moment questioning the necessity of the amount, the fact remains that we are passing on that amount by this vote, and this vote is one of those votes which appear in a number of places in these estimates which do more than merely allocate money. I might say that that is the stated opinion of the treasury itself. This is one of these cases where the decision of the house to pass the vote carries with it authority to go beyond the amount of the item itself. That being so, we are dealing here with this very large sum. And far from anyone indicating any impatience if a good deal of caution and a great deal of interest is displayed in finding out what lies behind this very large sum of money, there should be an earnest effort on the part of every member on both sides of the house to find out exactly what this money is being spent for or will be spent for and what it will produce; because this is an expenditure on national defence in peacetime such as this country never contemplated in the past.
Whether this amount is required or is not depends entirely upon whether Canada is getting value for the money spent. I must say that the impatience of the minister with the remarks made by the hon. member for Greenwood was hardly in keeping with the actual situation. He said that day after day we hear the suggestion that information cannot be obtained. Day after day this has not been before us. It came before us once during this present session on March 17, and this is June 8. Since that time, when the minister made his statement-there was an opportunity to reply, and only for a limited part of the day at that-this now comes before us. It is my hope that the minister will carry out the offer that he has made, and give us details upon which we can fully discuss this whole subject.
Here we have one item covering $384 million. Then there are two other items I referred to. It is true that at the back of the book we get what are described as details. In the case of national defence these are not details at all. They are not details from


which any member of this house can draw any real information unless he is prepared to take the broad assurance that all is well in the best of all possible worlds as administered by the Minister of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Of course, it is a very happy thing to have that blissful measure of confidence which is based upon absence of any information.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: We know him better than you do.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who is doing everything else said that he knows it better than we do.


Walter Edward Harris: I said, "I know him better than you do".


George Alexander Drew: He knows him better. Consequently because he knows him better he is prepared to take a blanket assurance without any more knowledge than is contained in these statements. That is exactly what I suggest to every member of the House of Commons is something that must be very disturbing to the people of this country, because we are seeing here a commitment for the Department of National Defence alone for a figure larger than was asked for in any ordinary budget up to the years before the war for the requirements of Canada.
Perhaps that amount is required. But there are ways in which this information can be presented to us which would make it possible to discuss these estimates with some knowledge of the facts. The hon. member for Queens referred to a statement last year about a naval barracks. Mr. Chairman, it should not be necessary to bring up an item of that kind in a general way because, if hon. members will look at the estimates for the Department of Public Works, they will find that every item of that kind is covered in detail. One can find out exactly what the Department of Public Works intends to spend on public buildings in each community across this country. Hon. members can direct their questions to specific details in the estimates themselves.
There is no reason at all why these estimates of the Department of National Defence could not give that same information. Let us examine what is regarded as detail in this statement of estimates. For instance under "Navy", the general heading, we find this:
Acquisition, construction, purchase, maintenance, repairs, rentals and operating expenses of properties, $9,920,000.
Does any hon. member know what that means?


George James McIlraith: We all do.


George Alexander Drew: I imagine the answer that has
been given by the hon. member is a fair test of his contribution to the useful discussion of the house. There is no hon. member here who can draw any single piece of definite information from that general statement.
"Acquisition of property"-what does that mean? It means purchase of properties, and in other departments of government that information is set out in detail in a way that we can examine it. Then we pass one to the next item:
Personnel supplies and services: Food supplies, medical and dental supplies and services, clothing and personal equipment, barrack, camp, hospital and miscellaneous equipment, laundry and dry cleaning, $5,770,739.
Stores and equipment; signal and wireless stores, ammunition and bombs, armament stores, mechanical equipment, including transport and spare parts, acquisition, construction and repair and upkeep of ships and naval aircraft, naval and aircraft stores, $38,135,386.
That is the whole of the information we get in what are described as details in respect of the navy.


Alcide Côté: Unbelievable! Unbelievable!-that a former brass hat does not understand it!


George Alexander Drew: It seems to me that the mascot from the baseball game must have strayed in here unnoticed.


Charles Delmar Coyle: He is still
here for other purposes.


George Alexander Drew: The same type of detail is
available for the army and the air force. The situation is this-


Alcide Côté: And he is
not getting-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is the slightest chance that now or at any time in the future the hon. member who is making these unintelligible noises will make any useful contribution to this or any other debate. I am not going in any way to pay any attention to the comments he is making; and I would suggest that if he cannot understand what is being said he either keep quiet or go outside.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Oh, wait a
minute, wait a minute; Mr. Chairman, this is not a fascist organization. We are in a democratic organization. I do not agree that any man, even though he is the leader of a party that went down to defeat, should suggest anything of that sort-oh no!


