1950-09-05

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask a question of the Minister of Finance? Is he yet in a position to tell the house whether or not any taxation changes will be proposed during the present session?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I expect that I shall have some proposals to make to the house when we move to go into committee of ways and means.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is consideration being given to the introduction of an amendment to the Criminal Code to provide for chemical tests and the like being allowed as evidence in connection with drunken driving charges?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: We have one of the senior members of our staff considering this whole matter. He is not only going into it at considerable length himself, but he will also confer personally with the various proper officers of the provincial attorneys general departments in order to bring back a completely definitive statement on the whole matter. It is not possible that this statement will be back at the present session.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Word has been received from the west coast which indicates that the salmon fishing on the Fraser river has been closed indefinitely. Would the Minister of Fisheries like to make a statement at this time?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The sockeye salmon fishery is under the jurisdiction of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, and they are the people who would issue any such order. I did not understand that it was an order closing the salmon fishing indefinitely. However, I cannot give the hon. member a definite answer at the moment. Yesterday was a holiday; today we are endeavouring to get the information from our office in Vancouver. I shall give the hon. member a complete answer later, either today or tomorrow morning.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, September 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Charles Cannon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was coming to the point ini my remarks where I hoped to deal with the plea that we have made for a defence committee.
The responsibility of the private member in this house to his constituents is twofold. First, his responsibility is to see that the money voted) by this parliament is properly expended. But in the matter of defence he has a far greater responsibility, that of seeing to it that this country is properly defended.
The minister has a responsibility to the cabinet. Under our parliamentary system the decisions of the cabinet must be endorsed by the minister. Whether they may be right or wrong, it is his duty to approve and back them up. That is the principle of cabinet solidarity, and it is one of the parliamentary keystones of our democratic system. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the minister may or may not be right; the cabinet may or may not be right. On the question of defence the house is of course the final arbiter. In. the past there have been debates on defence in which we have been given less than scientific or accurate information. When defence was being considered on June 9 last, practically the only detailed information given us was a list of personnel at national

The Address-Mr. Adamson defence headquarters. The debate on that day started off on a high plane, but degenerated into something approaching a riot when a famous quotation from Shakespeare's Kinig Lear was used-hardly a useful or objective way of dealing with national defence.
I suggest that if we had the chief of the general staff, or the vice chief of the general staff, along with other experts, appearing before a select committee on national defence, we would be given factual information by those officers, instead of answers from the minister which he felt he must give to maintain the principle of cabinet solidarity. The responsibility for the decisions must in the final analysis be that of members of the House of Commons, particularly those who have served in the armed forces.
The question as to the regular Canadian army being solely an airborne army, a sort of agile home guard, would be the sort of question discussed. There are probably good reasons for it, but as yet they have not been stated in this debate. This would involve the policy of the present administration. Perhaps that policy is correct, but what are the alternatives? Was any consideration given to the formation of a force of ground troops, or having them in being should there be an outbreak of war? That question must have been discussed at some level, and the pros and cons investigated. Then there is the question of armour, the size of tanks and guns, and whether we are going to use the British or American tanks. These are some of the things the house should be told, and they should be discussed now. We should know whether we are going to use the United States Patton or the United Kingdom Centurion tank. These are not matters which should be decided hurriedly in an emergency, or concerning which snap decisions can be given, because that might involve giving wrong decisions. They are matters requiring careful consideration, and, may I add, consideration not in the political atmosphere of the House of Commons-although it is the final arbiter-tout rather in the technical atmosphere of a committee of the house.
During the summer, in company with other hon. members, I attended a demonstration of firepower at the Petawawa camp. When I asked why the main armour in the tank was not fired I was told that the ammunition was so old that it would be dangerous to use it. It seems to me utterly futile to carry out tank training unless the main weapon with which the tank is armed is to be used.


We then come to the question of the reserve army. The minister says that a fine season of training took place. Every commanding officer and most of the men with whom I have spoken have told me that their units went to camp shockingly under strength. What is the truth of the matter? What is the future role of the reserve army? This is something which could be discussed in a committee, and some decision arrived at. It is not a matter of politics; it is a matter transcending all politics, and one concerning the vital defence of this country.
I come now to the question of the F-86 and the Orenda engine. We have recently heard about the far more powerful Sapphire jet engine and the new Meteor. There should be discussion of these matters, and it is the responsibility of the people's representatives to consider whether it would be desirable now to Change the program and to produce the new aircraft, or whether such change would take too long and cost too much.
The question of submarines has already been discussed. The minister says it is not the policy of a small nation with a small navy to have submarines; that it would be uneconomical. Well, naval staff officers have told me that at least they are in disagreement with that policy. I do not know the answer, but definite opinions have been expressed to me toy certain people who should know. Yet the minister, who must back up the cabinet, says that Canada is too small to have submarines, that it would be uneconomical and improper for a navy as small as that of Canada to have a submarine division. Perhaps he is right, but let us not put this matter on a political basis. Whether we do or do not have submarines is not a political question, but one concerning the vital defence of this country, and one which should transcend political considerations.
We come now to artillery. What is our policy there? Are the industries of Canada to be making artillery co-ordinated with the American pattern, or are we to use the British type? These are questions which industries must be asking now. Certainly industries in my riding are asking them.
Then there is the question of the use of the absolute weapon. Are Canadians being trained in the use of absolute weapons, in the use of atomic weapons? If not, why not? If there is a general war I do not think any hon. member of this house will be foolish enough to believe that atomic weapons will not be used. It has been the historic role of Canadian troops to act as shock troops. If there is a general war, which

is the hideous possibility we must look forward to, these weapons will be used, and we may be asked to become part of the team that uses them.
Another matter to be considered is the training of mountain troops. The whole perimeter of the iron curtain countries is mountainous. We have found to our bitter sorrow in Korea that the troops that get to the top of the mountain, the troops that have the advantage of being able to fight m mountainous countries, are those who survive the nasty, dirty, ruthless slaughtering that is going on now in that country. '
General Sherman did not say, "War is hell." What he did say was, "War is all hell." The expenditures which we shall be asked to make are for destruction, hellish destruction, and there is nothing good we can say about them except that if we do not make them we lose our freedom. My plea for a defence committee is made so that members of this house who are responsible to the people will be able to go back to their constituents and say: Yes; the policy in this matter is correct, because the chiefs of staff or the experts in the defence department have given us the pros and cons; while it is not altogether satisfactory-no preparation for war can be entirely satisfactory-it is the best of the three or four possible courses that are open to us.
This, I repeat, is not a question of politics; it is something that transcends all party considerations. Each of us has responsibilities to his constituents; each of us has a responsibility to the country to see that our defences are kept up. I hope there will be no hon. member of this house who will begrudge the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) anything he asks for in the way of defence. But unless we are informed, unless we can see that this is the proper thing to do, we shall be an uninformed assembly, and an uninformed assembly is not one which can fulfil its duty to its electors.
If we are called upon to fight a total war we shall have to fight with the utmost scientific ruthlessness. The house should be informed now of the preparations being made, and thus be prepared to act. If we do not do so, our whole life as Canadians comes to an end. We must fight now or crawl after.


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate without intending to reply to any of the speeches that have been delivered previously, but rather to express my opinion as plainly as possible as I did during the last war. I should like to quote what I said in a debate in this house on February 18, 1937, when we
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier were dealing with the question of increasing the national defence estimates. I quote from Hansard of that year, volume I, page 1003:
Mr. Speaker, every time a public man has to express an opinion or to advance a policy on a question of vital importance to his country, he must do it as fairly as possible. The satisfaction he may derive from seeing his name in all the papers, his concern about re-election, the more or less attractive reward that may be held out to him according to his attitude toward the party which he supports, in fact every personal consideration must give way to his duty as a representative of the people, and as a patriot.
I am glad to note that at this time those words have not created an outburst against the member for Portneuf. During the last war I took an altogether different position. I am sorry to say that at that time I had to leave my good friends whom I fought most bitterly. I fought against Mr. Lapointe, Mr. Cardin, and all the others. Fortunately after the war was over I was taken back into the ranks. I still respect the opinions of all, and especially of those who have spoken previously in this debate.
I had made a pledge at the time the second world war took place, and I lived up to it although it was hard to do so. I felt I was being logical. I did not believe in the policy adopted by my party, and I crossed the floor of the house and fought that policy from the other side. Today I agree with the opinion of my leader and my friends in the Liberal party.
I listened closely last night to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche). I respect his opinions. He said that he was voicing the opinions of his electors. I was surprised when he said that he was expressing the views of the great majority of the people of the province of Quebec, because that is a rather large territory for one hon. member to cover. When I heard quotations read from what Mr. Cardin, Mr. Lapointe and Mr. King had said, I must tell you, sir, that I asked myself what the position of these men would be if they were still here, knowing them as well as I knew them and as well as most hon. members knew them. I am most sceptical that they would take a position against Canada fighting external wars, especially in a fight against the communists, who want to destroy the faith of those free men; and their faith was great.
I was against fighting external wars before, but so far as communism is concerned I have been advocating measures against it for the past fifteen years. To be logical I can do nothing else but ask the government to go ahead and fight communism by the use of military, moral or spiritual weapons.

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
Last session I listened attentively, as I always do, to a speech delivered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). There were smiles on the faces of some members when he spoke about communist imperialism. I think he was quite right. I am going to quote from the writings of a man whose works most hon. members must have read, Karl Marx, on the subject of Russian imperialism, the Russian ideal of expansionism. In a dispatch to the New York Tribune on June 14, 1853, Karl Marx said:
Russia keeps claiming that it has no annexationist designs. In order to ascertain the hypocrisy of this claim, it is sufficient to review the annexations carried out by Russia since the time of Peter the Great. Territories extracted by Russia from Sweden are larger than the present possessions of that country. The conquests from Poland form an area nearly as large as Austria.
It is the same thing now.
Territories which Turkey had to cede to Russia in the Balkans are identical to the area of Prussia.
No one can say that Russia is not invading European as well as Asiatic territory at the present time.
What they obtained in Asia from Turkey is as large as Germany. Their acquisitions from Prussia are comparable to the area of Great Britain.
In another dispatch to the Tribune on the 12th of April, 1853, he says something that is a lesson to western civilization. I read:
The cowardice and stupidity of the western nations provide Russia with opportunities.
That is still true today.
Due to their ignorance, western statesmen are losing control of the situation. Jealousies are their perdition. Whatever they do benefits Russia . . .
That is still true today. In another dispatch to the Tribune Karl Marx deals with the danger of Russian aggression. He said:
The vital interests should render Great Britain the earnest and unyielding opponent of the Russian projects of annexations and aggrandizement.
When Mr. Attlee allowed the war industries of Great Britain to manufacture weapons for Russia, I wonder if he thought of that, or if he has ever read what Karl Marx had to say on that particular subject. Marx continued:
England cannot afford to allow Russia to become the possessor of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus. Both commercially and politically such an event should be a deep, if not deadly blow, at British power. Let Russia once come into possession of Constantinople ... in that case the Black sea would be a Russian lake . . . Trebizond would be a Russian port, the Danube a Russian river.
The Danube is now a Russian river.
But having come thus far on the way to universal empire, is it probable that this gigantic and swollen power will pause in its career?
I think Karl Marx was speaking the truth. If he were sending dispatches to the
IMr. Gauthier (Portneuf).)
Tribune today he would be obliged to say the same thing so far as communist imperialism and expansionism are concerned. We should not be sceptical in our stand toward the step taken by the Canadian government in Korea at the present time, knowing that, for centuries, expansionism, under czarist as well as under communist Russia, has been the policy of that large and manpowerful country.
I have here a resume of chapter 36 of a book written by George W. Keeton, a specialist in Asiatic questions. The book is entitled "China, The Far East and the Future." The resume is still too long for me to read it all. I may say to the house that from 1567 Russia has followed the same policy under the czars and the communists right up to the present time. Under the czars a powerful military establishment was developed on both banks of the river Amur. It is now well developed and protected, and Russia is not far from having all the Asiatic powers in its firm hold.
That is one of the main reasons why, standing in this house, I take the position of urging the government to go ahead with its policy of intervention in the Korean conflict, and I ask parliament to vote the necessary moneys so that our navy, army and air force can fight communism in Korean and other Asiatic countries. I repeat that I am an anticommunist, both in peace and in war; therefore to take a different stand would be inconsistent with the position I have taken for the last fifteen years. I cannot do it.
During the course of the debate I heard one member cast doubt on whether the aggression was from North Korea. I have a document in my possession entitled "Canada and the Korean Crisis", and on page 16 it is well established that there was aggression by North Korea. In a cablegram from the United Nations commission on Korea to the Secretary General of the United Nations, dated June 25, 1950, there is the following:
Government of Republic of Korea states that about 04:00 hrs. 25 June attacks were launched in strength by North Korean forces all along the 38th parallel.
This has not been, denied. It has been confirmed in all the press dispatches we have been able to secure from the inception of the conflict.
I would refer the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) to the August, 1950, issue of Relations, where he could read "Conditions Internationales", by Father Ledit, who I believe is an expert on international affairs. He said that on June 10 three representatives of the Patriotic Front of United Korea-which he translates to mean three communists of North Korea, whose

names he gave-went to see the United Nations commission on Korea to present an address from the "patriotic front". That was June 10; those three members of the communist front crossed the frontier and were arrested two days later by the military forces of South Korea. In that document the hon. member will see that the North Koreans were asking that the established government of South Korea be done away with. In other words they were following the line of the communist chiefs, the line of the communist international, so far as the overthrow of democratic government is concerned. This is another reason for believing there really was an aggression, because Father Ledit may be considered a specialist in international affairs.
Then I would refer the hon. member to Father Sauve, who is a specialist on communist affairs in this country, and who, according to Le Droit of August 28, 1950, had this to say:
(Translation):
Our statesmen now realize that it is necessary to face up to the men of Moscow. The steps they are taking today should have been taken twenty years ago when the communist regime had already revealed its ambitious aims clearly and unequivocally. Pope Pius XI, in 1925, wrote an encyclical letter in which he cautioned the world against the atheism of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Governments paid no heed to his warning but sank deeper into their state of lethargy while Moscow, taking advantage of the universal political unconcern, kept driving forward the plow of revolution drawn by hatred and violence. The furrow plowed so far is incredibly deep. How can we react against the swift rise of communism? In the spiritual field, the Fatima message has shown us how we can win God's mercy: in the economic field, relations between capital and labour must take into account the real character of man; in the social field, Christian charity, that strict precept of the Gospel, must again come first. The struggle between charity and hatred is now raging for the conquest of mankind. The church relies on all her sons to guarantee the triumph of the Gospel precepts and to give the world the peace it so badly needs.
(Text):
It is evident, and has been proved many times, that communism wants to destroy belief in the existence of God; yet we would remain silent because otherwise we must send help outside the country. They want to overthrow our institutions by force; yet we would let them expand their authority in the world. I repeat that logic does not work that way. The leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition (Mr. Drew) in this house is supporting intervention in Korea. I do not see how the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) can oppose such intervention as firmly as he did last evening and then go 69262-171
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier out during the next elections, be they byelections or general elections, and ask the people'of his county to support a candidate endorsed by the present leader of the opposition. That would be a flagrant contradiction.
I respect the opinion of the hon. member and that of his electors, but I doubt that he states a fact when he says he expresses the opinion of a large majority of the people of Quebec.
I remember one thing, Mr. Speaker. During the last war Tim Buck was speaking against the imperialist war before Russia was attacked by Hitler. As soon as Russia was attacked, however, he began to tell the people, and especially the French Canadians- I still have extracts from speeches he made- that they should fight the war of the common man now that Russia was attacked. I should not like to receive praise tomorrow morning in the Tribune of Toronto, following my speech today. I will not say I did not receive praise from those people when I was opposing participation in any external war, during the last great war. I did not like that praise; I would not like it today, and I hope I shall not receive any support from those who want to overthrow our institutions. As a member of the Bloc Populaire I remember that we received visitors urging us to go ahead with our policy. We did not know they were communists, but we knew it later, because after Russia was attacked we no longer had those visitors; they were busy asking the people to fight the war of the common man. I do not want to have them visit me tomorrow and ask me to fight against intervention in Korea. I want to fight communists everywhere and anywhere I can find them. I have a boy who is of age to go to war, and I know what it is to send a boy to war, even though it is within my own country. I know my boy would not hesitate to enlist as soon as he is through with his studies, which will not be more than another six months. I know that he, like his father, will be ready to fight communism anywhere.
But let us come back to the real problem. It is all very well to fight communism with armaments, but the real problem lies in man himself. What we need more is moral rearmament. Man scarcely knows where he is going. How can society be expected to behave properly if the individual does not know what he wants? Charity and justice have almost disappeared from the minds of individuals. How can society revalue these necessary virtues and expect the world to think and act soundly? To be kind to the poor is charity, but to be respectful of your neighbour, in mind, thought and deed, is charity as well. To give your neighbour his

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier due is charity also. Society and the nations of the world will follow if the individual is charitable. I believe "justice" is the most distorted and disfigured word in our language at the present time. It is said to be a part of life, but as soon as one's interests are at stake, it fades away. How can society and nations be just, being composed of unjust individuals? The Far East has been exploited in the past. Lack of charity and justice has been the main defect of those unscrupulous trading companies coming from western countries in order to exploit-and I use the word advisedly-those Asiatics. That has been going on for a little too long a time. It is a good thing that we have missionaries whose charity and justice tempered the ill feelings of the Asiatics. If they had received more help, and if their representations had been given longer and better consideration, the feeling would have been a great deal better among the Asiatic people. Much more in our favour was the fact that justice was unknown there. Nationalism has been developed and has been extremely strong in China and other Asiatic countries. Russia knows it and she is acting accordingly; and she has been so acting all the way through toward this goal, namely to get the support of Asiatic nationalism in order to extend her power in this part of the world.
I have here an article by John Roderick. He says that Russia knows that nationalism is the strongest Asian force. He says this:
Russia is riding the bandwagon of a force in Asia that is more immediately powerful than communism. That force is nationalism . . .
For the last one hundred years or more, millions of yellow and brown people in Asia have known nothing but white masters. They are now engaged in a titanic struggle to break the shackles of European domination.
In doing so, they are asking the outside world only one question: "Are you for us or against us?"
Events which will fill many pages of future history books have taken place in Asia in recent years:
1.	India, a subcontinent of 389 million poorly fed, inadequately housed poeple, was given its independence from Britain.
2.	China, whose 450 million coolies, peasants and intellectuals form the biggest population chunk of Asia, threw off a monarchy, adopted a republic and now has come under communist rule.
3.	The Philippines obtained independence from the United States.
And if the United States and the democratic world do not pay enough attention to the Philippines at the present time, civil war will soon develop.
4.	Indonesia, one of the richest areas on earth, became a sovereign state bound by tenuous ties to her former three-hundred-year-old master, The Netherlands.
5.	Japan, once the aggressive leader and would-be boss of all these peoples, was reduced through war to the status of a minor power.

Countries which have failed to shrug off colonialism, like French Indo-China and British Malaya, have plunged into bloody internal revolutions . . .
Into this situation, the Soviet union has cunningly and effectively intruded. It has loudly announced that it is on the side of Asiatic nationalism.
Until a few years ago, almost no Asiatic state paid much attention to the Russian bear's advances.
Two years ago, this writer undertook extensive travels in the Far East. Almost no one he met, big or little, looked with anything but repugnance at the idea of an Asia tied to the apron strings of Russia.
We now have our way before us. We know where Asia stands. We know what nationalism means in Asia. We must face the situation. We must give to the ill-fed and ill-managed people of Asia every opportunity to have a decent standard of living, to be treated as common people, and to have security. Not only social security, about which too many words have been spoken, but moral, intellectual and spiritual security is what they need at the same time. They eat, but at the same time they think, and we must make them think in the proper way. We must make them believe that there are friends in the western civilization who are ready to work with them and for them.
I repeat that moral rearmament will go on for ever. Let us hope that when man has found himself once more, has found out what he is and ought to be, Christianity will hold the lead for ever. But man has to find himself. He has to find himself in another way. As the communist finds himself following only the morals of the party, everything is permitted as long as it gives the party an advantage in any domain, whether it be moral, spiritual, economic, or political. A communist knows how harmful to democratic people are certain immoral literature and movies. He knows by experience, and I repeat this, that the flow of divorces in democratic countries is harmful to our families; and he knows that families count in the building up of a strong democratic people. How can we fight victoriously if we do not improve?
Materialism is everywhere around us. Let me quote from memory the words of the late Mr. King, a couple of days before he died. He said this to one of his friends: If I were young, do you know what I would do? I would be impelled to go out and to crusade against the materialism which has fallen so much upon us at the present time. That is what Mr. King said. When my friend quoted Mr. King the other day, I was asking myself if he knew of those words. Working and crusading against materialism is a part of our intervention in Korea at the present time.

We are little by little constantly carried along by materialism. We have not noticed it. We are seduced because of its appeal to the senses, and when the senses are not strengthened by faith, they have not the same meaning and the same power. As Monsignor Sheen says, as long as decent people refuse to believe that morality must manifest itself in every sphere of activity, including the political, they will not meet the challenge of communism. That means that the morality of the individual must manifest itself at the same time and in the same manner, whether the individual be a politician or be engaged in some other walk of life. R. H. Tawney, in "The Acquisitive Society" said this:
The modern world has no cement to bind together personal morals and morals of political and economic life.
As my concluding words, Mr. Speaker, let me say that that cement is hope, faith, charity and justice.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, when an hon. member rises at this stage of the debate to add to its length, he is conscious of the fact that there is not exactly that enthusiasm to listen to him on the part of hon. members of the house that he would like. I am going to seek to soften that by saying that I expect to be only ten minutes, and that the first five minutes are the worst.
We have a tradition, which is a good one, of non-partisanship in matters of foreign affairs; and no one would willingly add to the difficulties of the government, and particularly to the difficulties of a minister whom, as in the case of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), we all like. Unfortunately there was one passage in his speech yesterday which struck me as so unrealistic, so doctrinaire, so reminiscent of the classroom and not of reality, so remote from the occurrences of the moment, that I cannot refrain from commenting on it.
The minister explained to us very clearly with respect to the sending of our own forces to Korea that it had not been possible to have any agreement made, with the United Nations fixing the quota of each nation, because of the Russian veto. But then he went on to explain clearly and candidly in these words, as reported at page 221 of Hansard:
But that did not exempt us from the general obligation under the security council resolution to do what we could do to restore peace and defeat aggression. It is not a specific obligation to make any kind of forces available, but it is an obligation to do what we can to see that any aggression is defeated.
You would not want a clearer or more comprehensive or more committing statement than that: "It is an obligation to do what we
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell can to see that any aggression is defeated". Now that of course is manifest good sense, and of course it is manifest common sense, because any other attitude would make the United Nations nothing better than a farce. Let us see what happened when the situation arose. Could it be that at that time, getting on into July, when this matter came to be considered, there was any member of the United Nations who doubted there was aggression to be defeated? Of course the answer is that there could not be any doubt of any kind. The principle was clearly laid down by the minister in the words which I have quoted, and the situation was crystal clear. Now let us see, with this clear situation before them, just what the government did. Remember that the situation in Korea at that time was already grave. We were all wondering even then what was going to happen. The Americans were outnumbered by ten, and perhaps more, to one.
Let us remember also that, quite apart from the troops we could send, our example was important. Many people were hanging back. After all, we have played a considerable part. We are highly regarded, and sending troops on our part would have a double effect. It would not merely have furnished the material strength of those troops; it would have greatly strengthened the moral situation.
Now, one might have expected, as I say, with the clear principle as laid down by the minister, with the clear situation, that action would have followed. Well, what did follow? Mr. Speaker, I suggest that what followed was a kind of question period which went on for several weeks. I shall refer to those questions in a moment or two, but at the outset I just wish to quote the words which the minister used yesterday. He said:
We entered into discussion at once with representatives of the unified command and also with the secretary general-
You might almost quote the words of Byron:
Ah! then and there was hurrying to and fro.
The minister apparently was, as I say, rushing to and fro. But if he got a flying start, all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that after that it became slow motion, and slow motion with a vengeance. When the contact was made it was not to find out how quickly men could be sent, but it was to ask a series of questions, some of a highly doctrinaire nature, and much more suited to the university classroom than to the world of affairs in those days. It would appear that what he was anxious to do was to get high marks as a diplomatic negotiator. His action at that time I can describe only as a diplomatic
26.2	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell pirouette. That went on for several weeks. Remember that in all those weeks the Americans in Korea day by day were being hard pressed, and looking over their shoulders for the reinforcements which they hoped would arrive.
There is only one thing the minister forgot. If he could only have been able to arrange an armistice while this was going on it would have been all so pleasant. If the fighting could only have stopped and there had not been any carnage going on when these fine diplomatic questions to which I shall now refer were being settled, all would have been well.
The first question was to find out what was the situation in Korea. This was about the middle of July, Mr. Speaker, and they'wanted to know what was the situation in Korea. The first man on the street that the minister met could have told him what the situation in Korea was. He could have said: It is tough, mighty tough. But I like to imagine, if it had been possible for the minister to ask one of the American G.I.'s in Korea what the situation was, the answer he would have received. If he had, the language would have been so explosive that I would not attempt to imitate it. I think what he would have said is: The situation here is mighty tough; come as soon as you can. The next question was: What is the situation in Korea likely to be? Mr. Speaker, I do not quite know what was meant by that, but again I think if our G.I. had been referred to he would have answered very clearly and simply. He would have said: It is going to be tougher and tougher, and we need you here as fast as you can come. I suggest that perhaps one speaks with a special feeling on this day when the news is bad. I suggest again that these questions which I have read so far were highly academic, highly rhetorical; that the minister did not need to by flying hither and yon and up and down the continent of North America to get an answer to them.
The next question is interesting, and here we get into the realm of higher diplomacy where my mind does not work very clearly. I feel I have to defer to those who are more familiar with these things than I am. The next question we are given is: What would be the use made of Canadian forces? I think our G.I. would say: We want the blighters to fight. But I go back: "What was the situation likely to be?" I do not know to whom this was referred. It may have been referred to General MacArthur for all I know. He may have had views on it, but at any rate here it is. That is another of the questions on which they spent weeks in determining what was the situation likely to be. As we sit here today


considering the situation, one has the feeling that these weeks that were spent in inactivity were, to put it mildly, unfortunate.
Then we come to a question which is so much up in the higher air that I cannot follow it. The next question was: What would be the relationship of any contribution of ours on land to the possible extension of the conflict in Asia-to Formosa, for instance? You see, Mr. Speaker, we wanted to have all our diplomatic "i's" dotted and our "t's" crossed. That seemed to be more important than the grim business of fighting. Some of us have the idea that soldiers are still for the purpose of fighting, but that does not appear to be the view everywhere.
I am not going to get myself involved in the intricacies of Formosa. I realize there are difficulties there, and I am not minimizing them, but why spend time on that when the Americans were being driven back day by day, suffering casualties day by day? Here I adopt and adapt a famous illustration. It is a little like a situation where the man next door has his house on fire and I say to him that I will not lend my hose to help put out the fire unless it can be attached to the fixture on my side of the fence. It seems to me that we were just disputing about technical things-important, if you like, but what I might refer to as diplomatic pirouettes.
The next question was this: What was the policy of the American government with regard to such things? In other words, we were asking the United States government, as I understand this question: If we send people out there to fight, are we to understand that perhaps you will do something with regard to Formosa that we do not approve? Well, my only comment on that is that if the Americans had that question put to them when their men were already engaged, it must have struck a very sour note. I would have thought that our prestige in the United States did not go up. We were asking this question when, as I say, American soldiers were being killed day by day in Korea.
At the end of this question period of some weeks we made a great decision. One might have hoped that the decision then would be for quick action, but all we did was to decide that none of the men who had been trained for the role were to be sent, but that we were to raise a new force requiring new training, and many months before they would be ready. In other words, we said: Hold on, we are coming-in about six months.
Well, there are many thoughtful citizens in Canada at this time, particularly with the news as it is, who do not feel very happy about it. I believe that as time goes on the

number of those who are unhappy will be greater, and the number of those who do not care will shrink to a negligible number. Meantime the position is that we have got one hundred per cent in the diplomatic game, and that apparently is what diplomacy is concerned about.


Mr. Pearson:: Your bad five minutes are up.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister tells me my bad five minutes are up. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the best we could hope for is that the news of today may turn out not to be so portentous as it seems to be. The best we can hope for is that it will still give time to retrieve ourselves, and that our men will be able, as suggested by the last speaker, to join with other members of the United Nations in fighting for the things we all care about.
Now, the minister was at great pains yesterday-and I see the newspapers helped him out this morning-to say that there was no apology of any kind to be made. I would have been much happier if there had been some slight indication that not everything was right. We can always forgive a man for saying: I was not one hundred per cent right, but I have learned. But apparently no mistakes were made! Everything is all right! The diplomatic front is sound- perhaps a little unfortunate about the military front-nevertheless we have preserved the diplomatic front.
As I said a moment ago, there are some of us who think that when you are in a fight the proper procedure is to get on with the fight, and that we should not be taking time in cross-examining allies as to their views on international affairs, especially when they are fighting desperately. I cannot believe that the Americans liked it very much, and I am told that there is a good deal of evidence that our reputation has gone down considerably.
I hope with all my heart that our conduct in the future in this matter will be realistic, in accordance with the realities of the world we live in, and not just with the doctrinaire views of the diplomatic office. I hope the minister is not as much pleased as he appeared to be. I hope that our action in the future will be of a different pattern, and that we shall not, as I feel we have now, have to face the world in a very apologetic manner.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in attempting to outbid the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) for the patience of the house, I assure hon. members that I shall take not more than five minutes to say what I have to say.
The Address-Mr. Hees
Yesterday during the course of his speech the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) was kind enough to permit me to ask him a question. I was appreciative of that courtesy, but I am afraid I cannot accept his answer at its face value. Yesterday my question was why the request made by the United Nations on July 14 for ground troops for the Korean fighting should have been turned down on July 19, and then that decision reversed three weeks later. The minister replied that it was impossible for this government to act until they had learned what American plans were.
As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has said, that kind of action by the government was similar to a man's going down the street, seeing his friend's house on fire, and then refusing to do anything about putting out the fire until he had been able to find the owner and ask him what his plans were. When one is watching a boxer being beaten unmercifully, he does not go up to him between rounds, tap him on the shoulder and say: "What are your plans?" One knows perfectly well that the plans of the boxer are threefold: first, to try to stay in that ring; second, to try to keep from being knocked out, and third, to try eventually to win the fight. Those have been the plans of the United States and of the United Nations since the United States entered the Korean conflict on behalf' of the United Nations in June last. That is the policy which prompted the urgent request by General MacArthur, through the United Nations, on July 14, for ground troops-not naval units, not transport planes, but ground troops. If after three weeks of participation by the United States and the United Nations in that conflict the minister was unfamiliar with the plans of those bodies, then immediately upon receipt of the request on July 14 the Secretary of State for External Affairs should have flown to Washington and Lake Success to bring himself up to date on what was taking place. He could have been back days before the cabinet decision was made on July 19.
I believe that is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs did-and if he did not, he certainly should have done it. So far as I could see, and so far as the great majority of the Canadian people can see, there was nothing to stop the government from making the decision on July 19 which they made on August 7-except one important thing, and that is the inability of this government to make .up its mind to live up to its obligations freely undertaken under the United Nations charter. This indecisiveness caused a humiliating three weeks delay, during which time Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, Thailand and others all volunteered to

The Address-Mr. Wright send ground troops to Korea. These countries I believe had responsibilities at home and abroad as great as if not greater than this country. I believe it would be interesting to learn-I'm afraid that this is something we shall never learn-what pressure was brought to bear upon this government by the United Nations, the United States and members of the British commonwealth to cause them to '-everse the decision of July 19 not to live up to their obligations-a decision which caused humiliation to the great majority of Canadians-and then finally, on August 7, decide to live up to their obligations.
I have great respect and personal liking for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) but in this instance I do not think he has dealt with the matter with frankness. Frankness is vital if the deliberations of this house are to have the results in the next few days which are so necessary for the welfare of this country. I urge the government to deal with complete frankness with the request of the opposition for information-something which I do not think has been done in the past-and thus enable the business of this house to be proceeded with in an efficient and satisfactory manner.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words to the house before this- debate is concluded. The papers this morning indicate that a serious situation exists in Korea, and I am sure that all hon. members of this house are anxious to know just what Canada is going to contribute and how soon that contribution will be made. I do not blame the government for perhaps thinking on June 27 that the matter was not serious. When the previous session closed I made a trip to the United States and I found that many people there were of the same opinion. Apparently they thought that this was more or less a guerrilla affair which would be settled in two or three months. I heard different people express the opinion that as 2,000 marines were landing the matter would be cleaned up in the ensuing two or three weeks. When I stated, as I did to two or three people there, that in all probability the United Nations would have to have 200,000 troops in Korea before the matter could be settled, I was laughed at. That has proved to be the fact.
We now realize that this is not a guerrilla affair and that we are up against an army which has been trained for two or three years with adequate equipment. This government should realize that this is a serious matter. The quicker we can get troops there and the better trained those troops are, the better it will be for the whole world. This situation
[Mr. Hees.l

is something like a forest fire. If you get to a forest fire early enough, you may be able to conquer it, but if you leave it until later, the effort required to stop it becomes greater as time goes on. In my opinion our contribution must be made early, and it must be as effective as possible so that the conflict may be stopped while there is still a chance to stop it and before it spreads to other countries in Asia.
Even while the conflict is on I do not think it is enough simply to make a military contribution. On various occasions the minister of external affairs has stated that if we are to meet communism in Asia and other parts of the world our contribution must be economic as well as military. I have not seen any indication from the government at this present session that we are going to do anything outside of making a military contribution. This alarms me. It seems to me that we should be making concrete plans to show that we intend to do something in an economic way.
I should like to make one or two suggestions to the government. In my opinion one reason why India remained in the British commonwealth was that for the last forty or fifty years young men from India had been attending the universities of Great Britain, observing the workings of her civil service and studying her democratic procedures. Many of those young men went into the diplomatic service, and, while they opposed many of the methods that had been employed in India by Great Britain, they recognized the basic soundness of her democratic procedures, and, because of the education they had received in British institutions, they were able to keep India within the British commonwealth of nations.
What are we doing along similar lines? We are going to spend approximately $1,500 million in the next eighteen months on military establishments. Why should not we say that we are willing to spend $50 million in the next ten years to bring young Asiatics to Canada to be placed in our universities, our industries, our agriculture, our co-operative and our trade union movements so that our democratic procedures can be demonstrated to them? If we could bring
10,000	of those young Asiatics to this country to let them see the advantages of democracy and if the United States were to follow our example and bring 100,000 young Asiatics to that country, we would be doing much more to show what democracy means than we shall be doing with all the military might we may have to use in the next two or three years.

It may be said that this is something for the future; but why not start it now? Why not demonstrate to these people that we are in earnest? Why not show them that we are not only prepared to fight for democracy, but are prepared to show them that democracy works at home. We should not be ashamed of our educational institutions, our industrial development, our trade union and co-operative movements. If young Asiatics were brought here within the next five years and shown the workings of these institutions and then sent back to their own countries, in my opinion we would be doing more than by spending several million dollars on shortwave radio in order to talk to them. You cannot talk to people who do not understand the bases of democracy, who have never seen it work, who have no idea of its advantages. When we are able to show them in a practical way what we have on the North American continent, we may persuade them that it is better than communism.
What is Russia doing? Russia takes young people to Moscow from the countries over which she gets control, in order to indoctrinate them and persuade them that communism is better than democracy. Yet we are doing nothing in the democratic countries to offset the terrific campaign being carried on by Russia to educate the peoples of these countries in communism. It is only when we do something in a practical way, something besides talking about it-we have been talking about it for the last number of years-that we shall be able to demonstrate the advantages of democracy.
We say that communism is spreading in these countries because starvation is present. What are we doing to prevent starvation? We ended up this year with a surplus of 113 million bushels of wheat in Canada. The present crop is one of the largest that we have ever produced, and in all probability we shall have 500 million bushels of wheat available for sale throughout the world. Would it be too much for Canada to say that we can make 100 million bushels of wheat available this year to some of these countries that need it? We are going to make several hundred million dollars' worth of arms available to them. We have to produce them; we have to suffer from shortages in many of our basic materials to produce these things. We are going to do it, and I agree it must be done. But together with that, when we have something produced already, 100 million bushels of wheat, should we not make it available along with the arms in order to feed some of the people in these countries?
The Address-Mr. Hansell
The farmers of Canada have produced the wheat. It is available. Surely the government should be wise enough to follow that course. Surely the people of Canada would support the government if it said that the people of Canada as a whole, not simply the farmers, intend to make a gift of 100 million bushels of wheat. Then we could demonstrate to them that we have something in our democracy that can produce in abundance, and it would indicate that when the commodity is produced we are prepared to distribute it. It is not enough to produce these things and then let them rot. Someone must distribute them. Communism is saying to these people: Oh, yes; they can produce certain things, but they refuse to distribute them, even to their own people, let alone to the people who are starving over here.
Let us be practical in this matter, and, together with our military contribution, which I agree should be made promptly, demonstrate that we can do more than that, that we are prepared to show these people that democracy works and that we are prepared to distribute some of the fruits that democracy can produce.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I can shorten my speech in the same way as the last few members who have spoken. I do not want the debate to close, however, without my saying a word at this time. I may have occasion- to make reference to some things that have been referred to before during the course of the debate, but perhaps I may put my views in a little different fashion.
I could not help but feel concerned about some of the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he spoke on August 31. His speech was well prepared, and, in keeping with his usual ability, in forcefulness it did not fall behind any speech he has made in the past. I am sure that we appreciate the work he is doing, the views that he takes on many subjects, and his ability to express those views.
I wish to deal with that portion of the minister's speech in which he said that it is necessary for us to know our enemy. He went on to say that we know now as we have never known before. He was referring to the enemies whom we should know. I think the minister should give us a little further explanation with respect to that matter. When did this change of knowledge take place? Have we learned any more in the past few weeks than we have known over the past number of years?
May I repeat what the minister said. He said that we know now as we have never

The Address-Mr. Hansell known before. I doubt whether that is a true and accurate appraisal of our knowledge of the enemy. We have always known that international communism is out to control and capture the world. If we have not, then we have been sadly derelict in our appraisal of world movements. The situation with respect to international communism has not changed in the past few months. We know that by a study of the doctrines of Karl Marx. Those doctrines do not change. The tactics of communism on the world front may change, but fundamentally the principles of Marxism never change. Communism is out to conquer the world, and always has been.
' Let me deal with another point in the minister's speech which has been mentioned several times already. On page 90 of Hansard we read:
They can be met and overcome, as Indeed they are being overcome, by the initiative of the free world in many places, notably in western Europe; but they cannot be defeated by military action alone. Military strength is absolutely necessary, of course, but it must be supplemented by imaginative economic and social programs if the march of communism as a social and economic doctrine is to be halted . . .
That has been referred to before. It has been agreed by previous speakers that that is essential, and that military action must be supplemented by imaginative economic and social programs. It is all very well for he minister or the government to say these things; it is another thing to put them into action. I agree with the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), who preceded me, in saying that. The minister did not say what economic and social program the government proposes to put into action. We have heard these words uttered in the house many times before. During the last war the late Mr. Mackenzie King made the same pronouncement. Unless these great changes came before the war was over, he said, we would look for them in vain. That phrase has been repeated so often that it has been worn threadbare. Now I ask his successors what changes they made in the fundamental principles of the economics of this country before or since the last war. No fundamental changes have been made. Now the Secretary of State for External Affairs makes the same statement. Is that statement to remain but idle words, with no action whatever?
I believe the responsibility devolves upon this government to tell us now in this special session, since they say communism must be met by imaginative economic and social programs, just what imaginative economic and social programs they propose to introduce. That is the challenge. Further I say that when the appropriation bill is brought down this house should refuse to vote another dollar


to meet this situation until that question is answered. It is all very well to say these things, but let us know what changes we are to expect. I project my thoughts into the near future. I suppose when the special budget is brought down covering these expenditures it will follow the same kind of economic policy that has been pursued by the government in past years. I predict that no imaginative economic and social changes will be made. So I say we should refuse to vote one additional dollar until we know what changes are to be proposed.
Further in his speech, referring to communism, the minister said:
It also claims to provide satisfaction for those living in distress and privation, offering them the hope of a better life . . .
I recognize that the minister was referring to other countries that suffered as a result of the last war, and that need assistance; but there is a situation in our own country which makes it possible for communists to capture the imagination of a large section of our people by making those very claims. They claim to be able to provide satisfaction for those living in distress and privation, offering them the hope of a better life. Take our old age pensioners, for instance. I realize that the government has been slowly enlarging its policy in that regard, but let us remember that with the higher cost of living the old age pensioner is gradually going behind, gradually losing out in life, gradually getting a worse deal instead of a better deal. What imaginative changes does the government propose now to offset the appeal of communism to that large group of our people? Then there are our workers. Recently there was a strike and we went through a period of national crisis; and why? Because of the mounting cost of living. How does the government propose to meet the challenge of communism? We want to know. When we leave after the session closes let us not have to designate these ministers of the crown as coming here with nothing but words. We want to know. At page 91 the minister went on to say:
We in the west, while laying bare the trickery and malice of soviet protestations, must at the same time provide some real satisfaction for those everlasting hungers for bread, security and freedom to which the communists pretend to cater.
I know he was referring to other nations, but again I say a large number of the people of Canada are feeling the pinch, while living in a country with abundance. Again we challenge the government. Let them say now what imaginative economic and social programs they propose. Let them tell us now,

not after we go home; for if we wait until then, the challenge will never be met; the government will never give us the answer.
The minister concluded that portion of his speech by reinforcing what he had already said with these words: "We will have to show ourselves resourceful and imaginative as well as strong." Let him say how the government proposes to do this.
I want to say just a word in conclusion as to my own feelings on the sending of troops to Korea. Speaking my own mind only, I cannot work up any particular enthusiasm about sending troops. I am not going to oppose it, and I compliment the government on having taken quick action when this situation first developed a month or two ago, at a time when parliament was in session. The government sent some destroyers and naval personnel, and since that time we have sent an air transport squadron. I commend the government on having acted quickly, by that action indicating that we were prepared to meet our obligations under the charter of the United Nations. However, as for the cry we hear from some parts of this house to hurry up and get into this struggle with all our might, personally I cannot work up any great enthusiasm along that line. The United States have evidently taken a good deal of responsibility upon themselves, and I would ask them to review their own actions during the last two great world wars when Canada and other nations of the commonwealth were brought into the struggle. What happened during the last war when Hitler began to overrun Europe? When he overran Belgium and crushed that little nation beneath his iron heel, where were the Americans then? France was taken in stride, and eventually there was the miracle of Dunkirk-a miracle in the sense that the British troops were enabled to make their escape. Where were the Americans then?
What happened to Britain in those days? Did the Americans come to her assistance then? No; they stood by and saw Britain beaten into the dust and destroyed as a first-rate world power. It took a Pearl Harbor, Mr. Speaker, to bring the United States into the struggle then. It was not because she saw any vital need of the survival of the British people, or of the British commonwealth, or even of democracy itself. That was the position during the last world war.
Look at the victories of the last world war; what nations came out of it with more than they went into it? Only one nation, and that was Russia. The United States came out of it with an economic victory; for from the ashes of that struggle they arose as the
The Address-Mr. Hansell
greatest economic power the world has ever, seen. But what happened to the British-commonwealth? It was virtually destroyed' as a commonwealth. What happened to. Great Britain itself? It was no longer great;-it was worn down economically and became subservient to that great world economic power. That is the situation as a result of the last world war.
I am quite conscious of the enemy that we have to meet at the present time, but I am not entirely satisfied that our statesmen of the past have played their cards as carefully as they should have played them. I personally do not see how, eventually, we can avoid a third world war. I do not like to think of it in' those terms, but there are two great powers, in this great struggle for world domination. Either democracy must survive and become effective, and offer to the world peace, security and freedom, or else communism, with its materialistic dictatorship, will emerge as a great world-state power. That is the struggle. The Korean situation is only a scratch on the surface of the struggle.
I know that we must view all things in the light of what we may be obliged to face. With this in mind we must act accordingly. I am not opposing the sending of aid by troops, but personally I cannot work up a great deal of enthusiasm about it at the present time.
In conclusion I once again say this. Let the government say now what economic changes they propose in order to make our own democracy here effective, to give us security with the freedom we love, and to show the rest of the world an example.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Gillis:: I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on the main motion.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Cannon) agreed to on division.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	L.	S.	St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, under standing order 57 I move:
That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	L.	S.	Si.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, under the same standing order I move:
That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister) moved:
That Louis Rene Beaudoin, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, be appointed deputy chairman of committees of the whole house.
Motion agreed to.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was not here to record my vote just before the house rose, because I had left the building, and according to the clock at the front entrance it was after one o'clock. If the clocks in this building had been synchronized I would have been present.