George Alexander Drew: This is certainly a democracy and I was suggesting that the hon. member remember that it is a democracy and that he
Supply-National Defence should stop making noises of the kind he was making, and either listen or enjoy himself in some other way.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I can enjoy you.


George Alexander Drew: Then the hon. member will have an opportunity for some little time.
This afternoon the Minister of National Defence stated that the information we had received in regard to the effect of the recent meeting in London was going to have no immediate effect on our preparation for national defence. Well, I think it would be well to refer back to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said three days ago. Either his words were intended to convey some meaning, or they were not. I think hon. members gathered from those words, as the press of the country did, that there had been an important announcement which indicated a new concept of the relationship between the governments of the Atlantic area in dealing with this whole problem of the combined preservation of peace in the face of one threat, and one threat alone.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said on that occasion:
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, this is no less than the principle of the international division of labour to be applied amongst the members of the north Atlantic community for collective defence. We are now pledged-
Mark that word.
We are now pledged to do within the framework of the North Atlantic alliance what each of us has already been doing within our national defence system. We shall try to agree amongst ourselves which of us is the best able to concentrate on certain types of defence preparation.
This principle may come to mean the further application to defence, new techniques and tactics of scientific warfare: and eventually, possibly, to the abandonment of the old concept of defence by great masses of conscripted infantry, the bulk of which would be reservists called up on the outbreak of war.
That statement undoubtedly conveyed to the minds of many of us, as it very noticeably did to the editorial writers of a number of newspapers across the country, the idea that there was an intention here to allocate to each member nation a particular task that it could best perform in a combined military plan for the defence of our freedom. Then the minister went on to say:
In this planning allowance has to be made for the fact that certain states have commitments which are external to the north Atlantic area. Allowance has also to be made for the specially exposed position of some states to meet an initial attack.
And then the following words, it seems to me, presented to us a new idea of the role of different nations in relation to this pact.
3396	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
These were his words:
The acceptance of "balanced collective forces" does not of course imply a strategy by which less exposed countries, or at least countries less exposed to ground attack, can collect their resources of men and material behind the ramparts of sacrifices made by others so that eventual victory can be achieved. North Atlantic strategy cannot mean, and our agreement does not imply, a strategy of liberation after destruction and occupation. There could be no hope for Europe in that strategy because the next time there may well be nothing to liberate.
Then he went on further to say:
The new principle recognizes, if I may pick out a purely hypothetical example, the waste and futility of one country trying to build battleships, let us say, if there are enough of these already in the navies of other members of the group. This principle in its turn must rest on the firm assurance that the other battleships, if I may continue that example, will be at your service if you need them.
Those words are not open to doubt. Either the minister of external affairs meant that or he was misinterpreting the situation. When he suggested that other battleships be used, obviously he intended that to apply to aircraft and to every defence arrangement. He then went on to say:
Therefore I think, Mr. Speaker, that this decision in favour of balanced collective forces is of vital importance. Of course it is a decision of principle only. Many bridges will have to be crossed before its application can be worked out in practice.
I think what hon. members had hoped we would hear today was an explanation of how we are going to cross those bridges and when and how this country is going to play its part in that broad concept of balanced forces. Obviously what the minister of external affairs was saying was that this agreement means that we are not again going to be in the position of waiting while sacrifice at some distant point makes it possible for the nations less ready to prepare themselves to defend their freedom. I am simply interpreting in clear terms exactly what the minister of external affairs said-a very important declaration. He pointed out something that should be apparent to everyone today. Unless the nations which join in this are ready to use whatever force is necessary and to use it immediately, there may be no second chance.
Between 1914 and 1918, which is within the memory of many members in this chamber, the German onslaught was held by the sacrifice of the armies of France, of Great Britain, of Italy and of the other allies who were not fully prepared to meet that test. Human flesh and blood paid the price of that unpreparedness in desperate numbers, but nevertheless they were able to hold on those long lines of trenches. The United States came into the war in 1917 and then the combined strength of the free nations overcame the German power.


In the last war the striking power of Germany was infinitely greater in its relative strength. When the time came they turned on France and the low countries. Opposed as they were by highly trained and well equipped British troops, they broke that line in a matter of days, and in weeks Belgium, Holland and France had capitulated. That happened within a time that not one of us ever dreamed a great nation would be called upon to accept defeat. The thing that saved this country and other countries was the incredible miscalculation Hitler made when he turned on Russia, and when Japan attacked the United States and the combined forces of the United States and Russia were brought side by side with those of the nations of the free world. But at that time it was touch and go.
Today science has advanced hitting power to a far greater degree than was known then. The only defence of freedom that is going to be effective is defence that can be put into operation immediately it is required. I fully accept the proposition put forward by the Minister of National Defence that at all times this parliament must be supreme. I do not think anyone challenges that or would challenge that. But the fact remains that the words of the minister of external affairs were intended to convey only one thought, that there was a clear expectation that these nations would stand together and that the decision of one nation not to build battleships when another nation was building them meant that that other nation relied on the nation with the battleships using them.
If a nation relied on another nation to build aircraft and abstained from building them because of that, that abstention would be based on the belief that the nation with the aircraft would use them in the common purpose. If a nation which because of special industrial skill or facilities was able to produce the largest quantities of armoured vehicles and heavy land machines of war and concentrated on that production while others did not, those nations that had not those instruments of war would rely on their being used. The words of the minister of external affairs could have no other interpretation or meaning. In fact, there could be no other meaning behind this agreement which is now regarded as one of the historical documents of modern history.
If that is a correct interpretation then I think this committee must have heard with a great deal of concern as well as regret that we are not to be informed of any changes that are to be made in the organization of our defence forces in keeping with this allocation of special tasks.	,


An hon. Member:: Amen.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He is just agreeing with you.


George Alexander Drew: I must say that I am happy that I have won at least one convert and that I am receiving support at this stage from an hon. member who earlier was unconvinced. This country and the United States are separated from Europe by an ocean which offers us a great measure of protection, but that ocean which separates us from the continental areas also imposes real difficulties of transportation. That is one factor that must be recognized in the examination of this whole subject. In Europe west of the iron curtain there are over 200 million people, people who can provide and who obviously are ready to provide the armed masses which would stand against attack if it should come. What they would require in this allocation of tasks is that those nations which are some distance away should provide those powerful heavy forces which can move at great speed and in compact formation so that they can immediately support, if the dreadful necessity should ever arise, those land forces which are prepared to launch themselves against the land forces of the only enemy that could possibly threaten our freedom. Therefore it seems obvious that on this side of the Atlantic any development of this concept of balanced forces means that in this country we would concentrate on the air force and on fast hard-hitting armoured forces which could be quickly transported to Europe or to any other battlefield that might be found necessary as a result of events of this kind. There are always those who will suggest that when we actually contemplate the reality of these things we are talking in terms of war. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that in discussing it in this way we are talking in the only terms that will preserve peace. One thing that opens the possibility of war at any time is the belief in the minds of the aggressor that those who are strong enough to defend their freedom will nevertheless not stand together immediately to do that job as one combined defence team. The one thing that will preserve the peace for which so many men and women died a few years ago is the belief in the minds of those who direct the only aggressor force in the world today that all the forces of freedom will be immediately ranged against them if they should attempt the aggressive movement of their armed forces.
Unless we are prepared to talk in terms of what this means then we have no right to be dealing in dollars with figures of this kind. When in peacetime we are dealing in terms of $625 million in commitments we can only be dealing with that if we believe that war is a 55946-2154
Supply-National Defence danger, and that the only way we can hope to preserve peace is to make great expenditures of this kind. These expenditures are not for the purpose of having men and women in uniform. They are for the purpose of having men and women in uniform with equipment which will be effective in the event of their being required to use it. In this country today it is only necessary to ask how much of our armed force is in fact a hitting power in being and not simply a hitting power in preparation. Unless and until we have reached the point where whatever armed force we-maintain is ready to go into action immediately, then we are not actually carrying out our part of the joint agreement upon which the hope of peace now rests so greatly throughout the world, and that includes those on the other side of the iron curtain as well as ourselves.
In so far as the reserve army is concerned, the Minister of National Defence has spoken about the splendid spirit of those in the reserve forces, and that is something with which every single person will agree. In two world wars, and before that, Canadians have demonstrated that there are no finer fighting forces in the world when they have been trained and equipped to do the job which we hope will never be imposed upon Canadians again in our lifetime. Nevertheless when we look at the reserve army and the money that is to be spent on it we certainly should have a breakdown in these items, as between the active and reserve armies, a breakdown that is clear and understandable so that we can examine what is being done for the reserve army as well as for the active force. When it comes to the reserve army it is not enough simply to have figures of the enrolment in the reserve units. I for one want to know about the attendance at camp of the reserve units, and that is one of the details I propose to ask for. I want to know what the average attendance of the enrolment of the reserve units is, because without that we do not know what the figures mean. The mere entering of a name on the enrolment books does not tell us the story.
At the present time our infantry units, with their great traditions behind them, are carrying out exercises with as high a degree of realism as is possible under the limitations that they must face. Very frequently they carry out their exercises over week ends. They do their drills in the various armouries across the country, and they get their firing practice and other training in camps in varying degrees depending upon where they are. So it is with: the other units, but do not let anybody be: under the impression that they are gettingtraining which has brought them anywhere near the point that they could be put into the

Supply-National Defence field. For instance, take the case of the artillery. This is the sixth summer after V-E day, and yet in the sixth summer after victory in Europe no firing practice will be carried out at the artillery camps across the country because they have not yet reached the stage where that has become a practical possibility.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member will excuse me, but his information is not in accordance with the facts.