DEFENCE APPROPRIATION ACT


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that sums not exceeding $142,200,200 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying expenses of the naval, army and air services of the Canadian forces:
That His Majesty may also incur commitments during the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditures on the naval, army and air services of the Canadian forces in later years in amounts not exceeding $409,257,821 in addition to the total amount of such commitments specified in the schedule to the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1950;
Resolved also, that commitments not exceeding $5,310,000 in addition to the amount of commitments specified in the schedule to the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1950, may be incurred during the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure on defence research and development in later years, and also that sums not exceeding $2,000,000 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund to His Majesty towards defraying the expenses for the land services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in addition to any other grant of parliament;
And resolved further, that sums not exceeding $300,000,000 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund to His Majesty, in addition to any other grants of parliament, for the production, acquisition, repair and provision of equipment, services, supplies and facilities, for the use of the defence forces of Canada and those of any party to the North Atlantic treaty, and the construction, improvement and repair of facilities, and the acquisition, processing, and storage of materials, supplies and equipment, required to produce and otherwise make available any such equipment, supplies, services and facilities;
With provision also empowering the governor in council to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of $300,000,000 as may be required for the purpose of defraying the aforesaid expenses, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He said:	This resolution which I am
proposing provides for the introduction of a special appropriation bill that will contain three appropriations, of the size and for the
Defence Appropriation Act purposes noted in the resolution. It will contain as well a clause to provide authority for the transfer of defence equipment and supplies, either newly purchased or from stocks, to any of our allies under the North Atlantic treaty, on such terms and conditions, if any, as the government may specify. Other clauses will increase the limits set in the main estimates and Appropriation Act upon the contractual commitments for expenditures in future years for the defence forces and for defence research.
This bill, to be entitled the Defence Appropriation Act, following the practice adopted during the war, when passed, will take the place of the usual type of appropriation act with a schedule based upon estimates previously considered in committee. On this bill the house will have the same opportunity of discussing details of the appropriations in committee, either on the resolution or on the bill, that they would normally discuss on estimates. The ministers responsible for the individual appropriations will be available for these discussions in committee and able to supply the usual detailed explanations and figures provided for estimates. I will restrict myself at this time to a brief explanation of the nature and purposes of its main features, leaving until my later motion to go into committee of ways and means any comment which I may have to make on the financial and economic situation as a whole and the measures which it seems necessary to take as a consequence of the vast effort and expense that must now be devoted to making our nation, indeed our whole western way of life, more secure.
As I explained to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the first appropriation requested is, in essence, a supplementary estimate for the vote appearing
in the main estimates for the defence forces__
vote 202 on page 31. The amount voted there was $384,932,304, and to that we now propose to add $142,200,200, which will be available for the same purposes, that is to say, for the use of the navy, army or air force. The detailed purposes to which it is intended this be applied will be given in committee by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), and have already been indicated in a general way by him to the house on Thursday last. The wording of vote 202, embodied in the schedule to the Appropriation Act of last session, includes a statutory limit on contractual commitments that may be made for expenditures in future years for the purposes described in the vote, and it is now necessary to increase this very greatly in order to permit orders to be placed for aircraft, ships, guns, and the other paraphernalia of modern
270	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act defence. To the amount of $141,123,670 now permitted for such commitments we are now proposing to add the huge total of $409,257,821. It is also proposed to increase the future commitments that may be made for defence research and development, adding an amount of $5,310,000 to the $3,057,800 permitted under vote 203 of the main estimates, although additional cash is not asked for this purpose this fiscal year.
The appropriation requested of $2 million for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not to extend or intensify the activities of the police in Canada, but simply to provide for the taking over by the R.C.M.P. of the provincial police functions in British Columbia and Newfoundland, in accordance with agreements entered into in August. It was not certain in June that these arrangements would be made, and provision was not, therefore, made in the estimates; but the arrangements have been made since, and now, in view of the international situation, it is highly desirable that these vulnerable coastal areas should be policed in detail by the national force which has over-all responsibility for internal security. Part of this expenditure will be offset by revenue, as the provinces pay us $1,400 per constable per year for this service.
The largest and most interesting appropriation in the new bill and reflected in this resolution is that for $300 million for the purpose of producing extra defence equipment and supplies, either for our own forces or for those of allies under the North Atlantic treaty. This will get under way the Canadian portion of that large increase in the production of defence supplies and equipment which the North Atlantic council has found to be so urgently needed now. It will be used to produce those things which the government considers will be most immediately useful in the common cause, after receiving information and advice from the appropriate bodies created under the treaty. These may be turned over to our own forces, either increasing their plans or holdings beyond the present scale, which is provided for under our own defence program, or replacing equipment or stores which they may make immediately available to our allies in Europe. On the other hand, if it appears these new arms can be most effectively used or held in the common cause by our allies in Europe, they will be dispatched to them without delay and without payment. At this stage we cannot be sure what arms will be most needed and most readily produced in Canada, or to what forces they should be allotted; but we are sure that this amount, and probably more, will be needed from Canada during the next year and a half or so.
TMr. Abbott.!


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of fhe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, while there will be an opportunity in committee to deal with the motion now before the house, before I make any further remarks I should like to ask the minister if it is not possible for him to table at this time, for the convenience of the house, a break-down of the amounts that are being asked for in this way.


Mr.   Afoboll@: I think it would be more useful to follow the usual practice of considering the details in committee. From my experience during the war years, that was the procedure we followed. When we were in committee the various ministers involved gave a detailed break-down of the appropriations which were being requested for their particular departments, and they were able of course in the committee stage to answer
questions with respect to those details. I think it would be infinitely preferable to proceed in this way. Any remarks hon. members may wish to make on general questions arising out of these appropriations should be made while Your Honour is in the chair, but the detailed discussion of the estimates should be reserved for the committee stage of the resolution.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: I had not finished. As I said, I asked the question preliminary to any further remarks.


Major James William Coldwell: I was merely going to give my recollection of the procedure on the previous occasion.


George Alexander Drew: I would prefer to continue with the remarks that were to follow the question. It was because that was not the practice followed that I asked the question. Every one of us has indicated the hope that the appropriations being asked for are for peace and not for war. Nevertheless, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has quite properly indicated, the type of preparation calling for these huge expenditures is somewhat parallel to the procedure followed during the second world war, because it relates to very much the same subject. In 1944, for instance, on February 11, the then minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, presented his request by way of a similar resolution, and in that resolution the minister moved, as reported at page 390 of Hansard, "That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, inter alia", for a number of things, and they bear some similarity to the things for which we are now being asked. Having outlined the general purpose, IVtr. Ilsley said that these matters would be under discussion in the committee stage later, and I should like to quote his words, to be found on page 392 of Hansard for February 11, 1944. He said:
To facilitate such inquiries and debate, I will now place on Hansard a break-down, by the main categories of expenditures . . .
He then tabled a most detailed statement, explaining that this would facilitate inquiries in committee in an orderly way. The points with which we are particularly concerned are the details relating to national defence; and at that time, at this same stage, Mr. Ilsley tabled extensive details of the requirements for the navy, air force and all other services, showing what the money was required for, and placing before hon. members the sort of information which made it possible to ask questions in an orderly way. So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

Defence Appropriation Act even if it calls for a deferment of consideration of this matter at the moment, this practice should be followed. There should be no difficulty about doing it. It is unthinkable that the government should have come forward and presented the resolution at this stage without having this information, and this is the kind of information hon. members should have. Especially is it the kind of information hon. members should have since we have reached this point in this special session with no information as to what our national defence plans really are. Everything that has been said so far by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) can be summed up by saying they have no plans, that it is a case of prepare as they go.
So far as we are concerned we believe that at this stage hon. members should have before them information which will enable them to direct questions to specific items. What is happening now is precisely the sort of thing we have been confronted! with since discussion began last Thursday. The Minister of National Defence has made the same general statements, without giving any real information as to the state of our defence forces. Lacking that information, there is all the more reason why now we should be given a definite statement covering all these details. What is being suggested is that we go into the committee stage having to guess what questions we should ask. Then once more we will be fold: we give more information than anybody else, or ninety-five per cent of the information given elsewhere, as the case may be. But we do not know what questions to ask. .It is the business of the government, as our executive body, to inform hon. members; and I repeat the request for a detailed statement now, showing what this is for.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I may add a word, of course there is no desire on the part of the government, nor, I am sure, on the part of the Minister of National Defence or any other minister, to withhold information; but the proper place to discuss details is when the house is in committee. There will be at least two more opportunities to carry on that discussion. We will be in committee on the resolution. At the outset, I assume, following the general practice, if not the universal practice during the war years, the ministers will furnish mimeographed statements in detail covering the proposed items. Those can be discussed in full on the resolution at the committee stage. Then there will be a debate on second reading, after


which the bill will be considered clause by clause and the whole ground can be gone over again. I suggest that in the interests of expediting the business of this house, and in accordance with the valid precedent which was established during the war, Your Honour should leave the chair now so we can get into committee, when all the details can be discussed.


Mr. Speaker:: Are we proceeding with the discussion of the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: I seem to recall very distinctly that the practice during the war was to give hon. members an opportunity of looking into such details as were provided, in order that the questions to be asked later might be more intelligent and better informed than otherwise would be the case. Would it not be facilitating the business of the house if that were done at the present time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I understand the practice varied. I put through war appropriations on only one occasion, so far as the defence forces were concerned. That was in the session of 1945, when I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. My recollection-and I have checked it-on that point is that the details were furnished in committee. I do not know that I put them on Hansard; I think I circulated a mimeographed statement giving the break-down, which may or may not have been printed in Hansard. But I have a clear recollection that this procedure was followed at that time, and I am suggesting that the same procedure be followed now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of the rest of us have been checking the records, too; and is it not the case that the break-down of the figures was given at the start by Mr. Ilsley, then minister of finance, but that the discussion of items came when we were in committee of the whole on the resolution, where it was taken department by department, with the ministers concerned answering the questions that were asked? If there is any doubt about that, we can get Hansard and show what was done.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My recollection is that there was no uniform procedure. My hon. friend is quite right in saying that the discussion took place in committee, but I do not think there was any uniform practice as to when this stencilled statement was circulated. I believe I am right in that.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: I have no desire to hold up proceedings at this stage, but I refrained

from taking part in the discussion of a previous measure with which we have already dealt, and I should like to be clear on this point. I agree with what has just been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I remember being here when Mr. Xlsley presented his war appropriation bill, when the late Mr. Ralston was minister of national defence. I have followed the remarks of the minister closely, and it seems to me that this huge vote has to do with more than his department and the Department of National Defence. One or two other departments will be very much concerned, directly or indirectly, with this expenditure of money. I had some observations that I should have liked to make, and questions I wanted to ask, concerning those departments. If we should agree to let this resolution go to committee, I hope the rules will not be too strictly adhered to and that the minister will permit us to make such observations and ask such questions at that time, without being called to order because the other matter has been dealt with already. The minister is not precisely following what was done on previous occasions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are not in committee yet, so I suppose I should not be jumping up and down answering questions. In the case of the war appropriation measures, however, there were two and at times three ministers of defence; the items of the minister of munitions and supply, those of the wartime prices and trade board and others were all included; and the detailed break-down was given by each minister as his estimates were reached. I have a very clear recollection of that.


James Arthur Ross: Every department of government.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Almost every department of government was in; and these multigraphed statements giving the break-down of details were never given in advance. To answer the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), I would give without hesitation the assurance that every possible question any hon. member may care to ask can be asked in the committee stage; and I know I am speaking for all my colleagues concerned. They will furnish all the information that can be made available. Advantage will not be taken of the rules to close off debate.


George Alexander Drew: Just to make it quite clear, the minister has stated that the information was never given in detail at this stage. I would remind him of what I quoted from page 392 of Hansard for February 11, 1944. On that occasion Mr. Ilsley did table a complete statement for every department, which takes up nine pages of fine print in Hansard. That break-down of the expenditures of all these
Defence Appropriation Act departments shows what the money was to be used for. So it is not correct to say it was never done. It was done, and Mr. Ilsley explained that it was for the purpose of having an orderly discussion of these matters in the committee stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And when we got into committee we had the same thing.


Mr. Low:: I imagine the ministers have these mimeographed statements ready, and it seems to be the general desire of the opposition to have those statements in their hands so that they may give intelligent expression to their wishes, and properly frame their questions.
I should like to ask the minister why he takes the position he does, in the light of the general desire to have that statement in our hands before going into committee. If he wishes to facilitate orderly discussion, I should think he would be prepared to admit that this house is the master of its procedure. If it is the general desire that the mimeographed statement be distributed before we go into committee, surely the minister must give a good reason why he should not do so; otherwise he should accede to our request.


Mr. Graydon:: Have you lost the key to those suitcases?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My own personal view is that it will make for more orderly discussion if we deal with the details in committee. I agree with the leader of the opposition that I should not have used the word "never"; but I think I did say earlier that the procedure varies. My recollection of the general practice was that this stencilled copy of the details was circulated, and perhaps in some cases printed when we were in committee. I think it will make for the more expeditious and more orderly discussion of the details if we distribute it then. Certainly there will be no lack of opportunity to dig into every single item. So far as I have any responsibility for putting this measure through, that view is the one that I propose to take. I do not know whether the ministers concerned have the break-down; I presume they have. The other day I indicated that I hoped they would have the break-down in multigraphed form for all members, as was done during the war. As I say, I hope they have it available, but I have not checked with them.


George Alexander Drew: Do we understand that this is not available now? Is it available?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether it is available or not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is not available, how did you arrive at the total?
274	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, without carrying this discussion too far beyond the immediate subject, just let us examine the situation with which we are confronted. This house, having disposed of the first of two vitally important subjects, is now being asked to deal with further appropriations which will make a total actual provided expenditure and commitment for the current year of $1,419,877,191. This country has never before been called upon to contemplate anything of this kind in a so-called year of peace. This is a time when the government should seek and should welcome the co-operation of all members of this house on both sides. But the way to obtain that co-operation is to furnish the information which makes it possible to extend co-operation and to discuss this matter with some knowledge of what the facts are. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is an affront to the house and an affront to the people of Canada to come into this house and to place before us a request that carries the total obligation of this country for the current year, for defence preparations, to a figure of over $1,400 million, and then for the Minister of Finance to say: "I do not even know whether I have the statement ready upon which these figures are based".


Douglas Charles Abbott: Since we are all making half a dozen speeches, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister speaks, may I remind hon. members that the procedure which we are following now is not the usual procedure. I think there should be a conclusion to this discussion on the procedure to be followed. I am of course in the hands of the house, but I believe that the house should decide almost immediately what procedure is to be followed and should then go ahead with the debate in accordance with that procedure.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we could make more progress if the government or the ministers concerned would tell us frankly whether or not they have such a break-down of the figures as has been asked for. If they have not that break-down, there is no particular sense in insisting that they produce it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Donald MacInnis: They cannot produce that which they have not; but they should let the house know what the fact is, so that we could get down to something that they have. I am getting rather tired of this peculiar logic, that you can deal more intelligently with something that you have not seen and studied until you are called upon to deal with it. I do not know what we were told when

we were discussing Bill No. 1, but in any case we did not see Bill No. 1 until we came into the house at eight o'clock to discuss it.


An hon. Member:: On second reading.


Donald MacInnis: Yes, on second reading. Surely the Minister of Finance, who after all is a bright young man, is not to tell plodding persons like myself-and even under some circumstances I think I am fairly bright too-that I can understand something by just having it to look at and then starting in to discuss it. That is not the way things are done. That is not the way in which things were dealt with by the greatest finance minister in my time, Mr. Ilsley.


James Arthur Ross: It certainly was not.


Donald MacInnis: Let us be frank. Let the government be frank with the house. If they have not such a statement, let them say so, and we shall go about it in some other way.


Mr. Claxion:: Perhaps I can be of some assistance to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and also try to clarify what is purely a question of the right and orderly way of getting on with the business of the house.
I have looked up the procedure that was followed in 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944, and I find that, although there were minor variations, by and large the procedure followed was that the minister of finance moved the resolution to introduce the war appropriation bill, and then either instantly got into committee and when in committee produced a break-down; or else on other occasions, such as the one mentioned by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in 1944, introduced not a break-down at all but a division between departments. That is what was done in 1944, as reported at page 392 of Hansard, referred to by the leader of the opposition, in which the items for national defence were given under three departments:	army services,
naval services, air services and then sundry services, one line each, which is no breakdown at all.


George Alexander Drew: Of course it is.


Brooke Claxton: Each other department was given in one line as a rule, corresponding to the navy. Then we went on in the Department of National Defence, at page 393; and that year, as the leader of the opposition has said, there were given about two pages of break-down in the usual form. But in the years 1941, 1942 and 1943 the procedure was that when they got into committee the minister in charge of the estimates for each
IMr. Knowles.]

department gave a break-down in committee. It therefore appeared to us that that seemed to be the right and orderly way to do it. If that course had commended itself to this house, we would have gone into committee after any general statement had been made, and one second after being in committee the break-down would have been circulated to hon. members, as I think was done in 1941, 1942 and 1943 by the ministers of defence.


Mr. Homuth:: But you cannot do it, because you have not got it.


Brooke Claxton: Of course we have it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then why don't you give it to us?


Brooke Claxton: It is just a question of when you get it, so that we can get on with the business of the house. I do not regard this as a matter of the slightest seriousness. I do riot know why the members of the opposition are making any point of it. But since they do, by all means let them have it now, and let us get on with the business.


George Alexander Drew: On a matter of privilege,
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has just stated that the only details were given on page 392 of Hansard and given in a single line.


Brooke Claxton: No. Apparently the leader of the opposition did not hear me. I went on and referred to the details given at pages 395 and 396.


George Alexander Drew: No, they are given on page-


Brooke Claxton: Pages 393 and 394.


George Alexander Drew: Yes; they are given in very considerable detail, and not just in single lines, and they are given under the break-down.


Brooke Claxton: That is precisely what I said.


George Alexander Drew: They are given in a measure of break-down that makes it possible to ask questions, and that is what we should have now. That was given before there was any discussion, and before it passed into committee. .


Brooke Claxton: That is precisely what I said, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We will wait while the pages pass around.
Morion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?
Defence Appropriation Act


George Alexander Drew: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: This is not a laughing matter. We are dealing here with the survival of our country, and this house is being treated in a manner that suggests that the members of the government think that they are being extremely tolerant if the members are allowed even to be present here while they go through the motions.
The first question I want to ask is: Are we at this stage going to get the details we have been asking before any question is asked?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: Well, then, Mr. Chairman, would you arrange for the distribution immediately before any further questions are asked?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It should be done, of course.


Some hon. Members:: Where are they?


Brooke Claxton: Wihile these papers are being distributed I wonder if it would meet the convenience of the committee if I made a general statement as the basis of the discussion which will follow?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister proceeds, may I ask whether we shall get similar documents for the other amounts referred to in the resolution? This document being circulated to us now deals with only $142,200,200. Will we get a similar break-down of all the other items, both the cash expenditures and the commitments referred to in the resolution?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might answer that. The estimates, as I indicated in my opening statement, cover the Department of National Defence. The document which is being circulated to hon. members outlines the breakdown, I take it, of the additional cash requirements for that department until the 31st day of March and the additional commitments.
The second big item is $300 million for Atlantic pact mutual aid. Quite obviously there cannot be any break-down of that item, because we do not know yet what particular items we shall be required to produce.
The third item is the $2 million for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There of course the Minister of Justice will be glad to give the house the details.
Possibly the Secretary of State for External Affairs might care to say something, or answer some questions as to the $300 million appropriation; but for reasons which I think will be obvious there can be no detailed

Defence Appropriation Act break-down of that item. The whole breakdown will relate to the Department of National Defence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the items relating to future commitments?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is also future commitments in the Department of National Defence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will we have a break-down of those?


Brooke Claxton: They are being circulated
now.


James Arthur Ross: Before the minister proceeds, I should like to say a word if he does not mind, and hon. members of the government side can try to howl me down if they like. This is the very point I tried to raise before we went into committee. It can now be seen that I have been prevented from saying what I wished to say under this heading, and to ask the questions I wished to ask. The Minister of Finance has just said that this vote covers much more than the Department of National Defence and finance directly. You cannot proceed properly with the consideration of the purchases of the defence department-and I would think the Department of Agriculture would be much concerned about it-you cannot undertake your defence problems, the purchase of food and so on, under the bill which we passed on June 5 last, three months ago, giving the Minister of Trade and Commerce very wide powers to purchase for the Department of National Defence.
One of the clauses of that bill set out the agricultural products which the minister purchasing for defence had the power to take over. The Department of National Defence will have to work very closely with the Minister of Trade and Commerce as the minister of the purchasing department for national defence, and the Minister of Agriculture. If we are not going to be able to discuss these two departments under this great vote of money then it will be very improper to my way of thinking. It was for that reason that I desired to proceed to discuss this resolution with the Speaker in the chair. We have been very much circumscribed and very improperly so, in my opinion. It is not fair to the producers and to the taxpayers of Canada as a whole.


Major James William Coldwell: I was going to ask a similar question. How are we to proceed? I thought it was expected that there would be a debate with the Speaker in the chair, but owing to the noise and confusion in the house at the time, and the discussion on the particular document that has just been circulated, what
tMr. Abbott.)
the hon. member for Souris has said is true. We were denied that opportunity. Now that we have passed that stage do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that we shall be prevented from discussing the general situation and the total appropriations? Because of the confusion, the Chair might allow the discussion to take place and grant us some latitude.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I heard someone say "No," Mr. Chairman. Let me suggest to the hon. members who said "No" that this is a matter which requires the co-operation of all the Canadian people and of all parties in this house. Any attempt to deny hon. members the right properly to discuss the situation, on the financial proposals generally, would be a mistake in view of the circumstances. I do not believe that that would be the desire either of the Prime Minister or of the Minister of Finance. I am quite sure i't would not be their desire, but I just wanted to get that point clarified in order that we might proceed,


Mr. Fleming:: Before you make your ruling, Mr. Chairman, may I bring this fact to your attention? Some question has arisen now as to. the extent to which a general debate may take place at this stage. The Speaker left the chair, perhaps three or four minutes ago, to the infinite surprise of all of us down in this end of the chamber because we did not hear one word he said before he left. The reason we did not hear one word he said before he left is that the government supporters in the house were setting up a regular hubbub. Sir, if they have nothing else to do, they could at least contribute to the orderly procedure in the house by staying out of the house or refraining from making this hubbub. At least we should know what Mr. Speaker said. How else in the interests of the people of Canada are we to discharge our parliamentary duties?
There is no member in this section of the house who heard one word Mr. Speaker said before he left the chair-not a word. Those members sitting close to Mr. Speaker, and who happen to be government supporters, appear to take satisfaction from the fact that, by their disorderly conduct in the house, and by the hubbub they have been raising here, they have in this way disrupted procedure in the house when a subject of vital importance is before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I too deplore what happened, but may I offer a suggestion to which the Prime Minister and the other ministers concerned might give consideration. Now that we are in committee on the resolution, which is a lengthy one, it is

perfectly in order in committee to discuss that resolution in its entirety. We are also interested in details. I suggest that, for orderly procedure, it be understood that for a period of time, whether an hour or two, or a day or two, we hear hon. members, one from each group first, and then others, enter into a general discussion, the kind of discussion we would have had if Mr. Speaker had stayed in the chair.
When hon. members are satisfied that we have had that opportunity, we could go on to a discussion of details, item by item. I thought the hon. member for Greenwood was trying to get the floor-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -when Mr. Speaker left the chair. The leader of this group was prepared to speak as soon as a member of the Progressive Conservative party had spoken. Let us follow that procedure now, by general agreement.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As the minister in charge of the bill, may I say that I think that is an excellent suggestion. There is nothing, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, which would prevent any hon. member making comments of a general nature. It certainly would make for orderly procedure if this could be disposed of as is sometimes done in connection with the first item for departmental administration in the general estimates, and then go into detail. If that course of procedure is acceptable, then I think it is an excellent suggestion and one which should be followed.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to make a suggestion to the minister. As has been pointed out by other hon. members, when we are on the resolution as a whole any hon. member has the right to deal generally with any part of the resolution itself. That being so, we ought now to have the details of the appropriation in each of the departments distributed to the members while that discussion is going on. I think the minister will be the first to agree to that. It ought to be distributed now so that we shall have the full information before us.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The full details are distributed. The only additional amounts that are being asked are (1) Department of National Defence, cash commitments authority; (2) Department of Justice, a couple of million dollars to extend the police service to British Columbia and Newfoundland; and (3) continuing appropriation of $300 million to enable defence supplies and equipment to be produced, purchased and probably given away.
Defence Appropriation Act
The only break-down of detail relates of course to the Department of National Defence. I understand that is now in process of being circulated and will be studied by hon. members. All the detail is being made available. But there are no additional items for other departments of government, such as was the case during the war-agriculture, finance and so on. There are no additional appropriations being asked for those departments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will that be placed on Hansard now?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no objection. It is as follows:



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1950-51 CASH PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Navy
Royal Canadian Navy-
Civil salaries and wages	 $	500,000
Pay and allowances	 477,207
Travel, transportation, freight and
express	 399,250
1,376,457
General-
Acquisition, construction, purchase, maintenance repairs and operating
expenses of properties	 $ 2,791,000
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	 1,447,649
Stores and equipment:	signal and
wireless stores, ammunition and bombs, armament stores, acquisition and construction of ships and naval aircraft, mechanical equipment including transport and spare parts,
naval and aircraft stores	 22,297,535
Fuel costs for ships, aircraft and mechanical equipment	 835,989
Sundries, including printing, stationery and office equipment, special training equipment and films, recruiting, communication services, miscellaneous services and other items not
included in above	 787,500
28,159,673
Total Navy	 29,536,130
Army
Canadian Army-active force-
Civil salaries and wages	 $ 1,206,200
Pay and allowances	 12,847,600
Travel, transportation, freight and
express	 6,253,270
20,307,070
General-
Acquisition, construction, purchase, maintenance repairs and operating expenses of properties	
9,050,933
[Stage Direction]
Defence Appropriation Act
Army-Cone.
General-Cone.
Personnel supplies and services: food supplies, medical and dental supplies and services, clothing and personal equipment, barrack, hospital, camp and miscellaneous equipment, laundry and dry cleaning	
Stores and equipment:	signal and
wireless stores, ammunition and bombs, armament stores, mechanical equipment including transport and spare parts, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and spare parts, repair by civilian contract of vehicles, weapons
and technical stores	
Fuel costs for mechanical equipment Sundries, including printing, stationery and office equipment, communication services, recruiting expenses, miscellaneous items not included in above	
11,857,530
11,149,000
373,700
1,233,000
33,664,163
Northwest highway system-
Stores and equipment:	mechanical
equipment including transport and
spare parts	 200,000
Total Army	 54,171,233
Air
Royal Canadian Air Force (Regular) -
Civil salaries and wages	 $	744,720
Pay and allowances	 2,808,464
Travel, transportation, freight and express	 1,165,600
4,718.784
General-
Acquisition, construction, purchase, maintenance repairs and operating
expenses of properties	 15,170,128
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	 5,229,246
Stores and equipment:	signal and
wireless stores, ammunition and bombs, armament stores, mechanical equipment including transport and spare parts, aircraft, engines and spares, including overhauls and
miscellaneous stores	 31,719,964
Fuel costs for aircraft and mechanical
equipment	 926,715
Sundries, including printing and stationery, communication services, special training equipment and films and recruiting expenses	 728,000
53,774,053
Total Royal Canadian Air Force	 58,492,837
Total defence services, cash program ..	142,200,200

[Stage Direction]
Navy
General-	\
Acquisition, construction and purchase
of properties	
[Mr. Abbott.!
[Stage Direction]
Navy-Cone.
General-Cone.
Personnel supplies and services: clothing and personal equipment, barrack, hospital and miscellaneous equipment	 1,204,125
Stores and equipment:	signal and
wireless stores, armament stores, acquisition and construction of ships and naval aircraft, naval and aircraft
stores	 54,201,000
Sundries, including special training equipment and	films	 100,000
Total Navy	 61,050,125
Army
Canadian Army-active force-
Travel and transportation	 $	107,000
107,000
General-
Acquisition, construction and purchase
of properties	
Personnel supplies and services: clothing and personal equipment, barrack, hospital, camp and miscellaneous equipment, medical and dental
supplies and services	
Stores and equipment: signal and wireless stores, ammunition and bombs, armament stores, mechanical transport vehicles and spare parts, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and spare parts, repair of vehicles, equipment and stores	
62,033,773
13,290,933
8,185,000
40,557,840
Northwest highway system- Acquisition, construction and purchase
of properties	 500,000
500,000
Total Army	 62,640,773
Acquisition, construction, purchase, maintenance and repair of properties $ 44,083,660 Personnel supplies and services: clothing and personal equipment, barrack, hospital, camp and miscellaneous equipment	 1,927,750
Stores and equipment: signal and wireless stores, ammunition and bombs, armament stores, mechanical transport vehicles and spare parts, aircraft engines and spares, overhaul of
aircraft miscellaneous stores	 238,739,513
Sundries, including communication services, special training equipment and films	 816,000
Total Air	 285,566,923
Total defence services	 409,257,821
Defence research	 5,310,000
Department of National Defence, future
years program	 414,567,821
Gordon Graydon: What is the amount for the Minister of Justice?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The details are in the bill. It is an estimated amount to extend the police service to British Columbia and Newfoundland, in the same manner as has been done in all the other provinces except Quebec and Ontario. Instead of having their own provincial police they have entered into an agreement with the dominion government to have the R.C.M.P. perform those duties.


Gordon Graydon: What is the basis upon which the Minister of Justice asks for this appropriation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will give that when that item is being considered.


Gordon Graydon: That is an important point. My point is that we should have the details now, when the general resolution is before us.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would be a one-line detail, something of the kind that appears in the printed estimates. It would be included in the estimates of the Department of Justice on a per capita basis, so much additional money to provide R.C.M.P. constables in British Columbia and Newfoundland.


Gordon Graydon: With great deference I suggest that one line is scarcely a detail.


Douglas Charles Abbott: When we get to the R.C.M.P. the Minister of Justice will give more elaborate details.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the Minister of
Finance why this vote for the R.C.M.P. is included in a war appropriation bill? Any information that has been given to date with regard to the deal for policing British Columbia has not been on the basis of a war measure. Why should we now have this vote in a war appropriation bill?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether my
hon. friend was following me when I spoke earlier. However, I did go into that at great length. I explained that an agreement was entered into in August. When the appropriation act was passed in June it was not certain what the arrangement was going to be. It was not contemplated any additional supplementary estimates were being filed at this session, and I pointed out that this was not really related to defence but that, owing to the existing conditions of international uncertainty, it was desirable that the national police force should have an operating force in our two coastal provinces. As a matter of convenience it was included in this measure. I went into that in detail in my speech.


Howard Charles Green: Just tagged that on because the government wishes to have the money passed.
Defence Appropriation Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: The money has to be voted and it could be included in this measure.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not know whether the official opposition is going to open a general discussion which, I think, was more or less intended. I do not wish to usurp the first place. If they are prepared to go on I shall wait, but if not I shall proceed because there are some general remarks I should like to make.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Major James William Coldwell: I take it that I may begin them now. First of all I wish to say that I think everyone in the house, regardless of where he sits, will give general approval to the appropriation now before the committee. We should like to look into the document which is now being circulated, in order to inform ourselves as to the details. We know they are not rigid. We should like to know all about the appropriations we are asked to vote.
This is indeed a huge appropriation. My mind goes back to 1939. I well remember the appropriation on that occasion placed before the house. The special budget was for $100 million, and we authorized the raising by way of loan of another $100 million, namely a total sum of $200 million, when we declared war in 1939.
As the leader of the opposition has pointed out, the total of expenditures or commitments we shall make this year for defence is, in round figures, $1 420 million.
I should like to break that figure down so that we shall have the break-down before us. For the United Nations forces and for Korea there is $142 million. Then for arms for Europe, $300 million. Then we have defence research and development, $5 million. There are therefore appropriations of $447 million for those purposes. There are further commitments of $409 million. That makes the contemplated expenditures to be authorized at this session $856 -million. Then if we go back to the last session of parliament we find that in June we provided about $420 million cash for the current year for the Department of National Defence. There were further commitments over a period of time totalling $144 million, making the budget and commitments in June $564 million.
If we add those together we find that for the current year there will be cash expenditures and commitments for defence totalling $1,420 million, of which the cash commitments this year appear to be $872 million. Let us compare that with the total appropriation of $200 million made in September, 1939. When that is done we shall realize to what extent it is necessary to make preparations

Defence Appropriation Act for national defence at this time and in order to assist the United Nations in defending the world against the threat of aggression.
This house is entitled to the most complete statement, both as to the necessity for spending this money-to some extent that was undertaken by the minister of external affairs and the Minister of National Defence during the debate on the address-and as to how the money is to be spent. We have supported the proposal of the official opposition for the establishment of a committee on national defence. I think it is rather interesting to look over the record and note that a similar committee was suggested by the late Mr. Mackenzie King on May 20, 1940, and because of the present government's refusal to accept a similar proposal I should like to quote what he said as reported on page 49 of Hansard of that date. He was dealing with a resolution of a character similar to the one with which we are dealing, and he said:
There should be a general debate on the resolution. We can then refer the appropriation bill to a committee or committees of the House of Commons in order that there may be disclosed to the members of those committees information which would not probably be in the public interest to place on the pages of Hansard or to broadcast in debate to the House of Commons.
Further on in the same speech he said:
1 should like to emphasize that the setting up of these committees will not preclude in any way any member from debating any subject to which he may desire to call the attention of the house and the country, and I give my assurance to hon. members that the constitution of such committees will not be used as a pretext for concealing any information which it is in the public interest to disclose.
The former prime minister suggested that there might be one committee or even three committees to deal with the three branches of the armed services, army, air and navy. The prime minister added this:
-officers of the department and of the service will attend the committees when required.
On May 21 the then leader of the opposition, the late Hon. R. B. Hanson, asked for a clarification of Mr. King's suggestion because there was some hesitation on his part to accept the proposal because of the fear that certain secret information might be given and the hands of the opposition thus tied. In other words, the government might regard as secret something which the opposition might not think was of a secret nature and their hands would be tied in the house.
On May 28 I urged that the committee should be appointed and Mr. King made a further explanation. Mr. Hanson then stated that the official opposition had an open mind on the matter, but, apparently from the remarks that had been made by the prime
I Mr. Coldwell.]
minister, had come to the conclusion, and I quote from page 273 of Hansard of May 28, as follows:
-that no useful purpose will be served by referring the bill to such committees.
I have not looked up subsequent Hansards, but as far as I can recollect no further request of that nature was made. But something else was done. A committee was established on March 4, 1941, to examine expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament. Because of the huge expenditures that are now being made I am suggesting to the house that a similar committee should be established, either at this session or at the first opportunity at the next session of parliament, to look into the expenditures by these departments and to operate very much as the war expenditures committee operated during the whole of the second great war. On March 4, 1941, Mr. King moved this resolution:
That a select committee be appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for the defence services, and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein, and that notwithstanding standing order 65 the committee shall consist of twenty-four members as follows:
I shall not bother to give the names of the members.
-with power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses and to report from time to time to the house.
The government as well as hon. members of the house were proud of the work done by that committee, not that it discovered anything that was wrong with the expenditures but because it was felt that the fact the committee had been established and the fact that officials of the departments had come before it guaranteed to the house and to the country that there would be some supervision over the expenditures made and would help to prevent what might otherwise have been wasteful expenditures.
The amount authorized by the war appropriation bill of 1940 did not exceed $700 million but under the present legislation we are going to provide $856 million by way of cash and commitments, so if there was a need for the establishment of a committee in 1940 there is a much greater need now when we are appropriating some $156 million more than we did when the previous committee was established. That is in addition to the large amounts that were passed in the main estimates in June and to which I have already referred. I should of course like to see the original suggestion of the late prime minister put into effect and have a committee to review war expenditures. May I also say that that committee-and for some time I was

a member of it-sat not only while parliament was in session but also when parliament was in recess. I think that it gave close attention to the work of the departments and was able to bring before the house from time to time valuable information as to the manner in which the appropriations were being spent.
Having said that, and knowing that we must do our full part financially and in every other way in this United Nations attempt to stop further aggression in the world, I think there are some other matters that we must take into consideration besides the actual amounts of the expenditures. These expenditures are huge. I do not know what the Minister of Finance will suggest when we go into committee of ways and means and he brings down proposals for further taxation or something of that sort, but in spite of anything that we may do these expenditures are bound to have an inflationary effect. At the moment the country is suffering from the highest price level in the history of the land. Men and women are wondering how they are going to be able to pay their rent, clothe their children and buy the necessaries of life. May I say that even some of those who are under pension or allowances from the government are finding themselves in a very difficult position indeed.
For example, I had a letter this morning from a war veteran in my constituency-and of course I shall be taking up the case directly with the minister-who told me that his wife had been working and had been earning a small amount over and above the war veterans allowance of $70 a month he is receiving. A few days ago an inspector called and told the wife that she had better quit the job, because she was making rather more than the $260 permitted in addition to the allowance, or her husband would lose the allowance. But if you add together his pension and what she was making you will find that they were getting less than $100 a month. No matter where you live in this country today, no married couple, with or without a family, can live decently, pay rent, buy fuel, clothe themselves and buy food at the high prices now existing for anything in the neighbourhood of $100 per month.
Therefore I say to the government, and we have already ' placed our view before the house by way of an amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, that we believe that the government should take the power to institute certain beneficial controls. We voted for the amendment of the official opposition because it too protested against the inflation under which the country is now suffering, although they did not tell us exactly what steps they would take to curtail
Defence Appropriation Act inflation or to control or bring down the cost of living, as the case may be. They voted against our proposal to introduce measures of control. There is no reason why the government under such conditions should not act to protect the Canadian people from the mounting cost of living, either by beneficial controls or by subsidies, whichever may be preferable in the circumstances.
The Prime Minister excused the government the other day on the ground that a dominion-provincial conference was pending. The inference was that we should be wary lest we did anything now which would more or less annoy the provincial premiers. But people today are suffering from the inflated cost of living and they are expecting parliament to do something about it at this time because obviously the provinces cannot. I shall not refer to the judgment of our own supreme court when the government referred to it the matter of rent control and the court held that during an emergency, because of the scarcity of homes and so on in the country, parliament had the right to continue rent control, but there is recorded in Western Weekly Reports, volume 2, page 6, of the issue of May-August, 1946, the judgment of Lord Simon in the case of Attorney General of Ontario v. Canada Temperance Federation (1946). This is what Lord Simon said in the privy council:
In their lordships' opinion, the true test must be found in the real subject matter of the legislation. If it is such that it goes beyond local or provincial concern or interests and must from its inherent nature be the concern of the dominion as a whole-
Then he gives various citations.
__then it will fall within the competence of the
dominion parliament as a matter affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada, though it may in another aspect touch upon matters specially reserved to the provincial legislatures. War and pestilence, no doubt, are instances; so too may be the drink or drug traffic, or the carrying of arms. In Russel v. the Queen, Sir Montague Smith gave as an instance of valid dominion legislation a law which prohibited or restricted the sale or exposure of cattle having a contagious disease.
Then he went on to say:
Nor is the validity of the legislation, when due to its inherent nature, affected because there may still be room for enactments by a provincial legislature dealing with an aspect of the same subject in so far as it specially affects that province.
If I understand the meaning of English words-and not being a lawyer of course I do not profess to be an authority on interpreting legal phraseology-it would seem to me to mean that where the matter concerns the whole dominion, even though it touches the right of the legislatures with respect to that particular matter, the dominion would

Defence Appropriation Act have the right to legislate even if the provinces also had the right to legislate in the same field. That being the case, I think the excuse that the government makes has really very little point to it, and that it is their duty, as it is the duty of this parliament, to protect our people from the soaring price level to which they have been subjected in the last few months, and which is rising almost from day to day.
In the debate on the address various hon. members pointed to the recent increases in the price of bread, sugar and other commodities. Some commodities, such as bread and flour, are of course under the control of very powerful combines in this country. That was indicated in the two reports of the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act. So it seems to me this parliament has a duty to protect the people against the inflation and the high cost of living under which they are suffering at this time. I repeat that our supreme court held that parliament could retain rent control in what might and should be considered to be an emergency situation due to the shortage of accommodation. When we appropriate this huge sum of money, much of which will be put into circulation in this country, even if the government intends through taxation or by compulsory savings or in some other way to withdraw as much as possible of that purchasing power, we are still in danger of further inflation. Indeed, if we turn production away from some of the basic things needed by the people of Canada into munitions of war and supplies that are needed for the armed forces, this creates further scarcities, and even if the amount of money in circulation is restricted in some way, will cause further increases in prices. Since the outbreak of the war in Korea, as hon. members from British Columbia know and as I am sure my colleague from Kootenay West could tell the committee, because of the needs of the armed forces of the United States and the demand for lumber to meet those needs, the cost of lumber, already high, has reached unprecedented heights in that province. In view of our housing shortage this is an illustration of what army demands mean to civilian supply.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think we have the right and indeed the obligation to urge upon the government with all the strength within us that they do something effective in the way of controlling the economy or, by the institution of subsidies, bring the prices of ordinary goods within reach of the average man and woman. If that is not done we shall see grave industrial unrest. There are two reasons why I do not want to see such industrial unrest in this country. One is that
fMr. Cold well.]


Solon Earl Low: I too should like to make a general statement at this time, Mr. Chairman, in order to place our position clearly before the committee. I realize that the government is not asking me for advice, and that they probably will not pay me much for any that I give. I am, however, going to give them some just the same, as a result of the experiences which we have had over the years. I am going to try, if I can, to draw a few lessons at least from the experience that Canada had during the last war.
I think that everyone must realize that we cannot in this house divorce the economic considerations from the military ones. As a matter of fact, we all must realize that whenever we undertake to make large military commitments we inevitably cause some important effect upon the economy of our country. What I have to say today will in some measure touch upon the economic aspects of the whole situation as we must face it in the years ahead.
When the Minister of Finance had his estimates before the house last June, I felt that somebody was doing his level best to cut down the amounts of money which the minister must have thought he required if he were to build adequate defences for this country. I believe I said at the time in this committee that I felt that someone was doing some unnecessary cheeseparing; and I assured the minister then that the Social Credit group in the house felt that he should have more money. I told him that if the treasury board or anyone else was denying him the amounts he required, he should let us know and the members of this house would stand behind him in his demand that sufficient money be granted to make it possible for him to do the job that he thought ought to be done. I am not standing here today in a spirit of "I told you so". What I want to say in all seriousness, though, Mr. Chairman, is this. In my judgment the treasury board has been niggardly. It has


been shortsighted. It has unnecessarily pared down the defence estimates that the minister must have asked for last June, and I think that it will stand condemned before the Canadian people today because of that shortsightedness. Because of what they have done in cutting the minister's estimates back to about $425 million, as they were before us in June, I believe the treasury board have retarded beyond the safety mark the preparations for the defence of this country. If the country is to be prepared as it ought to be, in the light of all the information that has been given to us here, it looks to me as though it is going to be necessary for the government to increase those appropriations for defence purposes substantially each year perhaps until we reach not less than a billion dollars a year. I cannot see anything less than a billion a year; certainly not less and maybe more if Russia, China and other nations that are now taking a poor view of western people and western countries show an inclination to become more openly hostile to the rest of the world. If it does require a billion dollars a year for defence appropriations, then the Canadian budget will have to amount to something around $3 billion a year if we are to continue the present level of services. Well, that is an astounding amount of money. But I say, Mr. Chairman, that that sum is not beyond the ability of the Canadian people to carry for some years to come, provided that the gross national production of Canada is kept at a high level.
This year the Minister of Finance forecast that Canada would produce $16,250 million worth of goods and services. Even this vast figure is not anything like the potential of our productive capacity. If we geared our efforts to it, saw the necessity for it and took advantage of every opportunity to increase our efficiency in plants, and made full use of manpower, I am satisfied that we could bring our productive capacity up to $18 billion and more a year. It seems to us that the government must make every effort to get production of every kind of goods and services at the highest possible level, let us say, at the optimum level. I do not know how many people understand the meaning of that term, but it is a good one. It sounds good, anyway.
We realize that emphasis must be placed on essentials, of course, those essentials which will be required if we are to become strong and defend ourselves against any possible aggression. That is as it should be; but even so, it appears to us, Mr. Chairman, that there is enough plant in Canada, with all of the expansion that has been going on since 1939,

and enough manpower and machinery available, to enable Canada to step up her production for defence purposes without very seriously, at least for the moment, affecting the level of most of the essentials of good living.
If we get into a full-scale war-and God forbid; I sincerely hope that no such thing will happen-then of course the situation might be essentially changed; but let me stress once again that we do feel Canada can step up her production for defence purposes to the level that I have suggested, perhaps a billion dollars a year, and without in any way seriously affecting the level of most of the essentials of good living for the Canadian people.
It is not only because we are anxious to maintain a fairly high standard of living for our people that we consider a high level of gross national production is essential; that is, higher than the present level of gross national production. There is another very good reason, namely, to provide the broadest possible tax base. I am sure the Minister of Finance will appreciate how much easier it is to extract revenue from the people of the country, so that he can do a good job not only on national defence but also on every branch of government, if the gross national production, as well as the national income, is kept at a high level. Conversely the minister, and every one of us, must know how difficult it becomes to extract sufficient revenue if we try to work on a shrinking tax base. It seems to me, when we come into a period of stress such as we now face, one of our considerations ought to be to keep our tax base as broad as we possibly can. The only way in which that can be done is to keep our gross national production at a high level together, as I said, with national income. Any policies that will induce high production of all kinds of goods and services, essentials as well as some of those that the people may wish for a good standard of living, must be formulated and applied.
On the other hand, I think it is the obligation of the government, and of this parliament, to avoid applying any policies that will discourage production. Therefore it seems to me we must be careful with any new type of taxation that the government might think it necessary to apply. It may be that at the present stage there is no serious consideration of new tax measures. I suppose the Minister of Finance may be thinking that he can use to finance our commitments for the rest of this fiscal year at least some of the substantial surpluses that have been built up during the past four or five months since the end of the
Defence Appropriation Act last fiscal year. But at the present time there are doubtless at least some tax measures in operation which do discourage all-out efforts to produce at an optimum level. I know of some, and I know of a good many people throughout the country who declare that they would and could produce considerably more of the things which they have been producing were it not for the discouragement they meet with from the high level of taxation. We believe it is almost a sacred obligation of the government to remove those tax measures which are discouraging production, or in the alternative, to modify them so as to remove what discouragement there may be in them.
While I am speaking on taxation, Mr. Chairman, let me say to the government that the Social Credit group here is absolutely opposed to the imposition of any new taxation until something effective has been done to bring the prices and the cost of living into manageable proportions, particularly for the lower income groups of our population.
For one moment I should like to draw a picture, following up what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said, and also following up what I said the other day in talking on another measure. This country has to take seriously the whole situation of the cost of living; otherwise we are going to have a long chain of disruption and difficulties, labour troubles and all that sort of thing. Let me draw the picture. I represent, as hon. members know, the Peace River constituency of Alberta, a vast area of alternate wood and rocky land, and level, fertile prairie land, an area, Mr. Chairman, that covers between one-fourth and one-third of the total province of Alberta. It is a very large country. This year the crops were late. It looked as if they had splendid prospects for a time. Then drought set in, and a good many of the crops in certain areas did deteriorate. They came along quite well as a result of late rains after July 1, but they were away behind their usual time of development. But about the time that they began to look good in the middle of July, a devastating hailstorm, eighty miles long and averaging seven to eight miles, and up to sixteen miles in width, swept across that country and simply beat the crops into the earth. I saw the result of it while I was travelling through the constituency in July. I know what a terrible thing that hailstorm was, and what prospects it causes the people to face this year. They were still counting their losses from the terrible hail, a thing which rarely strikes the Peace river country, when about the middle of August a blanket of snow, in some places four inches deep, fell over that whole area and flattened the
286	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act green crops to the earth. That snowstorm was followed by three or four nights of frost. The crops were green. They were just in the milk stage, as they call it, and of course everyone knows what that means. The farmers will probably lose a good 50 per cent, if not more than that, of all their grain crops this year.
These people have been facing terrific costs, and they have not yet been able to build up any surplus reserves since the war. The farmers have been trying to replace machinery that had been worn out and that they could not replace during the war. They have been trying to paint barns and to carry out maintenance and repairs which were deferred during a time when they could not get supplies. As a result, they are in no position to take those heavy losses and at the same time meet the terrific costs of living in Canada today.
What are they going to do, when they have to pay a dollar for a piece of bully beef that could have been bought for ten cents a short time ago? What are they going to do if they have to continue to pay high prices for almost everything that enters into everyday living costs? It is impossible for them to get along. If this country is going to be united in its effort, and if there is going to be anything like the equality of sacrifice there must be, then the government will be obligated to do' something to bring prices within manageable proportions of those people particularly in the lower income groups, and those on farms who have been stricken as they were in Peace river this year.
I fully agree with what was said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The people in the country expect the government to take some effective action with respect to the cost of living so as to make it possible for them to meet the new sacrifices they will be called upon to make while at the same time living at a reasonable standard of comfort. It should be obvious to anyone that if the gross national production of Canada is kept at a high level, let us say for the sake of argument at $18 billion a year, which is not out of the question, then a total budget of $3 billion which includes $1 billion for defence would not be excessive, for a few years at least. The $3 billion out of $18 billion total gross national production represents a budget of about 16| per cent of the gross national production.
From what reading I have been able to do I understand that Russia's budget for military purposes has continued at about 13 per cent of the national income, and has been that for some time. That is a very large proportion,
[Mr. Xow.l