George Alexander Drew: I mean firing practice by units. There is firing practice where men go to camp and are permitted to take part in firing or to see firing, but that is not the same thing as firing in units.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry, but the hon. member's information is not correct. Units go to camp as units and have firing practice.


George Alexander Drew: As units?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: Under competitive firing?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: I will not enter into a debate about it. I will give the minister the information because I made inquiries about it only today. There is no need for us to exchange views on the matter because we can both satisfy ourselves in regard to the point. In so far as this training is concerned, it is not training that has reached the point where there would not be a very long time required to prepare these men for the field. The minister has said that the objective of the training is to bring them in conformity with the active forces as soon as possible, and that is a high objective. We have as fine men and women in uniform as anywhere in the world. On the grounds in front of the parliament buildings a few days ago most of those in this chamber saw the presentation of the colours to the Royal Canadian Air Force. They saw men in drill formation going through movements comparable with any they would see in the guards parade in London, or anywhere else in the world. Nevertheless, no matter how high a degree of skill may be shown in drill or anything of that kind, it does not meet the requirements unless we have those forces actually ready to take their part. I think it is essential that we know what percentage of the forces is immediately ready for active service if they should be called upon, and how many are in various stages of training, so that we who are called upon to vote the money may know what it is we are voting it for. After all, under our system of parliamentary government there is no single thing which so much tests the real functioning of our parliament as the exercise of full


control of expenditures. There is no single function of parliament over which parliament has so jealously exercised that control as over the expenditures for the armed forces. It will be recalled that it was the allocation of money for armed forces that began our present period of parliamentary responsibility several hundred years ago. Parliament is in duty bound to find out what the facts are, and in duty bound not to accept broad assurances, no matter what their regard may be for any minister or for those associated with him.
This country has great opportunities to economize, while at the same time greatly increasing its military strength. In this country there is an opportunity for training air forces, and training fast hard-hitting land forces as well. So far as armoured units are concerned, we have the space in which they can train; in which they can move over great distances and gain a sense of manoeuvrability which was such a decisive factor in the last war. It was no accident of circumstance that General Patton made that tremendous sweep up from Brittany, which had such an effect on the whole course of the war in Europe. His armoured forces had been training in the great spaces of the southern United States. They were accustomed to sweeping movement at a speed that had never been contemplated by those trained in restricted areas. In this country men could be trained in armoured vehicles to move hundreds or thousands of miles if necessary, with hard-hitting power and at the highest of speeds. It also affords a place to train air force personnel, not only our own but those who would be associated with us, and not only in combat formation, bombing and navigation, as well as in the naval defence service, but in all the combined operations which form part of the great air movements today. This continent is the place where fast-moving and hard-hitting forces, whether in the air or on the land, could be trained, in a way that they could be trained in no other country in the world. In case anyone says, why could they not be trained in Africa or South America or Australia, the answer is that on this continent we have these great training areas in close proximity to the great producing plants where the largest number of motor vehicles in the world are turned out each year. Consequently these opportunities present themselves not only for training our own forces, but for training fast-hitting forces in the air and on the land of the combined nations which met in London a short time ago.
I do hope that in dealing with this the Minister of National Defence will not take