and we shall have to do something compar able if we expect to be able to defenc ourselves against aggressors of the type wt face.
However, it is also obvious that if we le1 the tax base shrink, or even if we allow the national production to remain at the $H billion present level, then the percentage required by the federal government coulc easily become excessive and more oppressive to the people of this country.
I note that in the resolution certain power: are provided for borrowing by the government. The limit is set at about $300 million I think the minister said this afternoon thai this provision concerning the borrowing powei was not directly related to the defence appropriation; it may be for the refinancing of bond issues which become due. If that i: so, then what I shall now say might no' entirely apply; but we shall run into a time when borrowing for defence purposes may become not only necessary but imperative
If we come to the stage where it is necessary to do some borrowing for anti-inflationary purposes, then I strongly advocate that the borrowing be not done from the chartered banks. When the hon. member foi Greenwood was speaking the other day in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne, I believe he said it was anticipatec that the government would be borrowinj from the banks. That would be the wors kind of inflation, because when the government borrows from a bank the bank create: new money and issues it to the governmen in return for the bonds of the governmen left on deposit with the bank.
Certainly that would be a most inflationary process and, so far as we are concerned would not fill the bill at all. If there i: to be any borrowing for anti-inflationary purposes, then it seems to me we should no commit ourselves to an arrangement witt the chartered banks of this country for ; service which the government's own treasury or, in the alternative, the Bank of Canadi could render just as well, and at a mucl lesser cost.
If the government finds it necessary ti reduce the potential purchasing power so a: to prevent inflation, then we suggest tha they think of applying a compulsory saving: program to be made effective on those income: above the level of the present income taj exemption. Certainly it would not be wis< to impose any compulsory saving schemi on those incomes less than the income taj exemption level, because those people in the lower brackets are having a hard enougl time now to meet the high living costs, with out the addition of any compulsory saving:

program. Certainly those above that level may be able to carry some of the burden at least of an anti-inflationary policy.
We say that an anti-inflationary policy of compulsory savings of the type I have suggested would be preferable to any policy of heavy taxation the government may have in mind.
We favour the setting up of a defence committee such as has been suggested. We voted for the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition because we felt that a committee of the kind suggested would be most essential. We feel that is the only way members of the House of Commons can be kept in close touch with the expenditures to be made out of the appropriations, and also keep in close touch with the whole situation as it develops in the days ahead. We feel we are entitled to a committee, and we ask that the government give serious consideration to the request for one.
The minister said in his initial statement today something like this: "We cannot escape the real cost involved in the present preparation for our defence. We must all revise our plans in some way." That is true; anyone who realizes the seriousness of the present situation must admit that to a very large degree the minister was correct in that statement. Our effort will have some adverse effects; it is bound to have adverse effects upon the living standards of every Canadian, and we have to adjust our thinking to that level and that reality. All must admit, too, that we shall have to buckle down and get ourselves ready for the real business, calling off any holidays we have been having since 1945.
But, having said that, I would say also that is no reason why the government should be sadistic in any way in subjecting the people of Canada to unnecessary austerity. We have had examples of such all too often in the past. We will support the government in applying those measures which will establish in this country, in reality, equality of sacrifice, and nothing less will satisfy us. I do not see why in the world it should be considered that the common, ordinary run of Canadian should have to put his nose to the grindstone any more than the fellows who are uncommon, and who are not the ordinary run of Canadians. We must all be in the same boat. It seems to me every policy laid down that has an effect on the Canadian economy and upon our defence position must be devised with that principle in mind, namely to distribute so far as possible the burden of sacrifice, so that there may be equality.
We say, and we say it in all sincerity and earnestness, that we do not want to see applied in this country any foolish sugar
Defence Appropriation Act policy such as we had in the last war. We do not want any S. R. Noble put in the position of dictatorship where he can deny Canadians the right to produce their own sugar. That was done in the last war, and was done unnecessarily, and in the sole interests of those few people who wanted to profit out of the war, and who did profit out of the war. We are asking that that sort of thing shall not be done in the present crisis. We say that the people of Canada should be induced to produce to the utmost of their ability all the sugar that Canada requires. That can be done without diverting manpower or effort from the essential defence efforts.
The same thing can be done with fats. During the last war we allowed ourselves to get into a very bad position in regard to essential oils. We foolishly allowed shortages to creep upon us when there was no need. We were shortsighted and there was some sadistic fellow in a position of importance who was inflated by his own ego and who imposed the most unnecessary austerity on the Canadian people. The research council has discovered that Canada can produce all the essential oils and edible fats she needs from such lowly plants as rape and stink-weed, or what they call pennycress. We should begin to give serious consideration to the advice of the research council scientists and prepare ourselves in every way possible by scattering the necessary information among our producers so that when the time comes we can have the seed available. The farmers will be ready to produce fats that are now brought in from other countries. The same thing can be said of many other essentials of life.
In conclusion I want to say that we support the government in asking for this appropriation for defence in order to make Canada as nearly secure as our resources and our manpower and our own efforts can. possibly make us. The Social Credit group will back up the minister in the request he makes, but we do ask him to support our request for a committee so that we can constantly scrutinize expenditures in the interests of efficiency and also to be sure that in the interests of the people we have all the information that is necessary to make wise decisions.


Mr. Brooks:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to presume to speak for my party as the leader of the C.C.F. has suggested that someone might do. I did not take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne but there are a few things I should like to say at this time. I would point out that the people in my constituency and province are much concerned with the

Defence Appropriation Act situation that exists at the present time. I feel quite sure that as usual they are determined to do their full share whenever the necessary occasion may arise.
They perhaps have felt the results of the Korean war a little more than most other parts of Canada because one of the first casualties in the Canadian forces was a young man from my own constituency. We all read with regret the account of how four young men had lost their lives a few days ago at Petawawa and, as I say, one of those young men lived quite close to my own home town. I have written a letter of sympathy to his parents and I know it would be the wish of all hon. members to extend their sympathy not only to his parents but to the parents of all the young men who lost their lives at that time.
This resolution calls for a large expenditure of money. After listening to the debates of the last few days I am satisfied that hon. members from all parts of Canada are behind the government in the expenditure of large sums of money, but they feel that care should be taken to see that that money is properly expended and that a dollar in value is received for every dollar spent.
The leader of the C.C.F. referred to the situation that existed in 1939 just before the last great war. I was a member of the house at that time and I recall the debates that took place. There was considerable isolationist feeling in those days in different parts of Canada. The leader of the C.C.F. expressed doubts as to whether money should be voted at that time for military expenditure. After the debates of the last few days I am sure we must all come to the conclusion that there is little isolationist feeling in Canada today. I could not understand how there could be any isolationist feeling with the threat that exists against our freedom.
The leader of the Social Credit group has referred to equality of sacrifice. I am sure that anyone who has read the history of the last two great wars will admit that there was no equality of sacrifice in Canada in those days. If Canada is again called upon to bear the terrific burdens that it has borne in the past two wars there must be equality of sacrifice, not only with regard to the things mentioned by the leader of the Social Credit group but also with regard to many other matters.
We have been discussing the war in Korea and today we are greatly concerned with the situation there. We do not know from hour to hour whether things will continue to get

worse and whether there will be another Dunkirk there. We hope that that will not happen, that the beachhead will be held and that the United Nations may be able to go on and liberate South Korea. But whatever happens I feel that the Korean war will not have been in vain. I believe that we shall have obtained much benefit from it even though it should be an immediate failure.
There were many lessons that we had to learn and I do not think this country or any other democratic country would have learned those lessons without their being brought to their attention in the way they have been in Korea. The first lesson we have to learn perhaps is that the communist countries with Russia at their head are prepared to fight anywhere and everywhere and that the democratic nations must be prepared to meet them anywhere and everywhere.
We have learned also that the United Nations as such is of very little good unless it has an army or a police force to carry out its ideas and oppose aggression wherever it may occur. I think we were all happy and proud in 1945 and 1946 when the United Nations was formed, but since the trouble has occurred in Korea we have realized the weaknesses in that organization. I am satisfied that had the Korean war not occurred we would not be prepared today to offer a defence against communism which we have great fear may advance against us. I think we have also learned from the experience of the Korean war that the equipment of the forces of the communist nations, supplied mostly by Russia, is not inferior to that of the democratic nations. Unfortunately the experience has been that Russian equipment used by the North Koreans in the present war is superior in many ways to United States equipment. Russian tanks have proved to be better than United States tanks. It is surprising to me that with this knowledge, and it was known months ago, there was not a greater improvement in tanks manufactured in the United States, Canada and other countries.
We have also learned that the bazooka, the defence which the United States forces used in the early part of the war, was not equal to the task of stopping the tanks which the North Koreans brought against them. These points only emphasize to us at this time, when we are voting many millions of dollars, that the investment we make must not be made in armament of inferior quality, whether it be tanks, guns, aeroplanes or anything else. We must obtain the very best to compete

with nations which, if they go to war, have shown us that they intend to have the very best.
I think this war has also taught us more than any other that the people of Asia, whom we more or less despised in our ignorance, the people of China, Korea and these other nations, are not the inferior men physically or in fighting qualities that we thought they were. This is a lesson which it is very wise to learn. I listened to the Secretary of State for External Affairs say the other day that we should know our enemy, or at least know the communists. We certainly should know the communists, and we should also know the valour of the men whom we may have to fight in Asia, Africa, or wherever it may be.
The Korean war has also taught us that the atomic bomb, of which the United States was supposed to have the sole possession for such a long time, is no defence against war. No atomic bombs have been used in the Korean war. Although we do not know in what quantity, we have learned that Russia also has the atomic bomb. Therefore it would be most unwise for Canada or any other democratic nation to depend on the atomic bomb for protection.
Listening to the debates I think we have also learned that the spending of large sums of money does not necessarily mean that a country is prepared for war. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that we have heard during the last few days except to say that in the last few years we have spent a billion and a half, and when war came we had practically nothing to show for it. For that reason I say that the billion and a half we intend to spend must be spent with economy and efficiency, and must be spent with an eye to the things that are needed, if indeed we should need them at a later date.
In the matter of munitions and supplies what I am about to say may seem like an old story to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I mentioned it during the last war. Now we are preparing to expend another billion and a half. In the past I have asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce to see that there was equal distribution of the money expended on war munitions and supplies in all parts of Canada. I cannot help but remember, as the people of the maritime provinces remember, the great neglect from which we suffered during the last war. We do not want another war to take place but we know from the moneys we are voting that there will be many millions of dollars expended in Canada. I believe that some of that money should be spent in the maritime 69262-19
Defence Appropriation Act provinces and in western Canada rather than so much of it in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Possibly the minister will tell us that we have not the hydroelectric power to supply the energy or the necessary factories to provide facilites in the maritime provinces. I should like to point out to the minister that since the last war we have increased our supply of hydroelectric power in the maritime provinces. I would also point out to him that during the last war many millions of dollars were spent by the government in the province of Quebec to develop hydroelectric power in order to produce munitions. It is not for any selfish reason that we ask for the manufacture of munitions in the maritime provinces. I believe it is a good sound principle in these times, when it is possible that there may be bombing in different parts of Canada, that our arsenals and the manufacture of various munitions should be widespread and not concentrated all in certain large towns and cities. Spread them across Canada and there will be less danger of all of them being destroyed.
I might also mention the effect of the last war on the development of trade and business after the war was over. Large factories and plants in Ontario and Quebec were bought for a song by different commercial businesses. As a result these provinces were provided with a further opportunity to develop, and the other provinces of Canada were placed under a greater handicap. Therefore I hope the minister will bear these matters in mind when he makes his plans for the manufacture of further munitions and supplies with the money to be voted.
After the last war we all hoped that there would be no further wars, although I sometimes think we must have been a little blind in the last three or four years in not noticing the developments in Russia and other communist countries. The result was that most of the camps throughout Canada were torn down and dismantled. We have learned that the armies of China and Korea are using war supplies supplied to Russia in the last war by Great Britain, Canada and the United States. The communist countries saved all these munitions of war while we in Canada got rid of them. So far as the camp at Sussex, my home town, is concerned, there is still a nucleus of a camp, and something can be salvaged at Debert, Windsor, Fredericton, and probably other places across Canada. I think the government would be well advised to investigate what the situation is with respect to these different camps and see if something cannot be salvaged.

Defence Appropriation Act
As I said, Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to make any extended remarks, but I wished to call these few matters to the attention of the government. I can assure them that as far as my constituents are concerned, and I feel that I can speak for the people of my own province of New Brunswick, they are prepared to do anything and everything they can to further this effort in opposition to the threat of communism facing us today.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to endorse the remarks of the two previous speakers, my colleague from Royal and the leader of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Peace River, in regard to equality of sacrifice. I would also join in what they said, and what is being said by a great many people throughout this country as to the disappointment we all felt when, after having voted vast sums of money last session, we learned that we were not better prepared to meet this great threat at this time. That was a great disappointment to the people.
This question of equality of sacrifice can be played upon in many ways, and it can also be misunderstood. I know there is no comparison whatever between sacrifice of those young men who fight on land, on sea and in the air and the sacrifice of those of us who stay at home and endeavour to support them. I must say, however, that I believe there was great inequality of sacrifice during the last war, and it is still fresh in our memory. Certainly there was no equality of sacrifice among the various groups within our own country. I know how difficult it is to control the economy of a nation in time of war, but many inequalities were allowed to develop during the last war, and as a matter of fact some of them were permitted by the government to continue during the years following that war.
The measure before us today will provide a very large amount of money. The resolution is divided into five paragraphs, and provides for a total of $858,768,021. It is with the fourth paragraph of the resolution that I should like to deal at the moment. I notice that on each page of this break-down with which we have been supplied mention is made of foodstuffs, and that is the matter to which I want to devote some little time.
First, however, I should like to endorse the remarks of the previous speaker, when he pleaded with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in carrying out his responsibilities in connection with the purchase of defence supplies to use his influence to distribute industry across this country, and in so doing to decentralize it. We all remember that under this government during the past war great sums of money were voted for industrial

assistance and expansion, and that the great bulk of that expansion took place where the great concentration of population exists; that is, in the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I can assure the minister, however, that there are many points in western Canada where we have side by side both the raw materials and the electric power for their development. That used to be the stock argument as to wtif a greater industrial development did not take place in the west. Now we have both materials and power in western Canada, so I hope the responsible ministers will keep this in mind and take every opportunity to decentralize industry. As has been said many times, apart from being sound economics, with the type of warfare we are liable to have if there should be another war, which God forbid, it is even more important than ever that your population and industry be decentralized.
Coming back to the question of foodstuffs, I realize that it does not go down so well to remind this house that the agricultural producers of this country subsidized the consumers of both Canada and Great Britain to the extent of more than twice the amount of this appropriation resolution, both during the later years of the war and the years following, up to 1948. That constituted a great inequality in itself. Then following the war we had this government gambling with what I regard as the greatest food item we produce; that is, wheat. I have heard the Minister of Agriculture many times argue that there is more food value in cereal wheat than in any other foodstuff in the world, and that it is easier to handle; and I agree with him. On behalf of this government and acting for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture negotiated an agreement with Great Britain covering a period of four years, which was to be carried out by means of a five-year pool. Certainly that was a gamble against the production of future years, for most of the six hundred million bushels involved had not been produced, and the greater portion had not been even seeded.
The government and the minister do not argue today as they did at that time. I do not agree with everything printed by the Winnipeg Free Press, but its weekly issue of July 26 carries an article containing a resume of all the speeches made on this subject by the Minister of Agriculture and others concerned with it, year by year from 1946 on, the year the contract was signed. The article is headed "The last of the bilateral wheat agreements," and without reading it I can say it reveals very interesting circumstances.


Mr. Howe:: If I may ask my hon. friend one question, I would remind him that the contract in question covered the sale of the crops of 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949. How does he relate this to a war sacrifice?


James Arthur Ross: I am coming to that, if I am in order. I would have been very much in order had the Speaker been in the chair, and that was the point I tried to make this afternoon. More than that, the minister has promised a settlement of that five-year pool during this calendar year. I do not know how he is going to bring that about, but I shall have a question to ask him in that connection later on. I point out, however, that the minister said that contract was made possible by the sacrifices of the Canadian wheat producers. That statement can be found in Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Were those war sacrifices?


James Arthur Ross: Some were and some were not. I do not know whether the minister was in his seat when I commenced to speak, but I referred to the later years of the war and the years following the war; I made that quite clear. In any event we had this agreement, which has to be dealt with by the government this fall, and the right hon. gentleman will be the responsible minister. I do not know how he is going to make this settlement. We do know that the pool showed a balance of five or six cents a bushel remaining at the end of the last crop year, July 31, 1949. In addition we have the past crop year of 1949-50, which will have to be taken into account, and I imagine there will be some profit from that crop to add to what is in the fund already. I will sit down now if the minister wishes to rise and tell the committee that nothing will be added by the government to the money of the producers remaining in that pool at the end of the year. I should be glad to have a statement from the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend can relate his remarks to the resolution in any way I should be very glad to deal with the matter at some length.


James Arthur Ross: On June 5 of this year, just three months ago today, we passed Bill No. 302, giving the minister great powers in connection with defence purchasing. In that bill animals, agricultural products and foodstuffs were mentioned; I do not think the minister will deny that. Then in this bit of a break-down we were handed today, which I have in my hand, the item "food supplies" appears on every page, in connection with each branch of the service. I think the minister will admit that.
69262-19J
Defence Appropriation Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will try to spend the money as well as we can.


James Arthur Ross: I am not arguing about that. I am arguing that because of the great trimming the wheat producers have taken in the past many of them, including myself, are fearful of the future under this government, with the way they are handling wheat today. I am pointing out that during the pool period to which I have referred the producers took a loss amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. There should be some adjustment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How much did they lose from 1930 to 1935?


James Arthur Ross: I have not those figures before me, but I am dealing with this which the minister himself had a hand in, and now it is his responsibility, because the Canadian wheat board is under the Department of Trade and Commerce for which the minister is responsible. I have told you where you can find copies of quotations of the Minister of Agriculture on many occasions: at Portage la Prairie in 1946, at Dauphin in 1947 and in this House of Commons on several occasions; and the minister himself who has just taken his seat, last June, when he said that the contract with Britain had been disappointing and that there would be no further settlement from there. Without quoting further from the Free Press, I may say that they have many articles blaming the wheat pool and others for having asked for this contract. I am not in a position to say whether they did ask for it or not, but an editorial is published here in The Country Guide of August 1950. I know the editor well.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I think the hon. member should confine his remarks more directly to the principle of the resolution.


James Arthur Ross: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are unanimous that there has been a great loss there and I can now pass on and come up to the present.
The same Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has just taken his seat and who has been asking me a few questions, announced at the last session of parliament that the government, through the Canadian wheat board, would handle the wheat for the 1950 crop-that is, this present calendar year-at a price of $1.40 a bushel, basis Fort William. That is a reduction of twenty per cent over the previous year, and that is with regard to a foodstuff. Notwithstanding that reduction under government control, I have pointed out that the Minister of Agriculture had argued for several years that the barometer used for setting and controlling other agricultural prices was based on wheat because it was so universally acknowledged over the world.

Defence Appropriation Act
I think you can follow me, Mr. Chairman, in the bearing it may have at this particular time with regard to this Minister of Trade and Commerce, with the authority he has and the powers he has to purchase food. If they are going to set and control the prices of agricultural products, using the price of wheat set by this government at a decrease of twenty per cent as a barometer, then you are going to have chaos in this country in the near future. I am not saying it is going to be done, but it is possible under this legislation. That is the point I wanted to make at this time. In fact, I have an article here that is authentic; it is a market publication. In North Portal, North Dakota, as of August 1, for the new crop the American farmer on his side of the street in the same village receives $2.31 a bushel; the Canadian farmer receives $1.23J cents a bushel, a difference of $1.07J cents a bushel, under the present legislation of this House of Commons for this calendar year. I do not know whether or not in this present measure there is provision for this government to make that adjustment on the wheat payments that the minister has said he hoped to make this calendar year. If there is not, this parliament will not have an opportunity to pass any legislation in that respect until the next session after the end of the calendar year. It may be done by order in council; I do not know. I do not know whether there is provision in that measure to make a payment on that adjustment on wheat. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee that there is not a farmer in western Canada who will be satisfied unless the next payment winding up that pool is at least twenty-five cents a bushel. That is what they expect for the next payment as a result of the condition brought about by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has just been speaking.
I was talking about the price of wheat for this year. It is present-day difficulties we are now discussing and debating. The leaders of two other parties spent a great deal of time this afternoon discussing inflation, and I presume that is in order. I can tell you that the farm producer producing wheat knows just about as much about inflation and the cost of production as does anybody else in this country. In the last two years in freight rates alone we have had a rise of 45 per cent. In the last two months in the price of farm lumber used for repairs we have had a rise of over 37 J per cent. In tires for tractors and cars we have had a rise amounting to 20 per cent just recently, at one stroke of the pen. You can imagine where that is putting those farm producers

who are producing a great commodity in the way of foodstuffs, with the government controlling their prices, with a decrease of 20 per cent, and allowing all these other things to go up every few days. Some of these people have on their shelves much of this *material that they have marked up periodically like this. The thing is becoming just impossible. That is the point I wish to make. I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be fair enough, after having asked me the questions he has asked, to point out whether it is possible to take any of the funds under this measure in order to make an adjustment on that pool payment which he stated, just last Friday in this House of Commons and also in the last session of parliament, would be made during this calendar year to wind up the pool. I hope he will be fair enough to make that statement.
I do not want to take up much more of the time of the committee. I want to repeat what has been so often said in this chamber, namely that nobody has refused a vote for national defence in this parliament since I have been here, and this is my thirteenth session. The government have been granted money in a big way. I want to say that people out where I live have stopped me on the street and asked me where in the world the hundreds of millions of dollars have gone that we voted at the last session of parliament for defence, if we were not prepared to assist Korea in her defence in a more definite manner than we were when the United Nations asked for that assistance.
I am simply telling you what I hear from the man and the woman in the street at home. They cannot understand this situation. So far we have not been able to get the necessary information from the departments of government. I hope we shall get much more. I also hope that there will not be a repetition, in this preparation for defence, of the inequality that we went through both in the last war years and the years following the war. I hope that the government will try to keep matters in a position of greater parity for all the producers of this country.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, while we are at the stage of general discussion with respect to the resolution before us there are a few comments that I should like to make. It is clear that this house supports the position of the government with respect to the United Nations, namely, that aggression must be

resisted. Having taken that position, it follows that we must support the measures brought down to finance that effort. That does not mean that we will not inquire as to the details of the appropriation resolution placed before us, and the bill which will be based thereon. We want to be sure that the amount of money asked for is reasonably well estimated and that it is spent wisely and economically.
However, the point that I should like to make is perhaps directed to the Minister of Finance whose resolution it is anyway, rather than to the Minister of National Defence. It seems clear that during the months since the Korean crisis, which broke out at the end of June, some consideration has been given by the government as to what should be done on the military front. Others in the house are not sure that the government has planned even the military aspect of the matter in all of the detail that perhaps should have been done; but at least there is evidence before us now that some planning of that phase of the matter has been gone into.
It took us a little while this afternoon to get the details of the figures contained in this resolution, but even when we got the details they were not broken down into very small items. Nevertheless, such information as has been furnished to us indicates that there has been some planning as to the things to be done in the supplying of armed forces, munitions of war, and so on, to carry out our commitments to the United Nations at this time.
My question is this:	Has there been a
parallel amount of planning as to what is to be done to cope with the effects this huge sum of money will have on our national economy? The resolution before us involves the impact of nearly a billion dollars upon our national economy. I know the Minister of Finance will point out that less than half a billion of this money is to be in the nature of cash to be spent in this fiscal year, but the other half billion, more or less, is in the nature of commitments, which makes it possible for the government to enter into contracts immediately.
We do not know just how many contracts will be let, or in other words to what extent the government will exhaust those commitments, but the grand total is there as a possibility, and it strikes me that the letting of contracts to be paid for in future years is the same as buying on the instalment plan. It has the same inflationary effect as putting actual money into the purchasing stream. Putting an additional billion dollars into the purchasing stream is a good thing if we are prepared to meet it by increased production
Defence Appropriation Act -properly planned-to offset it, and by the necessary measures to make sure that it does not produce runaway inflation which could do serious damage to the welfare of our people.
What bothers me is that there is a great gap between the planning that has been done to meet the military necessities of the situation and the lack of planning that has been done to meet this other side of the problem. I know that there is another resolution on the order paper having to do with extra powers for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is the government's answer to this problem and we will be coming to it later. I will not discuss it now except to say that it is my view that it does not meet the situation at all.
It is inevitable that this amount of money that is going into the purchasing stream- unless other steps are taken at the same time-will result in strong inflationary pressure. I point out, Mr. Chairman, that without measures such as price control, these inflationary pressures are bound to be felt most seriously in rising living costs for the people of Canada generally. I make again the plea for price controls, before prices go any wilder than they are now. I am not going to take long to do it; but it seems to me that we have to do it every day that we are here during this session to impress upon the government that along with the amount of planning that they are doing on the military side of the picture they must do some planning on the economic side as well. Unless that planning is done we can have runaway prices, dismay and bewilderment amongst our people, to their detriment and also to the detriment of our defence effort. Therefore, I would suggest that very serious consideration should be given to the immediate reimposition of price controls and the provision of necessary subsidies so that this necessary program contained in this resolution will not have a disastrous effect on our economy and so that our defence effort itself won't go awry.
I feel too that something should be done about rents. We know what the situation is now, namely, that the present legislation expires early next year. Meantime certain large increases have been allowed and are already in effect. I would urge that now is the time to go into the whole question of rent control, and to make sure that there will be no further increases in that phase of the cost of living because of the impact of the nearly one billion dollars that is involved in this resolution.
Similarly, without going into detail, I feel very strongly that the government should

Defence Appropriation Act now, before pressures start to pile up, sit down with leaders of farm organizations on the one hand and leaders of trade union organizations on the other, to work out acceptable policies with regard to minimum prices for farm products, and to work out acceptable policies with regard to wages so that workers will not be made to suffer by receiving pay on which they cannot possibly make ends meet, and yet on the other hand so that we might be spared the dangers of an inflationary spiral, and all the suffering that goes with it.
There are other measures I might suggest. As a matter of fact a number were suggested this afternoon by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar, the leader of this group. As I said, and I intend to keep my promise, I do not intend to speak at length; but it seems to me the government, with all the time it has to give to the preparation of details on the military side-and some hon. members will demand that it give more attention still- must also give attention to the economic aspects of the whole problem, with particular reference to the need of protecting the standard of living of our people.
One other word before I take my seat, and it is this: not only can the unanswerable argument be made that if we can find this amount of money for this very necessary purpose we can also find it for a social security program such as was proposed by the special committee of the house last year, but I submit again that if we are going to offset the effect of this billion dollar defence program upon our economy, and if we are going to prevent it from doing harm to the standard of living of many of our people, we have got to take steps now to keep that standard of living up-indeed in most cases to raise it.
One of the things that could be done without delay to achieve that objective would be-and, if I may say so, it could be done as a defence measure as well as a matter of social justice and on a humanitarian basis- to implement at an early date at least the program for old age pensions at seventy without a means test, and a pension at sixty-five as well, recommended at the close of the last session.
I leave it at that for now, but I do feel that in all fairness to the Canadian people these matters must receive very serious consideration by the government.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, we have heard this afternoon and evening about the implications this increased defence expenditure will have upon the general economy of the

nation. I believe we were all impressed by the difficulties placed before the country at this time in that respect.
Might I suggest that time is running out. During the dinner recess there was a broadcast over the radio announcing that the American forces had evacuated their key station at the extreme right of their line. I refer to the town and airport of Pohang. Whether it is true or not, I cannot say, but I do know that was the radio broadcast. I mention this only to bring the terrible seriousness of the discussion before members of the House of Commons.
As the essential point with which we are dealing in this resolution is whether the moneys now being asked for and the plans now to be placed before us by the government are adequate enough to meet the situation, and are speedy enough to enable us to have effective troops before the situation is too late, I would ask if the Minister of National Defence is ready to give us details as to how he proposes to expend these sums.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that I appreciate most warmly the very constructive attitude taken by those who thus far have taken part in the debate. It had been my intention to make a statement at the beginning of our discussion in committee, but other hon. members had the desire to intervene and so, naturally, I gave way to them.
It had not been my intention to take up some of the rather controversial matters that have been raised at this time, but out of courtesy to hon. members who have raised them I should endeavour to deal with them.
In the first place the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in his generally very constructive and helpful speech, referred to the proposal made by Mr. King back in 1940 that there might be a committee on defence estimates. I have not had the opportunity to look at the record on the point, but apparently the idea was not pursued but rather was changed into a proposal acceptable to the house of having a committee on war expenditures.
I understood the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to indicate that while he would like to have both a committee on defence estimates and expenditure he would be very glad to have the latter. I should assure the committee that there has never been the slightest objection on the part of the government or myself to any investigation, the most thorough possible, into expenditures on defence. It was our thought that this is adequately provided for in the ordinary machinery for the auditing of accounts, and the

possibility of taking them up before the public accounts committee. If that is not so, then the question should be further explored.
Also I think it is in effect correct to say that the government has never really turned down a suggestion that there should be some kind of committee or some kind of investigation into defence operations similar in character to that carried on at the present time in the United Kingdom. Whether or not that would be acceptable to my colleagues, I do not know; whether or not that would be accepted by the house, I do not know. But, so far, that has not been the kind of proposal that has been put before us.
I know hon. members follow very closely the discussions which take place at Westminster and, as hon. members know, I have referred to them on a good many occasions and expressed my admiration for the way they do things there. It is true that they have a committee on estimates, and it is also true that that committee on estimates has a subcommittee which considers the estimates of the defence services, supply services and so on. But I suggest that committee is very different from what has been thus far suggested by hon. members who have advanced the idea in this House of Commons. The select committee on estimates which sat in the United Kingdom during the session of 1950 was set up under an order of the house dated March 17, 1950, which read:
That a select committee be appointed to examine such of the estimates presented to this house as may seem fit to the committee, and to suggest the form in which the estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those estimates may be effected therein.
I should like to emphasize and underline the words, "consistent with the policy implied in those estimates." In other words, in the United Kingdom the select committee on estimates and its subcommittee dealing with defence and other matters does not deal with questions of policy but with measures that might improve the form of the estimates or lead to economies, both most desirable aims. I must say our thought has been that those aims could be equally well achieved under our system through the public accounts committee.
I have here the sixth report of the select committee on estimates for the session of 1950, which may not be the last report issued. This shows that they considered departmental replies to the twelfth report of the session of 1948-49 and deals with a number of matters relative to defence. The first of these is the disposal of surplus stores and fixed assets.
Defence Appropriation Act Then the committee considered a memorandum by the ministry of defence and makes its recommendation. The next is ammunition disposal programs. The third is the disposal of fixed assets. Fourth, accommodation in London. Fifth, transient accommodation. Sixth, disposal of requisitioned buildings. Seventh, disposal of requisitioned land. In the same report there is a departmental reply to an inquiry to the seventeenth report of the session of 1948-49 on the defence estimates and dealing with headquarters staff at the war office and reconditioning of wheeled vehicles in post-war years. I think that is all the business dealt with by the committee on defence estimates so far reported this year.
I suggest to the committee that that is quite a different kind of operation from anything that has been suggested so far by those who advocated the setting up of a committee on defence estimates or on defence generally. That has been an adaptation of the old system of the committee on estimates which the parliament in the United Kingdom had for a few years before the second world war and which has since been revived in the sessions of 1948, 1949 and 1950. As I say, that is quite different from anything put forward by hon. members in this house as being desirable for us to adopt.
In his speech this morning the hon. member for York West indicated how wide those differences are because he repeated what has been said on numerous occasions by hon. members opposite, that they wanted to look into questions of policy. As he indicated this morning, they might want to inquire whether one weapon or another would be the right one to choose, whether we should have submarines or not have submarines, and he gave a number of other examples. While those examples may go further than some hon. members might want to go, they do indicate the kind of thing that hon. members opposite have been suggesting. If I have been misinterpreting their suggestions I shall be glad indeed to change my views of what they said, but I believe if you look at the record you will find that that is the kind of thing that has been suggested by members of the opposition.
So far as my reading of the record goes, that kind of thing has never yet been discussed by the committee on estimates at Westminster. That committee has discussed details of economies, methods of handling estimates and similar matters which, as I suggested, could be dealt with adequately by the procedure we have established in the public accounts committee. If you look through the evidence and the list of witnesses

Defence Appropriation Act that appeared before that committee you will not find where any chief of staff discussed high policy, strategy, operations, intelligence or any such reports. You will find quite high officials addressing themselves to questions put by the committee dealing with matters of administrative and accounting details. Those matters are relatively unimportant, although all questions of public expenditure are important. There has been no practice established in the United Kingdom such as that suggested by the hon. member for York West and other members of the opposition.
It is quite true that the procedure followed in the United Kingdom has had some criticism. As the leader of the opposition indicated, there has been criticism by no less a critic than the Right Hon. Winston Churchill. The leader of the opposition quoted from a speech by Mr. Churchill on July 26. Indeed the Conservative opposition on the committee endeavoured to make a change. They did not attempt to broaden the committee in the way suggested on a number of occasions by hon. members opposite so as to include matters of major policy and the like, but they wanted to give it powers similar to those which a committee like our war expenditures committee had during the second world war. That proposition was moved in the committee but it was voted down and so far has not been acted on.
There is no doubt that the leader of the opposition in the United Kingdom, as have opposition members here, felt that something more should be done and he voiced that view. It might be possible for those who are more skilled in parliamentary procedure than I to work out some device whereby it might be handled in a proper fashion. I should like to make plain again something that has been made plain already by the Prime Minister during the debate on the address. The Prime Minister was speaking for the whole government and he stated that we certainly had seen no reason yet why we should accept the kind of proposition put forward by the hon. member for York West. I have not seen the text of Hansard but I seem to recall that he said it was desirable that private members should be able to get information on which to make a decision as to what should be the course of our defence policy with regard to equipment, submarines, aircraft, whether or not we should have armour, and the like. Here we come to a pretty fundamental principle. I have stated it before in the house, and I think it is of great importance that in the consideration of this exceedingly difficult
(Mr. Claxton.]
subject we should give due consideration to that kind of principle. It is-and I mean nothing offensive to any hon. member by what I am going to say-that the hon. member for York West was not elected by the people of Canada to make such decisions.


Mr. Gibson:: Thank God.


Brooke Claxton: The way our government works is that the people elect a number of members of parliament, and out of the majority group elected at a general election a prime minister is chosen by the governor general and called upon to form a government. He forms his cabinet. The cabinet has complete solidarity in views and responsibility, and it discharges its responsibility to the people through the House of Commons.


Mr. Ferguson:: Tell us a little more about the army rather than about how to form a government. *


Brooke Claxton: And I believe that as yet nobody wants to upset that kind of system which has worked so well, and that the people of Canada, having elected us as the majority, expect us to have a government responsible to parliament and through parliament to them for executive actions such as those relative to matters of defence. I know of no way in which a house of 262 members can choose whether or not to go in for F-86, Vampire or Meteor aircraft. I know of no way in which that can be done. We believe we have the best system of government on the face of the earth, and that system requires that the government, responsible through the house to the people, should make decisions on such matters in the light of the advice it receives. It follows then, if the confidence of the government is challenged, that the house then either accepts or rejects them, and that the people should either accept or reject them. I believe that is a fair statement of what is a pretty important principle of parliamentary government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister permit a question? I am very anxious to have him believe that this is a sincere question. Why is it that the system we suggest roughly-and I am not suggesting it is exactly the same-apparently works so well in the Department of External Affairs and yet it is impossible for it to work in the Department of National Defence?


Mr. Maybank:: They do not make policy there.


Brooke Claxton: To be quite consistent I
think the same thing should apply with respect to all government departments, but

I believe that the nature of external relations is such that we have managed to get by with this device for a few years without any great difficulty. On the other hand, I believe most sincerely that it would be very difficult indeed to do that in other departments without running into most serious difficulties.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why?


Brooke Claxton: One reason is that in external affairs you do not have an operation affecting some 56,000 in the permanent forces,
50,000	in the reserve forces, 24,000 civilians, and affecting the internal life of the country to such a degree. You also do not have three services. We all know they would never be properly satisfied with any kind of estimate that was appropriated for them unless they could work out in confidence together, and with their minister, an agreed plan to put forward to the government, and which the government in the light of all the advice available considers to be the desirable plan.
If I wanted to go further than that I could say that at the present time in our defence relationships and defence planning with other countries, the North Atlantic treaty nations, the United Kingdom and the United States, we have conditions of very great confidence. We can only engage in that kind of planning if those conditions are observed. When it comes to observance it is particularly important that we, in some ways a rather junior partner in this series of partnerships, should be scrupulously careful with regard to what we say and do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is every
word of that not true of external affairs?


George Alexander Drew: That is where it starts.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, and I think it is possible that external affairs can do that because you do not have questions of weapons, units and of possible relative scales of attack. You do not have questions of the relative importance and value of equipment and development involving matters of the highest secrecy which we share with other countries. The situations in that respect are very different.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is there no
secrecy in the Department of External Affairs?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, of course; but the
secrecy in the Department of External Affairs can be maintained in a way which does not concern our economy or relationships with other countries in the same intimate way. The hon. member for Greenwood, who has
Defence Appropriation Act asked me these questions because he is serious, should look at the deliberations of the select committee on estimates of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and also at the discussions in the House of Commons at Westminster, as no doubt he has, and see how much information is given either in the committee on estimates or in the house at Westminster which is not given here. I read the reports of those debates as they come over here on this account. I was surprised in the comments from some hon. members opposite that I had not given much in the way of real information and facts in the statement I made last week. If hon. members are interested in seeing them, I have here five copies of Hansard covering the debate on defence estimates in the parliament at Westminster last year; and I can assure hon. members that in the speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself far more was given in the way of information, facts and figures than is usual at Westminster.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps that is why they are in a mess, too.


Brooke Claxton: Well, the hon. gentleman may say they are in a mess, but we in Canada are not in any mess due to any action of the Canadian people or the present government.
Other suggestions have been made from time to time by hon. members opposite. From one quarter of the house last year came a suggestion that we should have some kind of royal commission on public administration. Another hon. member suggested a committee of experts, and I think even this week one hon. gentleman again referred to the Hoover commission. If that sort of thing would be of any use to us we should consider it very seriously, but I wonder just how many hon. members have read the report of the task force on national security organization, appendix G, dated January, 1949, forming part of the report of the Hoover commission. It is generally known in the United States as the Eberstadt report, and has been referred to in this house two or three times. If any hon. members have read it, and know the state of our defence organization, they will find that this report contains twenty-five recommendations with respect to the national security organization. We have looked it over and my advisers tell me, and I quite agree with them, that before the report was made we already had in effect fifteen of the recommendations. Of the remainder, three were in effect in part; five
e9262-20

Defence Appropriation Act were not applicable to the Canadian constitutional set-up, and we would be definitely against one other.
So I suggest that this question of some other form of procedure, having been brought up on three occasions at the last session and having been voted down three times, should no longer detain the house, which has met here to consider the most important business, it is fair to say, it has had to deal with since the conclusion of hostilities at the end of the second world war.
I deal with these matters because hon. members have proposed them seriously, and quite properly, but I do feel that we should get on with the business of this session which, as set out in the speech from the throne, was first to deal with the labour difficulty. That has been dealt with. Then the business was to be consideration of the international situation, our defence program, and its financial and legal consequences. Several days having been devoted to those matters, I believe we should now try to get on with the defence aspect.
If I understand the views of hon. members as expressed in this debate, and indeed throughout the session, I believe there is not an hon. member who does not appreciate the tremendous, the awful seriousness of the situation. I believe virtually everyone here recognizes that we in Canada must pay more for defence, and must have more defence, as our increased share of the premium for peace. As the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and almost every other speaker in this debate has indicated, here we are not preparing for war; we are doing our best to prevent war by deterring aggression, and we are doing that by contributing our share to the pool of security for the countries which feel with us that freedom is worth any price.
As the resolution states, the supplementary cash appropriation to be provided for the defence forces is $142,200,200. That is what can be spent if this appropriation bill passes, in addition to what was voted last June in respect of the year 1950-51. Included in this amount are estimates of the additional expenditures due to the destroyers being in Korean waters; to the airlift to Japan organized by the R.C.A.F.; to the charter of aircraft from Canadian Pacific Air Lines, and to the raising, training, equipping and use of the Canadian Army special force. In addition it covers that part of the accelerated program which we estimate will require cash expenditures during the remainder of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951.

It must be appreciated that it is difficult indeed to state exactly how much each of these items will amount to during the remaining months of this fiscal year. How much the navy will require will depend largely upon ammunition and fuel costs, which in turn will depend upon the extent of action the ships undertake. Similarly estimates concerning personnel depend upon the rate of intake. Expenditures for the air force depend upon the extent of flying operations; and expenditures upon equipment and construction depend upon the amount of work that can be completed in the accounting period. It is really impossible to give any proper estimate of the cost of our naval operations in Korea, the cost of the air force airlift to Japan, the renting of C.P.A. planes or the organization of the Canadian Army special force. The best estimate we can make is that those expenditures will be between $40 and $50 million and more if necessary, depending upon the extent of operations. In addition, since the statement in the house by the Prime Minister on the closing day last session we have been pushing forward delivery dates for aircraft, engines, radar, wireless and other types of equipment for which our industry has large productive capacity and a very high standard of efficiency. With respedt to construction-and we need quite a lot of new construction-there are limiting factors such as the supply of materials and manpower and the necessity of meeting essential civilian requirements for houses, power plants and other construction.
In addition to cash requirements of $142 million the bill also provides for future commitment authority in the amount of $414,567,828; and in this connection I should like to direct attention to a typographical error in the mimeographed sheets which have been distributed, in the second and third items under the future years' program having to do with the navy, where the figures have been transposed. So that instead of $4,854,125 in the second line, it should read $1,204,125; and then, instead of $50,551,000 in the third line, it should read $54,201,000. The totals, of course, are the same.
I want to emphasize the fact that we cannot spend any part of this commitment authority without the further authority of parliament. The only money that could be spent under this vote is the $142 million cash, if that is voted, and only such part of that as is spent in respect of the year 1950-51 ending on March 31, 1951. Any part that is not spent in respect of that year lapses. The commitment authority enables us to enter

into contracts for equipment and construction extending beyond the current fiscal year.
Turning to the division of this sum of $142 million, it is divided between the services in this way: navy, $29,536,130; army, $54,171,233; air force, $58,492,837.
As hon. members will recall, the amount voted in the main estimates was $425 million. Adding this to the supplementary vote mentioned here gives a total of $567 million, the amount of cash we seek the authority of parliament to spend this year.
One of the hon. members referred to some press dspatch relating to other expenditures relative to defence included in the estimates of other government departments. Some of these perhaps should be taken into account in estimating the amount of our defence expenditures, particularly if a comparison is to be made with the defence expenditures of other countries. I must say that I deprecate such comparisons if for no other reason than that it is almost impossible to make them on a fair basis; and almost certainly such comparisons will result in pressure and recrimination as between nations which should be working closely together. But if such comparisons are made, then I suggest that they should be made, as far as possible, on a fair basis having regard to all the factors. If they are made on that fair basis, the people of Canada and the nations of the world will find that we are playing our fair part.
Some of these items which are ordinarily considered as proper defence expenditures in the figures of other countries but which we have not included in the present defence expenditure estimates and appropriations are such matters as married quarters for service personnel built by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and paid out of vote 562, which during the current year totalled $60 million. The atomic energy development at Chalk River is of course in Canada intended primarily for civilian purposes, but I am informed that in some countries expenditures on similar piles are considered as defence expenditures. There we have spent $8 million. Then there is the expenditure of the Department of Trade and Commerce on Canadian Arsenals of $2,900,000, and on Canadian Commercial Corporation, $900,000; the Department of National Defence share of the cost of government overhead, $2,300,000; part of the expenditure of the Department of Transport on weather services, airfields, aids to navigation and the like, $26,300,000; part of the expenditure on security made by the Department of Justice, $18 million. These items which I have mentioned total about $120 million. Except for purposes of comparison 69262-204
Defence Appropriation Act with countries which include any such figures, I do not suggest that we should include them as any part of our defence expenditures. But if they are included, they indicate that our defence expenditure per capita would amount to over $50 for each man, woman and child in Canada; this expenditure would represent about thirty per cent of the total budget of the federal government and about six per cent of the estimated national income of $14 billion.
As I say, we deprecate these comparisons; but since they have been mentioned in this chamber today, I believe that comparisons should be made on a fair and equal basis, taking account not only of the actual expenditures but also of the methods of government accounting, the differences between federal and unitary states, and the different kinds of operations that countries have to conduct owing to the different nature of their transportation and communication services and the like. As I suggest, these facts would indicate that on almost any basis of comparison, with the latest information available to us, we would be spending our own proper share, whether it be calculated on the basis of the proportion of national income, national budget or per capita, as compared with our associates in the North Atlantic treaty. We would not be as high as the United States or the United Kingdom; but this vote, if passed, will certainly go a long way to narrow the gap. These figures represent what the government believes to be a fair proportion of the total income and national budget of Canada to be spent on defence at this time.
I have not mentioned here, though I have included it in that estimation, something out of another vote which is covered by this resolution, namely $300 million to be appropriated for assistance in the provision of equipment, facilities, services and the like to the North Atlantic treaty nations. That vote will be explained by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I am sure he would not mind my saying that there are no details yet to be given here, as was indicated today; and also, there is no clear indication of how much of that will be spent in the current fiscal year. Almost certainly it would be under $100 million. I should indicate here that that vote is intended not only to cover assistance in the way of new equipment for our allies under the North Atlantic treaty, but also training facilities. We have already provided a considerable quantity of training facilities, as reported in my earlier statement, and are considering the possibility of other training facilities. It might also cover the possible transfer to other countries of quantities of Canadian equipment that we already have in

Defence Appropriation Act mobilization stores. As I have indicated to hon. members on other occasions, we have considerable quantities of equipment of the latest type, in use at the end of the second world war, available in mobilization stores for use should it be needed in another emergency. In discussing our defence co-operation and plans with the other countries of the North Atlantic treaty nations we may decide, in the light of all circumstances, that that equipment would be more useful in our defence as well as theirs if put in the hands of countries in Europe or elsewhere than maintained in stores in Canada. That is receiving very active consideration.
Now, sir, if we take the appropriation in the main estimates of $425 million, and the supplementary of $142 million, and add them together we find that the total of $567 million is arrived at, and that is divided as between the three armed forces, excepting other votes, in the proportion of navy, $111 million; army, $184 million and air force $227 million. So that the money going to those three services alone, eliminating administration, research, pensions and so forth, gives a division to the navy of 21-3 per cent, the army 35 -3 per cent and the air force 43 [DOT] 4 per cent. I am assured that this is by all odds the largest proportion spent on the air force in any country. I believe it is in accord1 with the strategical necessities, and the way in which we can make our best contributions to our allies, and also in accord with the feeling and tradition of the Canadian people, who are certainly air-minded.
The corresponding figures of the air force's proportion of the defence dollar in the United States are 34 per cent; in the United Kingdom 29 per cent; and in France 30 per cent, as opposed to 43-4 per cent in Canada.
May I give the committee another series of divisions of the defence dollar by requirements? The sum of $142 million supplementary will be divided as follows. We estimate pay and allowances 11-15 per cent, $16-1 million; civil salaries and wages 1-8 per cent, $2-5 million; equipment, 45-8 per cent, $65-3 million; property, 18-9 per cent, $27 million; and other costs, largely pensions, 21-9 per cent, $31-2 million. Dividing the total estimate for the year ending March 31, 1951, of $567 million among these heads gives the following results: pay and allowances, 24-29 per cent, $138-3 million; civil salaries and wages, 7-40 per cent, $42-1 million; equipment, 30-28 per cent, $172-4 million; property, 14-27 per cent, $81-3 million; research, 4-25 per cent, $24-1 million; other costs, 19-51 per cent, $111 million; total, 100 per cent, $567 million.
So that hon. members may see the main divisions of defence expenditures during the post-war period I have caused a table to be prepared showing this break-down under the items given above for each of the years 194748, 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51 up to the end of July. I should like to place this table on Hansard. It will be of interest to hon. members in that it shows the division of expenditures as between the navy, the army, the air force, defence research and pension grants and so forth, not only for each of these years, which are the only complete years in the post-war period; it also shows the total expended during the period up to the 31st of July 1950, which was $968,066,826. The division of this sum is 18-92 per cent for the navy; 37-61 for the army; 34-20 per cent for the air force; 5-17 per cent for defence research and 4-10 per cent for pension grants and so forth.