with any spirit of resentment the suggestion that there could be improvement. We do not want to see a repetition of what we saw on two other occasions, when attempts to bring up questions about items in the estimates were immediately presented as votes of confidence, and consequently placed in the position where there could be no free consideration of those votes. Let us examine this with full recognition of the vital importance of the subject we are discussing. I do earnestly hope that the minister will indicate there is some intention of examining our present structure so that there can be a reallocation of forces in keeping with the statement of the minister of external affairs only three days ago. There is no reason at all to believe that substantial economies might not be effected if we really followed a plan of concentrating on those things for which we could best train the armed forces.
In so far as the estimates themselves are concerned, I shall close these remarks by indicating a way in which I think the Minister of National Defence could save a great deal of time. He pointed out that in Westminster they set aside four days for the consideration of the defence estimates. We have only had a part of two days, so even if we move as expeditiously as they do in Westminster we still have more than two days left to consider these estimates. What we must remember is that the British house considers the defence estimates in four days because those defence estimates have already been before a subcommittee on estimates, before which the senior staff officers have appeared and been examined on the expenditures. This subject, therefore, has been reviewed just in the way other matters have been reviewed. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence expressed great satisfaction with the result of a committee which met to examine the defence bills that were before the house. The committee had the staff officers before it, and made some amendments in the bill. As a result of this combined effort, legislation emerged which quickly passed through this house. The government has seen fit, however, to oppose the appointment of such a committee. Nevertheless, there are still ways in which time could be saved.
I would suggest that time could be saved if the minister would give instructions to have a statement prepared showing the number of units, active and reserve, of the army, navy and air force, divided into the different types of unit in each of those branches. In the case of the army, that would call for a statement of the number of infantry units; the number of artillery units; the number of
Supply-National Defence armoured units; the number of reconnaissance units, and the number of engineering units, in one column. Then there would be a statement of equipment which they should have, and in another column what they have; or if he will give it in terms of percentage even, that will be very helpful. In the case of the air force he should give the number of squadrons, fighter squadrons and bomber squadrons-no, we could leave that out. He could show the several types and the number of machines, and the personnel in each case. In the case of the navy, the ships and the personnel on those ships. Then, in relation to those divisions the expenditures to be devoted to each branch of the service during the present year, there should also be a statement showing the headquarters across this country, the personnel at each of the headquarters, and the amount that is being asked for the maintenance of those headquarters, the same as for the headquarters at Ottawa. Mr. Chairman, that would be in keeping with the type of information that is made available by other departments, and an examination of that would enable us to discuss these estimates with some knowledge of what is actually before us.
Then, in the case of buildings, there should be a statement prepared in exactly the same manner as that prepared by the Department of Public Works, showing the naval barracks at Charlottetown, if that is to be built this year; showing buildings of any kind that are to be erected in any part of this country. After all, these buildings are just as important as post offices and other buildings of that kind which are included in the details of the estimates by other departments.
Now, this information can be given. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is the kind of information we should have. It is certainly not more than we should have. From that we could then proceed to ask what the state of the training is of these various units, with knowledge of the type of units we are discussing; of the number of personnel involved; and why that money is required. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I conclude these remarks with the earnest suggestion that the minister state that he will do this, and that before we again consider these estimates that information will be before us.


Mr. Thomson:: Mr. Chairman, through
almost two sessions I have sat and listened, but tonight I feel that the time has come when one as inexperienced as I am in parliamentary matters should have something to say. I have listened to the oration of the leader of the opposition. It was an excellent oration on his concept of the art of war. I noticed throughout that he sought more and
3400	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence more information, as he did on March 14 of this year, when, as reported at page 762 of Hansard, he expressed himself in this manner:
That is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that makes it so utterly impossible for hon. members to have any confidence in the statements made here on national defence.	.
Later he said there was an attempt to mislead this house. He does better a little later on by saying that the Minister of National Defence has extended him every courtesy.
From my position I feel that there have been too many harsh things directed towards the Minister of National Defence. Over the years he has attempted to meet all questions frankly, patiently and thoroughly. To compare this department with the Department of Public Works is folly. It is not a department of public works. It is not a department of "public" anything. It is a department enmeshed in secrecy. If the leader of the opposition asks for more information, I might refer him to the Ottawa Morning Citizen of March 17, in which there is an editorial supporting to some degree, and maybe substantially, his claims for more information. That article reads in part as follows:
It is true that some opposition members, notably Mr. Drew himself, have not been conspicuously cautious in the use of confidential military information in the past.
That may sound like a reason why confidential military information is not forthcoming.
In one part of his speech tonight the leader of the opposition said "this great expenditure in peacetime". Later he said, "we are talking in terms of war." With the latter statement I agree. We cannot cry "peace, peace" when there is no peace. We are talking in terms of war. He made a reference to the war of 1914-18 and indicated unpreparedness. Do we know today how well prepared our enemies are? If we do not, then we are not giving them information to tell them how well or to what extent we are prepared. He expressed his concern and regret that we are not to be informed. I would say to him that we each have equal positions in this house; and speaking from here, we are content that we are not entirely informed. We are content to trust the people that have been given the mandate to run this country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are content to be a
rubber stamp.


Mr. Cavers:: So are you.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: We say that we are content with our government, and the people of Canada said so on June 27 last.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Forty-nine per cent.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: Do not let any member here try to back away from that fact.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Hurrah for our side.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: The cabinet was appointed after that, and then the cabinet appointed the defence board. Who make up the defence board? On it there is the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent), undeniably Canada's greatest Canadian today. Who else is on it? The vice-chairman is the Minister of National Defence to whom everyone can offer plaudits, praise and thanks. Who else? The Minister of Trade and Commerce. Let me say this. It must be agreed and it is agreed that no shoulders bore a greater burden in the heat of war than those of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. No greater Canadian came through that war; no more was done by any person than was done by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. With him on the defence board we have the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Their duty is to consider the needs of defence, pass it to the treasury board,, pass it to this house, bring it back and then control the expenditure. But that is not all. Behind this defence board are the committees of the cabinet, the deputy ministers of national defence and the chiefs of staff. These men are not doing this alone. Do not let it go out to Canada that the Minister of National Defence is solely responsible for this. The Minister of National Defence is supported by a retinue of advisers unequalled in the history of Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You are singing for leadership.