The Deputy Chairman:: Has the minister permission to put the table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Brooke Claxton: The table follows:



DISTRIBUTION OF DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

[Stage Direction]
BY SERVICES	1947-48	1948-49	1949-50	1950-51 (to 31 July 1950)	Total	$	%	$	%	$	%	$	%	%	%R.C.N	43,719,402	22-31	44,649,774	16-61	73,399,656	19-07	21,401,616	18-08	183,170,448	18-92Army	84,421,749	43-07	101,823,251	37-88	135,729,583	35-27	42,207,293	35-65	364,191,876	37-61R.C.A.F	58,232,530	29-71	90,196,790	33-55	136,375,960	35-43	46,314,097-	39-12	331,119,377	34-20Defence Research	6,024,020	3-07	16,032,519	5-97	22,388,829	5-82	5,598,505	4-73	50,043,873	5-17Pensions, Grants, etc	3,601,500	1-84	16,102,479	5-99	16,974,980	4-41	2,862,293	2-42	39,541,252	4-10195,999,201	100-00	268,804,813	100-00	384,879,008	100-00	118,383,804	100-00	968,066,826	100-00BY REQUIREMENT	Pay and Allowances	74,117,126	37-82	87,504,363	32-56	108,548,332	28-19	40,633,240	34-32	310,803,061	32-11Civil Salaries and Wages	30,155,330	15-38	34,097,490	12-68	40,114,285	10-43	12,542,656	10-59	116,909,761	12-0827,434,844	14-00	35,863,915	13-34	74,404,697	19-33	26,644,045	22-51	164,347,501	16-9821,862,968	11-16	42,150,027	15-68	62,665,301	16-28	12,723,923	10-75	139,402,219	14-40Research	6,024,020	3-07	16,032,519	5-96	22,388,829	5-83	5,598,505	4-73	50,043,873	5-17All Other Costs- Food, Clothing, Personal Equip-	7-85	9,302,787	7-86	61,147,841	6-32ment, etc	8,567,828	4-37	13,062,627	4-86	30,214,599	Travel, Transportation, Freight	3-72	4,020,277	3-40	38,633,525	3-99and Express	8,709,077	4-44	11,578,591	4-31	14,325,580	Fuel for ships aircraft, M.T., etc...	4,438,947	2-26	7,652,293	2-85	8,702,602	2-26	1,956,044	1-65	22,749,886	2-36Government contribution to Permanent Forces Pension Fund and Payments under Parts I to IV	1,637,424	1-39	37,041,332	3-82Militia Pension Act	7,722,306	3-94	13,623,782	5-07	14,057 820	3-65	Miscellaneous and other Votes	6,966,755	3-46	7,239,206	2-69	9,456,963	2-46	3,324,903	2-80	26,987,827	2-77195,999,201	100-00	268,804,813	100-00	384,879,008	100-00	118,383,904	100-00	968,066,826	100-00
Cn
[Stage Direction]
Defence Appropriation Act
302	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act
When we come to the division as between requirements we see here the figures broken down as between pay and allowances, civil salaries and wages, equipment, property, research, food, clothing, personal equipment and so forth; travel, transportation, freight and express, fuel for ships, aircraft, pensions and other votes. It is interesting to call to the attention of hon. members that over this period we have spent about 54 per cent on personnel, that is on all the pay, allowances, pensions, food, clothing and other expenses that correspond to the labour costs in a commercial undertaking. I have compared these figures with those being expended in the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other countries and find that it is a pretty good-average. We are spending considerably less on personnel and more on equipment than are a good many countries, and we believe that that has been the right course to follow; that we should do everything possible to build up the equipment side.
There is quite a considerable amount for properties, which I am sure hon. members would like a further explanation of. For the 3J years it totals $139,402,219, and represents 14.40 per cent of the total expenses.
This item of $139,402,219 is further broken down by the acquisition, construction and purchase of properties, $72,510,470; maintenance and repairs, $32,027,535; operating expenses, $32,866,242; rental of buildings, and so forth, $1,997,952.
Hon. members may ask why the large expenditure on properties? I can give the committee a further break-down which indicates at once that some $29 million has been spent on married quarters, a part of which
[Stage Direction]
expenditure is due to the expansion of the armed forces of Canada since the beginning of the second world war and also to the character of the Canadian climate. We cannot have our troops serving without shelter during the winter, and a lot of the wartime construction was built to have a life expectancy far less than it has had up to the present time. So that a very considerable proportion of the wartime accommodation has had to be used and maintained, or rebuilt. Others have been disposed of.
In answer to the hon. member for Royal, ever since the end of the war this question of properties, and their disposal, has been under continuous examination. We tried to get rid of every property we did not feel we would need in the event of mobilization, just as soon as we could. We tried to get rid of any stores that were not necessary in a mobilization, as soon as we could. I think in that respect the work done by my predecessors, and particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce, has certainly earned a dividend for the Canadian people. We were left with just as little as possible of what could not be used, and what we needed was left in a usable condition. Since then we have maintained it fairly and properly. Were that not the case we would have had to spend very much more on properties for the accommodation of our increased forces.
Perhaps hon. members would be interested in having this break-down of property expenditures for the armed services placed on Hansard. If it is their wish I shall be prepared to do so.
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Brooke Claxton: The table is as follows:



BREAKDOWN OF PROPERTY EXPENDITURES-ARMED SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
-	1947A8	1948-49	1949-50	1950-51 July 31/50	TotalAcquisition, Construction and Purchase of Properties	$ 7,216,008	$ 23,295,663	$ 36,215,118	$ 5,783,681	$ 72,510,470Maintenance and Repairs	5,574,493	7,880,396	14,618,078	3,954,588	32,027,555Operating expenses	8,562,297	10,356,604	11,178,940	2,768,401	32,866,242Rental of buildings etc	510,170	617,364	653,165	217,253	1,997,95221,862,968	42,150,027	162,665,301	12,732,923	139,402,219
It will be noted that the first item is one of $72,510,470 for the acquisition, construction and purchase of properties. Of this amount, $29 million has been spent by this department, in addition to that spent by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, on the 
provision of married quarters. I found when I came to this office at the end of 1946, and early in 1947, that unless we provided married quarters for the married personnel, offering the amenities of a good community life, we would not have any regular force left. For that

reason the program was accelerated to the point where we have either built or have under construction on an approved program for this year more than 10,000 married quarters.
Out of the same amount of $72,510,470 we have provided new construction for a number of different establishments such as at the Bedford Basin ammunition dump, the Halifax permanent barracks, British admiralty properties in Newfoundland at $7 million, and aerodrome developments at Rivers, Summer-side, Centralia and Trenton extending to a figure well over $5 million.
I hope what I have given will help to answer the question of the hon. member for Royal with respect to construction. I should like now to relate that, if I may, to the manpower situation, which has a very definite bearing on construction. While that information is being got for me may I add a word about the equipment program, and what is involved in that program both by way of construction and dollars, and to show how much more it costs to equip forces today than it did in 1939 or during world war II. I do not think hon. members yet appreciate the very heavy cost of modern military equipment.
For instance it was recently announced by me that we had made arrangements under which we would make at Sorel Industries Limited a number of 3-inch 50 calibre gun mountings, complete with fire control and radar for use in destroyers and anti-submarine vessels. The estimated cost of each of those guns is $400,000. The equivalent naval gun in world war II, 4-inch, mark 19, twin-gun mounting, complete with fire control, was $170,000. The new gun however is more effective as an anti-aircraft as well as a surface weapon, and is considered essential.
Then, with regard to torpedoes, in world war II the cost of a 21-inch, mark 19 torpedo was $15,000, whereas the cost of a modern homing torpedo is $100,000.
With regard to destroyers, the cost of a tribal class destroyer built in Canada at the end of the second world war was $8,200,000 and, with armament and stores additional, $9,700,000. Today the cost of an equivalent vessel is certainly 25 per cent higher.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: What would the cost be if built in England?


Brooke Claxton: That is a question which could be answered by my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who handles that sort of thing. However, if deliveries could be obtained I think it is fair to say the cost would be less.
Defence Appropriation Act


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Fifty per cent.


Brooke Claxton: Not 50 per cent, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The British cost would be about 70 per cent of our cost.


Brooke Claxton: Further, it might be very difficult now to get delivery; and also, of course, we want to do all we can to build up and to maintain a shipbuilding industry in Canada.
I have here figures supplied by the Royal Canadian Air Force showing comparative costs of major requirements between the end of 1945 and the present time. In 1945 an elementary training aircraft, such as the Tiger Moth,' cost about $7,000, whereas today the Chipmunk doing an equivalent job is $12,000. The service training aircraft, the Harvard, formerly cost $41,000 and today costs $60,000. Fighter aircraft have changed of course from piston to jet. They formerly cost $90,000 whereas today they are about $450,000. Four-engine transport aircraft cost in 1945 about $600,000, and today they cost $1 million or more, and usually it is well over that amount.
Then, engines for fighter aircraft have changed from piston to jet, and the price has increased from about $8,000 to the jet engine price of today of about $65,000.
One could give similar information in connection with almost every type of equipment. For instance, let us consider the rifle. The average price during world war II was $37, whereas today it is $54. Formerly -303 rounds could be secured at $50 per thousand, while today they cost $75 for the same amount. A field gun which in world war II cost $18,200 now costs $37,000 and a three-ton truck the former price of which was $2,350 is now priced at $4,500. A tank of the Ram type could be secured at an average cost of $61,836 during world war II whereas a medium tank today costs over $200,000. So hon. members will see that a very considerable portion of the increased expenditures on defence can be traced to the increased cost of equipment.
I have mentioned construction costs and the necessity for maintaining and erecting buildings to accommodate increased numbers. However, by far the largest single item to account for this increase is the increase in strength of the active forces. The strength of the active forces as at 1939, 1947 and August 31, 1950, was as follows, and it will

Defence Appropriation Act be noted that the figure with regard to the special force applies only this year. Here are the figures:
August 31,
	1939	1947	1950
		(Estimated)	
Royal Canadian Navy ..	1,585	7,193	9,332Canadian army (active) Canadian army (special	4,169	15,563	21,809force) 	8,389Royal Canadian Air	Force 	2,191	12,626	17,5497,945	35,382	57,079Hon. members will	see	that as	between
1947 and March 31, 1950, the strength of the active forces has increased from 35,382 to 57,079, an increase of over 66 per cent. We have increased by over 66 per cent the strength of the active forces and at the same time have increased the effective strength of the reserve forces by even more.
I have endeavoured to give as many facts and figures as I could to hon. members and perhaps it would be convenient for them to have another table showing the consolidation of the main and supplementary estimates for this year with the figures for the commitment period and for future years. I shall place this on Hansard if it is agreeable to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Brooke Claxton: The table follows:
Consolidation of Main and Supplementary Estimates 1950-1951
Commitment Future
Defence Services	Cash	1950-51	Years
Navy			
Main estimate	
Supplementary ...	82,000,000 29,536,130	14,895,696	35,984,000 61,050,125111,536,130	14,895,696	97,034,125Army	Main estimate	
Supplementary ...	130,000,000 54,171,233	13,000,000	24,205,000 62,640,773184,171,233	13,000,000	86,845,733Air	Main estimate .... Supplementary ...	169,000,000 58,492,837	25,350,000	80,924,670 285,566,923227,492,837	25,350,000	366,491,593Administration	Main estimate .... Supplementary ...	3,932,304	10,0003,932,304	-	10,000Summary Defence Services	Main estimate .... Supplementary ...	384,932,304 142,200,200	53,245,696	141,123,670 409,257,821527,132,504	53,245,696	550,381,491
Defence research
Main estimate ... Supplementary ..	. 23,925,361	1,000,000	2.700.000 5.310.00023,925,361	1,000,000	8,010,000Other votes Main estimate ... Supplementary ..	. 16,142,335	16,142,335	Total D.N.D	
567,200,200	54,245,696 558,391,491
As hon. members will understand, we have further details of the estimates making up the $142 million. I can assure hon. members that the treasury board and ourselves have been giving the most active consideration to the possibility of presenting the estimates in a way which will help hon. members better to appreciate them. The present form grew out of the wartime form which was simplified because of the difficulty of making accurate estimates and since the end of the war they have been expanded. I agree with hon. members that we should endeavour to break them down further and make them more understandable without any breach of security. That is being worked on and had the session not come on so suddenly it would perhaps have been possible to have worked it out and presented these estimates in a new form at this session.
I do not think hon. members want me to go over any of the statements I made or the discussion that took place during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. There is no excuse for anyone not knowing what the role of the armed forces of Canada has been since the second world war. As I said last week, it was no part of that role to provide a professional police force to deal with affairs that might occur in other countries.
It has been suggested by some hon. members that we knew or should have known that active aggression by North Korea was going to take place. That is very flattering indeed to Canada when it is perfectly obvious from the record that the United States did not know that. When it was suggested that we should have prepared for this it was also being suggested that in the absence of consultation by the United States and members of the United Nations we should have taken it on ourselves to prepare for this particular operation. I suggest that that is not looking realistically at the situation.
The role of our defence force has been explained and stated time after time to parliament. It was to be a force, which in the opinion of our advisers would be sufficient to deal with the kind of attack that we thought

at the time might be made on Canada and also to provide the organizational, administrative and training machinery on which to build so that we could make the greatest possible effort in a total war. I think everyone realizes that no country anticipated this Korean situation breaking the way it did. In consequence of that we have accelerated our program, but even before that it was being pressed just as much as possible with the money available.
The hon. member for Peace River suggested that as a standard we should endeavour to make Canada as nearly secure as our resources and manpower can make it. That is the objective. That is the right kind of standard. But everyone knows that we are not in a full, all-out war economy. If we expected war this year we could further accelerate the aircraft production program and devote a larger share of the national income to these purposes; we could put on three shifts and do everything else like that. That may be necessary.
We are moving along with the operation of producing aircraft of the type we believe to be necessary. We are producing ships of the kind we believe to be desirable. We are adding to our supplies of army equipment, ammunition, radar, wireless, motor vehicles, anti-tank armaments and are generally pressing on just as fast as it can be done. However, I think it would be wrong to indicate to this committee that we are going to be in a state of full preparedness next month. No one believes that.
Hon. members have charged us with complacency and sometimes we have had to meet criticism and charges which did not seem to be justified in the circumstances. I can assure you that I have found nothing complacent about the Department of National Defence since I have been there and there has been nothing complacent about the attitude of the government. This is an operation involving the interest and welfare and security of the whole people of Canada and it is being undertaken in that spirit.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, as has already been said this evening by the Minister of National Defence, we are now considering something of the utmost importance to every Canadian. We are being asked to approve at the present time the principle that it is expedient that this house authorize expenditures and commitments which, with what has already been approved at the earlier session, will mean that this country is committed during the current fiscal year to a possible total of over $1,400 million for national defence in actual expenditures and
Defence Appropriation Act undertaken commitments. Obviously the important thing for everyone to know is what is to be done with the money. Neither we in Canada nor the people of any other free country are going to preserve that freedom which hangs in so very delicate balance at the present time by the numbers of dollars, pounds, francs or any other unit of money. The thing that is going to count is the evidence that we give of armed power for the purpose of preserving peace.
It is only to the extent that here in Canada, and in the other nations with which we shall be associated, there is evidence that we mean with the utmost speed, the utmost skill and the utmost efficiency, to provide those forces which collectively can assure that our freedom will be preserved that we can hope for a moment that we shall continue in anything approaching peace in the face of the threat which we see throughout the world today.
When this subject was being discussed in the debate on the speech from the throne, it was my privilege to speak just after the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence had spoken. I spoke in that debate before the Prime Minister. At that time I indicated the desire that I knew was shared by every member of the opposition-and I feel sure I am not presuming in saying every member of the opposition-to co-operate and assist the government in every way that was within our power. I did emphasize the fact, however, that it would only be possible for the members of the opposition to give that measure of assistance that they were anxious to give, and to form a judgment with some knowledge of the facts, if we were taken into the confidence of the government to an extent that made it possible to reach a decision with all the essential information in our possession.
At that time I indicated also that I hoped that the Prime Minister would reconsider the earlier request which had been made to set up a committee on defence. I urged furthermore that the house should not prorogue at the end of this present special session but that it should adjourn in order that this defence committee, starting its work immediately, could examine the facts and make a report to the house at the earliest possible date so that we would be able to reach some conclusion with that additional information which would be before us. I also expressed the hope that we would be given a great deal more information than had been given us by the Minister of National Defence in the speech he had just made immediately before I spoke at that time. I regret that none of those suggestions found favour with the government.

Defence Appropriation Act
In spite of the fact that the Minister of National Defence has said this evening that the proposal for a defence committee was made three times in the last session and three times voted down, and therefore we should hear no more about it, may I suggest that the reasons given by the Prime Minister for not appointing such a committee were hardly in keeping either with his legal training or with his capacity for an examination of facts and an argument based upon those facts. He said that after all it was for the people of Canada to determine whether the government had done well, for their representatives in the house to determine whether the government had done well, and if the members thought the government had not done well then they should deal with them accordingly. The Prime Minister knew perfectly well exactly what the large majority behind him would do in connection with any matter of this kind.
We have seen much too consistent evidence of the unwillingness, with only one or two exceptions, of members on that side to support their arguments by their votes, as was indicated a few days ago by one rather outspoken member who objected to the course that was being followed and then voted for the course about which he had complained. I only mention that for this reason. The suggestion that this house is a committee which can deal'with this thing is not a suggestion that I think the Prime Minister meant us to take seriously, and this is an occasion for serious discussion. The Prime Minister well knows that there is no effective procedure whereby the large number of members in this house can consider matters of this kind, bring witnesses before them and obtain those facts which are so essential to any adequate understanding of the very basis upon which we are being asked to approve of this very large additional sum of money.
This house meets in committee, but that committee is different from those which have been so useful in other cases. As has been pointed out already, this idea of committees meeting to discuss the details of the organization and activities of different departments is not a strange new device being put forward with some new application to the Department of National Defence. It has worked extremely well in regard to the Department of External Affairs; and if there is one department that has secrets it is the Department of External Affairs, which in the very nature of its international associations must conduct discussions of the most secret nature. After all, external affairs is the department whose recommendations to the government, if they are approved, become


the basis of the broader plans for national defence such as we now have under consideration.
Nor is this idea of committees confined in any way to external affairs. When the Minister of National Defence points out the difficulty of having a committee deal with problems affecting fifty thousand people, has he forgotten that we have a committee on railways? My impression always has been that the railways employ a great many more than fifty thousand people. And when he points out the difficulties of having a committee deal with particular activities where people are engaged in different branches, as in the case of the army, navy and air force, has he forgotten that in the Department of Transport we have occasion to deal with railways, ships, aircraft and all the multitude of related activities coming under that department? No, Mr. Chairman; that argument does not hold water. There are other departments as well, dealing with some of the major aspects of the whole economy of the country, including agriculture and other great basic activities. Year by year this parliament demonstrates, through committees which meet and make recommendations, that not one of those arguments which have been put forward is in any way valid as against the setting up of a committee of this kind.
When we as members of parliament are asked to deal with these matters we must remember that we are supposed to have the information upon which to base our decisions. On September 1 the Prime Minister said, at page 117 of Hansard:
Hon. members will have to decide whether or not we set about it vigorously enough, whether or not it was a proper measure to take at that time, and whether it is to be realized as quickly as circumstances make it possible to realize it.
At another point on the same page he said:
It will be for the people, through their representatives in this house, to say whether they believe or do not believe that His Excellency's advisers have failed in that respect.
How can the representatives of the people in this house, or the people whom we represent, possibly know the circumstances unless we have a great deal more information than has been given us so far, either in the earlier speech of the Minister of National Defence or in his speech to us this evening? Again the minister has given us a multitude of percentages. Again he has told us how wonderful we are. Hon. members know how good Canadians are at fulfilling any task they undertake, when they are given a chance to put all their energy and ability into that task. Our job is to make sure that those Canadians who are being called upon to take part in

our national defence organization have a chance to demonstrate that efficiency, that energy and that spirit we know young Canadians do possess. That is a task which cannot be performed, however, unless we have a great deal more information than we now have. I ask hon. members not only to go back over what they remember of the statements made by the minister this evening, but to read Hansard carefully in the morning, to see just how much more they know about the actual organization and state of preparation of our defence forces than they knew when they came into this chamber this evening. What has been said has not added to our knowledge of what we have ready now to do the one job for which our forces are intended, or what the actual plans are by which this huge sum of money will be translated into terms of national defence.
In one of the percentages he gave us the minister said it was interesting to note that we have spent 54 per cent on personnel. Then he went on to say that we have spent less on personnel and more on equipment than many countries. Think of those words in all seriousness. "We have spent less on personnel and more on equipment than many countries." That is full of information, isn't it? That tells us all we want to know. Of course it does not tell us anything, Mr. Chairman, except that if we have been spending more on equipment and less on personnel than many countries, and those countries have some measure of national defence, then every member here should ask where that money has gone. Where has that billion and a half dollars gone that has been spent in the last five years? If we have been spending more on equipment and less on personnel it is very strange that we have so little to show for it today. Where are the first-line aircraft, the fighters, the bombers, the strategic aircraft? Hon. members know we do not have them. The plan for delivery of new aircraft is being accelerated, we are told; but we do not have them. Where are the army units in being, ready to go into action, resulting from these huge expenditures, an amount never even approached or dreamed of in any other five-year period in the peacetime history of this country? We know now just how many units we had ready to go into action.
The Minister of National Defence has taken issue with what he thought was the suggestion that this government should have known there was going to be an attack in Korea.
I have tried to follow the debate carefully and I cannot recall a single speaker who has said that this government should have known that there was going to be an attack in Korea. But what I have heard said is that if we were actually carrying out the plans which we were
Defence Appropriation Act told were being made, then we should have been in a state of readiness to take part in such an affair of that kind as might take place. Let us not concentrate on Korea as the possible scene. Suppose that something had happened on the same scale, no more extensive and no more limited, in some other area affected by our obligations under the North Atlantic security pact. Our position would have been no different. We were no more ready to assume any obligations under the North Atlantic security pact than we were under the resolution adopted by the United Nations. It is therefore appropriate now that we should ask this question:	Why did that
situation exist, and what is the government going to do that will change this situation, that will make better use of the money that has to be spent in the future, and will bring into actual units in being those units that are going to be trained?
I had hoped that the Minister of National Defence would come here, would do as other ministers of national defence have done in other countries, and say, as has been said in effect elsewhere, that with the hope of peace we did not anticipate the problems and we did not do the things that were needed, but with the situation with which we are now confronted, this is what we are going to do; and would then tell us of a new plan to improve the equipment and the trained men we actually possess.
We must not be anchored to the past. In this case we must not repeat to ourselves that as it was in the beginning, so is it now and always shall be. In this case we must be prepared to demonstrate those qualities of initiative, ingenuity and originality which are the very hall-mark of the free system we are seeking to preserve. If there was one thing which emerged from the last war more clearly than anything else, it was that men and women whose minds are free and whose spirits are unshackled are able to improvise, to devise new things and to create new organizations, more rapidly, more effectively and more skilfully than those who have been subject to the highly-concentrated and allpowerful direction of the totalitarian state. Far from nazi or fascist centralized power giving them greater efficiency in war, we found that they had less; because ingenuity, initiative, vision, energy and the spirit of a free people were all lacking.
Our job now is to show that, as free people, we can face this desperate threat and that we can use the brains that have been unshackled and free in order to bring into existence with what we actually possess forces that will be effective, at the earliest possible date; and then to build as rapidly as possible