Harry Peter Cavers: You will get it.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: I would suggest that that might be my hon. friend's greatest worry.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not a bit. That is what we should like to see.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: There seems to be a concerted attack upon the minister. Tonight he almost in a pleading way asked them to go on. He tried to show that he was ready and willing to answer in a constructive way or to listen to any constructive suggestions. But constantly he was plagued and held up to seeming ridicule. We can look at our Minister of National Defence and I think it can safely be said that from the services he is receiving great satisfaction, including loyal support from the officers and men of the three services. It might be a minor satisfaction to be abused in a manner similar to the way his predecessor was abused. Scripture was quoted the other day and I believe it can be quoted again:

"For so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." I do not want the minister to feel badly and to think that he is the only one that has been persecuted. Others have been persecuted before him. We can go back to March 1940 and quote the words of the Toronto Star.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: In his speech on March 16 the leader of the opposition is quoted as saying:
I do not intend to waste any time on what Mr. Rogers says, however. That dyspeptic little son of Mars has been a standing joke in every military camp since he was appointed defence minister last September.
What do we find after that? The said late lamented Mr. Rogers, within ten days after that, held the biggest majority in the history of his political career and was returned with a majority of 2,134 to this house; and the Liberal party was returned with a majority of 67 seats, up to that date the largest in history. As I say, they did persecute those prophets that went before our present minister; because on October 6, 1944, the leader of the opposition is reported as follows:
Referring to the reinforcement situation he charged Colonel Ralston with bearing "the heaviest load of guilt for this shameless situation", and described recent statements made by the Department of National Defence as "the most contemptible of all the contemptible excuses invented by guilty men to hide their guilt."
Referring to Colonel Ralston he said, "Because of his bravery in action, and because of the stand he took at that time, he has been trusted and he has betrayed that trust."


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Tell us why Ralston resigned.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: I say that these two men served Canada in war and in peace and they became targets of similar abuse.
Then we came to 1945. The leader of the opposition described General McNaughton as the most pitiful figure in public life, and in the general election of June 11 the government was again returned.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: What happened to General McNaughton?


Walter Cunningham Thomson: General McNaughton is still regarded as one of Canada's greatest Canadians.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: They did not regard him as such at the polls. He never was elected.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: If the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) will just pause for a moment I have a few more pearls to cast. During the election of 1949 the leader of the opposition honoured Mr. Claxton with attention in speeches on May 9, May 18 and June 25. Mr. Claxton was flattered to have the opposition party spend $33,000 in attempting to defeat
Supply-National Defence him, the biggest amount returned for any candidate in the election. The results of the election of 1949 gave us the biggest majority in the history of the country and gave Mr. Claxton a majority of 9,193, the biggest majority in the history of his constituency. You would think that possibly the opposition-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is this a political soap box, or a committee on national defence?


An hon. Member:: You can't take it.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: I would suggest to the hon. member that if he does not wish to act in a democratic manner he could take the advice of his own leader and go outside.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I asked a question and the hon. member does not seem to be able to answer it.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: You had the floor once, and you can have it again. It is all yours; I am not worrying about you.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Quote something else from the Star.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: I would be happy to quote things from anywhere that you gentlemen might suggest, but I cannot find anything in your favour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Address the Chair.


Walter Cunningham Thomson: I say that we are fortunate in having the defence committee as constituted and the cabinet as such, which have made disclosures to an extent greater than any other country in the world. Can we disclose things that may be taken by the enemy, or must we distrust everything? There must be trust in this House of Commons; there must be faith in the elected party, in the party that has been given the mandate to serve the people. Nothing can be better and nothing can be stronger than this. We have been given this trust. We have appointed our proper officers, our proper cabinet, and we will give an accounting of our stewardship. I have not attempted to revile the leader of the opposition. I have merely quoted his own words. I have only told you what he said about defence ministers of the past.
I would not suggest that we should lose him. We want him to remain with us. We feel that if he goes we will lose one of our best political friends. I hope that he stays forever, because we will then use the new residence of the Prime Minister for a long long time.
We want to know whether or not the defence minister is answering these questions properly. The majority of the house says yes, and we contend that the majority rules. I suggest that we get along with these

Supply-National Defence estimates, stop this nonsense and this constant picking away at a man and asking for things without suggesting anything.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Higgins:: I rather hesitate to take part in the pleasure of this debate at the present time because of what the last speaker has said. He has rather taken the attitude that you had better be careful or you may lose your head.
So far as I can see no time has been wasted. I have been sitting here throughout the day and to my mind at least the debate has been productive of some good. So far as I know no nasty words have been used. I did not see any need for the last oration we have had. So far as I am concerned it was entirely political.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Weak applause.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: We have not so many rubber stamps.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I merely have a few questions to ask the minister, but I should like to preface these questions by a comment with respect to the statement made by the Minister of Finance in the introduction of his budget. At that time he commented on the fact that Newfoundland was going to be a net burden on the federal treasury for many years. That was a most unfortunate remark so far as the people of that province were concerned. I am sure the present minister will agree with me that, if for no other reason than the strategic position of the island, that in itself would be of sufficient importance not to have made a statement of that kind.
Dealing with the strategic position of the island, there is the question of the Gander airport, and the very urgent necessity, I would say, of the lengthening of the runway. That is a big international airport. It is not from the point of view of the civilian use that I am speaking tonight, but it is the use by large transport planes and large bombing planes that are in existence today. This airport is now unable to handle these planes safely. The runways will have to be very considerably extended for that purpose. From the information I received from the Minister of Transport I judged that it is not contemplated that the runways will be extended immediately. It strikes me, Mr. Chairman, that this is a matter which Should be taken into consideration because of what I read in

a newspaper clipping. I grant the clipping is two months old. It deals with an interview with a Russian major who apparently escaped. He talked about manoeuvres which were held last fall in the Arctic by some
80,000	Russians. The exact words that he used in the interview are these:
In the manoeuvres held late last fall, all maps and charts were duplicates of similar territory in Canada. The exercises were based upon the theory that simultaneous attacks were being conducted against twelve Canadian centres.
If this statement is true, and this article gives the name of the individual and everything, it would appear as though we were not too far away from the necessity of having all our airports in condition to handle the heavy bombers of today.
The minister might also think of the Torbay airport which was used so extensively in the last war by the R.C.A.F. The runways there, generally speaking, are unable to accommodate safely the large bombers. The other item is in connection with the reserve units now being formed in Newfoundland. From the return I was given, as it is set out at page 1569 of Hansard, the total strength of the regular army in Newfoundland is 52, consisting of 9 officers and 43 men. There are two reserve regiments now being formed. I am told in connection with the training of these reserves that there are no instructors available, and that the only personnel there capable of giving instruction are headquarters staff. I do not know whether that is so now, but that was the position in the middle of March when I was given the information. If that condition has not changed I do submit that some personnel qualified for that purpose should be sent there.
I do not believe at present they have enough men to do the training. I do not know what happened in connection with the naval installation. Last session when I mentioned this to the minister I believe he told me they were taking over some 22 naval installations and contemplated putting some in service. The minister can reassure us as to the situation. I believe he said at that time that the installation at Bay Bulls was going to be left in private hands.
The other point is that at the airport at Gander, and I presume also at Torbay, there is nothing in the way of protection. I am dealing with this matter perhaps in an amateurish way, because I do not know very much about it. However, it appears to me it might be wise to have at least a small mobile force there used to the terrain and the whole countryside. I do not know whether that is practical or not. I understand that it would not be practical to have

large forces in all places where there might be attack, but I should think it would not be too difficult or too expensive at a vulnerable airport to have a highly trained mobile force. I pass that along for what it is worth.


Brooke Claxton: Replying to the hon. member for St. John's East, as he knows, the question of Gander airport comes within the Department of Transport, because it operates that airfield. My recollection of the runways, from having been there, is that they are considered quite adequate for any present-day use, and that they are in good condition.	-
We have no present intention of enlarging or extending the runways at Torbay. The main Royal Canadian Air Force installation in that part of the world is at Goose Bay, where we have one of the greatest airports, built entirely by Canada, and with long and first class runways. There, in addition to the Canadian air force, there is a considerable strength of the United States air force.
On the island itself there are three United States bases, one at Fort Pepperell, one at Argentia, which is a joint air and naval base, and one at Harmon field, which is an air base. I feel that in the interest of a balanced collective force we should not add to the number of existing major airfields in Newfoundland at the present time. They are adequate for all the needs we can see ahead.
With regard to the defence of the field at Gander, the observations of the hon. member made on the same point in November were taken into consideration, and I discussed this question again with my advisers. Generally speaking it is not considered that the installation of a unit even as small as a company would be justified for that purpose at that place.
With regard to the other defence forces, the 52 in the regular army consist of staff, administrative and training officers and also supply services. It is not planned to increase those numbers in any considerable degree. The staff is considered to be quite adequate for the job. They will provide administrative and training staffs for the units, and I believe they will be found to be quite adequate.
In connection with the organization of units, as will be remembered, we established H.M.C.S. Cabot as a unit of the naval reserve. It had a strength on April 26 of 70 officers and men, including a very considerable number of officers in the neighbourhood of St. John's who served with the Canadian navy during the war. We also have 20 cadets at Memorial university who have entered the University Naval Training Division, and there have been established three units of the reserve army, 55946-216
Supply-National Defence consisting of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the 166th Field Regiment of the R.C.A. and the 56th Independent Field Squadron of the R.C.E. These were organized in January 1950. We have already very encouraging enrolments of officers, non-commissioned officers and men. This indicates that what the hon. member has said about the good spirit in Newfoundland is quite true. We are getting recruits there in considerable numbers and of good quality, and we hope before the end of this year to have these three army units and the navy unit organized on a sound footing. This is the first time that there will be any reserve navy or army units in existence in Newfoundland. I understand that neither prior to the first war nor in between the first and second wars were there any reserve units there. This represents a very considerable advance.
This work of organization has been greatly facilitated by the encouragement of former officers. I met them myself in St. John's on July 1 last, and I also met representatives of the municipalities and industries and Legion branches at Corner Brook and Grand Falls, where we are putting up armouries. When they are completed, as I expect they will be at an early date, we expect that there will be sub-units of these units established there, in a healthy condition.
We have established a permanent headquarters at Buckmaster's field with adequate buildings for all services. We have a cadet corps, a C.O.T.C. unit in connection with the university, and we have also recruited officers and men for the active force. Altogether Newfoundland has responded very well indeed to the appeals made.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I wish to make only a few remarks. We have listened to the debate today with much interest and have heard practically every subject discussed, from the chaplain service to the general defence of Canada. So far as chaplain service is concerned, I agree entirely with what the minister said, that the chaplains should have officer rank. I .have had some experience with chaplains in my army experience, and I am sure that the minister's idea is absolutely correct. There is no reason why the chaplain service should not be treated the same as the medical or the dental service. I used to think that it would be a good idea if chaplains had a little more military training because possibly the sloppiest salutes you saw in the army were those given by some chaplains.


An hon. Member:: How about route
marches?

Supply-National Defence


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They usually did that. A good chaplain looked after his men and provided sports and so on, which is another reason why he should have a higher rank than that of an N.C.O.
I do not think the minister should feel too badly over the criticism there has been of his estimates. I think he must admit that both inside and outside the house there is support for his estimates. But we would like to know what the money is being spent for. I do not think anyone is suggesting that the estimates should be reduced. I can remember before the last war when the estimates amounted to only $30 million or $40 million, but there would be long debates and many hon. members seemed anxious to have the estimates not passed. There were members who belonged to the government side, the same government that is in power now, who asked to have the estimates reduced to $1. I think the Minister of National Defence has practically 100 per cent support. He can hardly complain if there is an interest shown in his estimates and if members want to know just why the estimates are to be passed.
In 1939, before the last war there was considerable isolationism in this country which is not to be found today. As far as defence is concerned I think the people from one end of Canada to the other feel that there is a necessity for the defence of this country. Both before the first great war and the second great war we perhaps felt we could rely on Great Britain and the British navy, but that is not the case today. A great deal has been said about the possibility of Canada being attacked should war start. I was interested in reading an article not so long ago which was dated in January of this year. The article stated that considerable attention is being given in the European press to the observation of Brigadier X, that in a future war the first soviet blow would be dealt against Canada. The article refers to another article in a Netherlands daily which stated that Canada would be the objective of a soviet invasion. It was stated that the military experts of the United States and Canada have good reason to realize the danger of a soviet invasion of the North American continent and that recently the Canadian people were faced with this hard reality by an article in The Ensign by Brigadier X.
We in Canada along with the United States are responsible for the defence of the
North American continent. That is probably the chief obligation of Canada. I was sorry I was not in the chamber this afternoon when Exercise Sweetbriar was being discussed. We must ask ourselves what is the situation as far as the defence of the northern part of this continent is concerned. We are only a short distance from Asia and we are told that in Siberia there are 25 million Russians. That country has the same area as Alaska, which along with the northern part of Canada supports a population of only one million. We are told also that Russia retains about twenty divisions in the northern Siberia country. This gives us some idea of just what danger there is should Russia decide to attack from that quarter.
It also impresses upon Canada the necessity of training for defence in the north country. We know that this was realized by the Department of National Defence and the defence council because they have trained men in northern Canada along with the United States forces. Some 5,000 spent a few weeks in northern Canada last year and they came through their short training quite well. I understand that many things were learned by the defence departments of Canada and the United States and the minister might well tell us some of the lessons that were learned with regard to defence in the north.
We hear that the Russians are training the natives of the Aleutian islands and the Eskimos in Russia for scout duties and to act as glacier outpost patrols. When the minister speaks later I should like him to state whether Canada, and possibly the United States along with Canada, is making any attempt to train the Eskimo or those who live in the northern sections of Canada and Alaska.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we will go into supply and continue with the estimates of national defence, citizenship and immigration and public works.


Howard Charles Green: In that order?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 9, 1950