Defence Appropriation Act in addition to that. We have in this country large quantities of small arms, machine guns, mortars, grenades and many infantry weapons. We have 17-pounders, 25-pounders, 5.5's and 3.7's in large quantities or in numbers large enough to create artillery units of great hitting power. We have engineering equipment in the armouries and storehouses across this country. We have tanks, armoured vehicles and transport equipment. We have, as a matter of fact, large quantities of arms, equipment and stores of an extremely useful quality, although they may not be the last word and although they may not be that type that we would contemplate as the ideal two, three or four years from now.
While it is all too true that the reserve training has been disappointing, as was stated so emphatically and so undeniably by the hon. member for Nanaimo, nevertheless we have in this country outside the permanent force, both in the reserve and out of the reserve, trained men capable of taking their part in units which could be formed with these weapons and equipment to which I have referred.
One plan was put forward by the hon. member for Broadview. Other plans have been suggested in this chamber. As the hon. member for Broadview pointed out, he was not saying that this was by any manner of means a plan which could not be improved upon. He merely put it forward and said: Show us something better, but let us have a plan so that there is something we know is being done.
If we heard tonight, Mr. Chairman, that a landing had been made on the northwest coast of Canada, we would be moving as fast as we could to improvise, and we would not be worrying about percentages or about whether we were following the textbook as to the total amount of equipment we had in each particular unit. We would be moving as fast as we could to get together something to meet a threat of that kind, knowing perfectly well that with all the money that has been spent we have not at the moment a permanent force establishment adequate for that purpose.
If we would do that under such circumstances, why should not we be doing something of that kind at a time that we know that free people are under immediate threat everywhere? And we also know that the greatest hope that we have that there will be no such landing, either by sea or by air, that there will be no attack by Russia on us, or on any of the other free nations, is the speed and the effectiveness with which the free nations now show that they can use

the things they have to get together forces capable of using that equipment at the earliest possible date.
That does not necessitate the setting up of permanent establishments on a grandiose scale; but we have so many trained men and women out of the million who were in uniform such a comparatively short time ago that it certainly is practical, is possible and is reasonable to organize effective units with the equipment we now have. Whether that is something that is along the lines contemplated by the Department of National Defence, again I am not prepared to say. Anything of this kind can only be a suggestion, but in the name of everything we hold dear, let us stop drifting along, let us face the dreadful reality that is before us, and let us insist that the government tell us of some plans to make use of the equipment, of the weapons and of the general military establishments that we have across this country.
The Minister of National Defence has told us again that everything is going well; that we have no reason to be setting up a committee to obtain information. Everything has not gone well. We had the definite statement of the most experienced soldier in this house by far, in fact I believe the most experienced soldier in Canada, who told us here a few days ago that the training of our reserve forces was largely ineffective because of the small percentages that were going into camp. In that instance, it is proper to use percentages because if a reserve unit goes into camp with less than 25 per cent of its authorized strength, it does not get 25 per cent of its training; it gets very much less, and perhaps practically nothing that is useful, because a very large number of hon. members know very well from their own experience that when a unit goes into camp a certain minimum number of men are required each day for camp detail; and that you can get to a minimum point where there is practically nobody left for any training at all. In a great many instances that is precisely what is happening.
We have not been wasting thousands, we have been wasting millions of dollars in this country on ineffective training of that type. Do not let anybody make the statement that this is a reflection on the men who are in uniform and in camp. On \he contrary, it is a great tribute to them that under conditions of that kind they still have the heart to go to camp.
The armouries of this country have been the centres where the spirit of our great nonpermanent organizations has been kept alive. In these armouries from coast to coast training has been given that is useful; but, Mr. 

Chairman, at a time when we are now talking about a possible immediate threat, of the defence of our soil, and when we are talking with an increasing sense of realism- and it has to increase a great deal more than has been displayed by the government so far -of the hope of preserving peace by the creation of effective defence plans, it is nothing but tragic folly to contemplate the possibility of going on pouring out large sums of money on ineffective training of that kind, when our job now is to make every dollar and every cent in every dollar count-because that itself is part of the struggle.
Last night many hon. members must have been surprised at the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he said, as reported at page 223 of Hansard:
But I am sure hon. members will appreciate that it is very difficult indeed at this time, in the midst of these discussions, to explain in detail what part we may have to play in regard to the carrying out of our obligations under the North Atlantic pact. It is possible, however-and I am sure the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) will not mind if I say this-to say at this time, pending revision of those plans which is now under way in the light of developments since June, that it is understood by our friends of the North Atlantic pact that our position in regard to collective defence in an attack on western Europe would be, on land, to use our permanent force to assist United States forces, or to be assisted by United States forces, in repelling a direct attack from the north, and using it as a basis for the expansion of our army for a later expeditionary force to defend Canada outside Canada.
With all the statements that have been made about our joining in a plan of collective security, that is a strange statement of Canada's position; that our permanent forces are to be used either to assist the United States or have them assist us in the defence of the north of this continent. In other words, our plan of collective security is that we stay in Canada and expect other members of the Atlantic pact to come and help us. I cannot believe that that is the concept of collective security that has been put forward in this country. If it is, well, then, it is a different concept from that which we had put before us in the past.
I cannot help comparing the statement that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made last night, about this permanent force being used as the basis for the expansion of our army for a later expeditionary force to defend Canada outside Canada, with the statement of the Minister of National Defence, who said that the right place to defend Canada, and which Canadians believed in, is as far away as possible. The Minister of National Defence also said: "We must maintain a force in being and the means necessary to develop our full potential as quickly as possible". Those were things we were told
Defence Appropriation Act in March-not in June, but in March. And also I cannot help recalling the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and comparing them with the statement now that this permanent force of ours is to stay here and to be used as the basis of our army for a later expeditionary force to defend Canada outside Canada. I cannot help comparing that with other words he used, words which seemed to have such a ring to them at the time. I have not those words before me, but I doubt if he will question them when I repeat them in substance. At that time he told us that never again would it be possible for any nation to build its strength behind the ramparts of sacrifices of others.
If that is so, then this seems strangely inconsistent with what he said at that time. There again is one of the reasons why we should really know what forces we are going to have and what new plans we have got, because we have no plan before us now except the one to carry on with the same unsatisfactory procedure that left us aghast at our unpreparedness when the test came.
Surely this is something that could be discussed by everybody, with the hope of getting ahead and not just with the idea of using blocking tactics and preventing anything being accomplished other than the very little that is put before us.
This amount of money for which we are now asked is something that will be supported by members of the House of Commons to the extent that they receive assurance. Hon. members certainly have no thought of holding back. Nevertheless we have the duty and the responsibility of making sure that before we leave here we do know something about what is actually being planned for the security of this country in the months immediately ahead.
Whether the Prime Minister intended that his statement should be taken literally or not, nevertheless he undoubtedly was indicating his own belief that the critical period is immediately before us when he said that the next decade of months would be so important. If that is so, then as members of the House of Commons we have no right to leave here for another five months if we are not sure that within this decade of months ahead of us every day is going to count in making use of what we have.
The Minister of National Defence placed a strange interpretation upon the request for a committee. I do not recall a single case when anyone has suggested that a defence committee would have it within its authority to declare policy for the Department of National Defence, any more than a committee

Defence Appropriation Act on external affairs declares policy for the Department of External Affairs, or the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines declares policy for that department.
What that committee can do is to examine evidence, to examine the organization, to call the chiefs of staff, to call the senior officers, to call technical experts outside the government service to obtain information and to make recommendations in regard to details which obviously would be subject to the overall policy which always must be the responsibility of a government, under our system, and which every one of us recognizes.
Then there is another thing that has come up from time to time, and that is that we would be helping the enemy. Oh, it is so difficult to believe that the Kremlin will decide its course upon what it hears about what we discuss here! Nevertheless there is not a member of the house who would not be equally anxious to prevent any secret information getting into the hands of the enemy at any time. I am convinced that where it is clear that there is any bona fide reason for not asking a question, the question would never be pressed. But, do not think that the Russians do not know a lot more than members of the House of Commons know now. Do not think they do not know a lot more about the number of aircraft we have, and the condition or lack of condition of them.


An hon. Member:: They cannot know very much, then.


George Alexander Drew: That is right, but they know. And they know the number of men we have and the number of vehicles we have. We have not put much difficulty in their way, and they have had access to the information. They have got it. But what we want to know is how we are going to use it. And the thing that will do us the most good, and the enemy the least good, is for them to see that here is a country, Canada, with only 14 million people, but a country which has demonstrated that it has a vigorous and a strong people, a country that means business and that is going to use what it has got. I cannot imagine anything that would bring less comfort to the enemy than that.
Collectively that is what we want the Kremlin to believe as coming from every free nation today. We of course are never going to decide the issue by ourselves; but sometimes it is the light quarterback who plays a pretty important part when he has a great, heavy line up in front of him. We have no reason to be unduly modest about the part played by young Canadians in the air in two world wars. They have had no equals in any nation of the world. Our men

and women in all the services have demonstrated the qualities they possess. We do not need to emphasize it; those qualities do not need to be emphasized by the Minister of National Defence. They are a matter of history and of record; they are part of the tradition of our people.
The important thing is to make sure that all of that quality, that character, that skill and initiative is able to assert itself. While we shall not decide the issue, still we can have a very important part in the team. By what we do along with all the others, the issue may well be decided in the balance of peace. That is what we are all seeking.
We have no real information before us. I hope the Minister of National Defence will not repeat to us that we have more information than anybody else. Why, he talks about the United Kingdom! He knows perfectly well that in the United Kingdom a subcommittee on defence has been meeting year after year, and that it allocates certain specific tasks each year. It is something in the nature of a spot audit in a business. They go into different activities each year and, as a result of that, over the years they produce very satisfactory results, although even there they feel they are not getting all the information they should.
If the Minister of National Defence seriously believes that these things should not be discussed in the House of Commons, in the open, then there is an answer. I do not like to balance one man against another, but the hon. member for Nanaimo can be regarded as the top expert on this subject. The hon. member for Nanaimo has told us that the reserve army training is not producing results and he has told us that our active force is not in position to meet any possible enemy in the defence of this country of ours right here in Canada-never mind outside of Canada, right here in Canada now.
These things have to be discussed. If they cannot be discussed in the open, then there is a way to discuss them. In view of the continued reluctance to give information I propose that this house go into secret session so that hon. members who do know, and there are many of them, just how bad the situation is in many respects and where the money is being wasted, can offer evidence from personal experience in that respect. Then we shall be able to insist upon the use of these funds in the way that they should be used.
I cannot move an amendment at this stage in the committee and it would not make any difference if I could because the government will decide whether it is to be done. There is this much about it: there are some who will never take this subject seriously, as is

Defence Appropriation Act
indicated by those ministers who find this a laughing matter and who are now just outside the immediate confines of this chamber. I am hoping that the rest will take this matter as seriously as they should. This smugness, this chatter and laughter while we are talking about the survival of freedom merely indicate how necessary it is that people do try to arouse this house and the people of Canada to the serious task that lies before us.


An hon. Member:: Who are they?


George Alexander Drew: If you want to know, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare are the three to whom I was referring. In wartime there have been reasons why people raise objections to secret sessions. It was suggested that in a certain secret session information was given out, but secret sessions at a time like this are quite different. Anything that is given out is not going to be given out to the press of the country, and the press would not carry it if they did get the information. Anything that came to them they would know was secret information. Certainly the press of this country have the highest regard for the importance of the things under consideration.
If we are to take seriously the suggestion that these things cannot be considered in this house, then on that basis, and on that basis alone, I urge the government to assure us that we shall have a secret session at which the state of our national defence can be fully discussed and at which every hon. member with personal knowledge of the situation, and there are many who have that knowledge, will be able to place before the Department of National Defence and the government and members of the house suggestions as to what can be done, and they will also be able to receive information which apparently they will not be given in this house.
In making this suggestion I urge the Minister of National Defence to recognize that members of this house are anxious to see something done and are anxious to co-operate. There is no desire to rake through the past; there is a desire only to make sure that in facing the future the mistakes of the past will not be continued. There are in this house many gallant members with experience in the different branches of the service who could make up as efficient a committee as I am sure could be found in any legislative body within the fellowship of free nations. Those men could be trusted to deal with this subject if they were in turn empowered by that session to proceed with the information; or if they were empowered by an open session of the house, that would be the second stage.
The first stage would be to take the step which would make it possible for all of us to get information we do not now possess and upon which the collective good sense of this house can be brought to bear in the interests of the strengthening of our defences.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I intervene
in this discussion at this time not to protect my colleagues, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, from the rather ridiculous charge of smug indifference which has been hurled at them by the leader of the opposition. Their records are adequate protection against that charge.
I rise simply to intervene in connection with one point which has been raised by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken.
The hon. gentleman referred to something that I said in this house yesterday in a way which completely misinterprets the plain meaning of what I said. I hope to be able to prove that in two or three minutes. In doing so he repeated a misinterpretation given to those words this morning by a Montreal Gazette headline. Of course headlines are not all-important, as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) pointed out the other day. This headline reads:
Canada's Permanent Army plays stay-at-home role in future war.
In an effort to confirm the validity of that headline the story repeated the words which I used, which words were repeated by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. Perhaps I might repeat them once more. I said:
It is possible, however, to say at this time, pending revision of those plans-
I was referring to the revision of defence plans by the North Atlantic council.
-that our position in regard to collective defence in an attack on western Europe would be, on land, to use our permanent force to assist United States forces, or to be assisted by United States forces, in repelling a direct attack from the north, and using it-
That is our permanent force.
-as a basis for the expansion of our army for a later expeditionary force to defend Canada outside Canada.
I submit that to base the headline, "Canada's permanent army plays stay-at-home role in future war" on those words is a complete misinterpretation of what I said. I shall try to explain. I said that the first role of the permanent force, pending the reconsideration of the role of that force and of other forces by the North Atlantic council, which is now going on, would be to defend Canada against direct attack on Canada. I am sure that no hon. member would object

Defence Appropriation Act to the Canadian permanent force staying at home to fulfil that role, because that is its primary role. I said also, and of course I was assuming that there would not be at the same time a direct attack on Canada, that the role of that force would be to act as a nucleus for an expeditionary force according to our traditional method. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that has been said before by the Minister of National Defence and other members of this government. That has been the accepted policy of our army since the war. There is nothing new in that, nor does it justify in any way, shape or form the interpretation given to it by the leader of the opposition a few moments ago.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, this session of parliament assembled at a time of great domestic and international crises. We dealt expeditiously with the domestic crisis. When we were called to hear the speech from the throne I do not think there was a member who was surprised to hear these words:
You will also be asked to give urgent consideration to the measures for increased national security and international co-operation required by the fighting in Korea and the increasingly grave international situation which that struggle reflects. That was the original reason for summoning you for this special session.
I suggest that even since the day when we heard those words uttered the international situation has seriously deteriorated. The leader of the opposition moved an amendment to the address in which he questioned whether the measures which were being taken by the government were adequate for the defence of Canada. During the discussion that took place the Prime Minister urged all members to consider whether those measures were adequate and whether the steps being taken and the plans being made were being carried out speedily enough to deal with the situation in Korea and to provide for the defence of Canada.
The moneys that we are now being asked to provide are intended to implement the measures which have been recommended. We have listened this evening to an address by the Minister of National Defence, but I have had the greatest difficulty in being able to picture what those measures are for the defence of this country. From the words that the minister uttered last Thursday I have reason to believe that there are plans which he hesitates to tell the house about. On August 31 he outlined the measures that were being taken, and he referred to the experience that his teams of staff officers had had during


what he referred to as the partial mobilization of the last few days. Then he went on to say, as recorded at page 99 of Hansard:
I can say, though, that should an emergency arise we know how many men for each of the three services we shall want during each of the first twelve months. We know what kind of men they should be, what they will do, where they will go, what they will be equipped with and how they will be trained. That is all taped down to the last man.
These are the hidden plans that the Minister of National Defence apparently is not prepared to disclose to the house. How can we judge whether the plans are such as to meet the situation confronting us with speed, and whether they are effective enough to provide for the defence of this country, if we are not told how long it will take for those troops to be mobilized, and when the divisions of our army will be ready to take the field in the defence of Canada?
During the last session of parliament I heard a supporter of the Liberal government stand up in his place and declare that he would not sit in this house and be told that there were not divisions-and he used the plural-of young Canadians who were ready to take the field tomorrow. The Minister of National Defence was in the house when that statement was made and he did not attempt to deny it. Is he trying to give the impression to the people of Canada that we really do have divisions ready now to defend Canada? That cannot be true. What we want to know is how soon after an emergency there will be adequate troops ready and available for the defence of Canada.
We are told that there is an airborne brigade. I have stated in the house during the present session that the airborne brigade is not trained as a formation. The airborne brigade has never been brought together. The airborne brigade-and I am repeating what I have already said-has not trained as a formation and is lacking many of the essential elements of a fighting formation. There is no commander nor has a staff been appointed which has to date worked with all the units of that formation operating together as a co-ordinated team.
Reference has been made to an experiment or test which was carried on in the north in the wintertime a year ago. 1 refer to Exercise Sweetbriar. Certainly there were subunits of the airborne brigade which acquitted themselves exceedingly well and proved that, provided the brigade was trained and all the units had the same opportunities as those who took part in that exercise, it would be able to carry out the task to which it is assigned. But at that time all the units of the brigade had not had their airborne training. That

training has gone on during the months that have passed since Exercise Sweetbriar, and more men have been trained. New recruits have also come in, who have not been trained. We do not know the standard of efficiency of the various units of that brigade; but I repeat that it does not give a correct picture when the minister speaks in such glowing terms of the high standard of efficiency which that brigade is supposed to have reached, as an airborne formation prepared to defend our northern frontiers. In saying that I am in no way casting any reflection upon the type of officer, non-commissioned officer or man in those units. They are men of a very high standard, but as yet they have not had the opportunity of working together as a brigade team. Without a leader, without a staff, without the proper communication units, and without a great deal of practice working together under the conditions in which they may be expected to have to defend this country, they cannot be classed as ready at the drop of the hat to meet any emergency which may arise.
Then we have been told about the reserve units, through which the larger expansion is to be carried on to provide for our part in any operation in which we may participate beyond the shores of Canada. We have just heard that the active army is to provide the means of that expansion. I find it very difficult to reconcile those two tasks; on the one hand the task of being ready at an instant, in an emergency, to defend our northern frontier, and on the other the task of providing for the expansion of the forces which may be required to localize any act of aggression committed against our northland or to take part in any larger overseas expedition. It is not going to be easy for a very small nucleus force to carry out the role of defending our immense northern areas and at the same time train and develop expanding units of our reserve army for the greater task.
Think of the operations that have been carried on during the past few months in Korea, a northern, mountainous land, where spaces are not great. We have heard of the tactics employed by this satellite of Soviet Russia, which has relied so largely upon infiltration, working around the flanks of the forces of the United States and United Nations. It is not just a brigade operating in Korea today. Some five divisions of United States troops and five divisions of South Korean troops are in action, in addition to elements of United Nations forces. There we have some ten divisions fighting on a front which is extremely narrow when compared
Defence Appropriation Act to the enormous expanse of our own northern country. I do not care how small any diversionary raid might be; a brigade would be lost in our northern vastness. If more than a mere handful of soviet troops were landed on our northern shores, either by air or by water, it would take far more than a brigade to neutralize such an act of aggression. Therefore we must immediately consider the raising of additional forces. If a raid should take place the first thing to do would be to mobilize other elements of the Canadian army. How long would it be before those would be ready? That is a question I should like the minister to answer. If he feels that it would give the enemy information, then let us have a secret session, as my leader suggested, where the minister can tell us in confidence the plans which presumably he now has locked up in the recesses of his own mind.
Then we go on to the other services. In the speech the minister made on August 31 we were told that some nine ships of the Royal Canadian Navy are now under construction. Some of those ships are of vital importance; three are new submarine chasers. When will those ships be ready? As I pointed out the other day, we are short of naval protection on the Pacific coast. Everything should be done to accelerate the construction of ships to replace those destroyers that have left our waters. When will they be ready? That is what we want to know. Is the minister prepared to tell us? In his speech he did not say when those new vessels would be ready. Looking at the $477,000 that we are being asked to vote for naval personnel, I am not impressed. Is that going to provide crews for these ships this year? Are these ships going to be ready this year? I am afraid they will not be ready.
A little later we were told that all ten destroyers are being reconditioned; they have been in reserve. Will that process of reconditioning be expedited so that these destroyers will be ready for service in the near future? If so, are we providing in this $477,000 adequate funds for the crews which will be required to man those ten destroyers, in addition to the new ships under construction as well as the ships in service today? We do not know. It is inevitable that replacements will be required for the crews of the destroyers now in Korean waters. I know that it was necessary to transfer personnel from some other vessels and from store establishments in order to make up the full complement of those destroyers before they sailed. That is not unreasonable. That is a thing which is to be expected. Certainly you are

Defence Appropriation Act not going to keep destroyers and naval vessels at full war complement at all times. But it only shows that in times of comparative peace and security it is inevitable that naval establishments sink below the war establishments or the war complements of the various vessels.
We have heard about the aircraft which are to be purchased, including the one hundred Mustangs, and the acceleration of the F-86 and the CF-100 program; but we have not been told when those aircraft will be ready. It has been suggested that aircrews are being trained now at the rate of twenty-five men a week. Only during the last session I pointed out what I thought were one or two great weaknesses in our air training scheme. One was the shortage of young pilots coming on. From seven or eight methods by which a young man could become qualified as a pilot, I think we were at that time producing about 250 new pilots a' year. Are we going to have enough trained air force personnel with which to provide fighter pilots for these new aircraft that we are getting and to provide aircrews which are so essential, as well as the maintenance crews? Are we going to have those in time? Are they going to be ready by the time that the new aircraft, both for land and for sea, are ready?
We were told of the new aircraft which are being supplied for the complement of Magnificent. They will require additional personnel. We want from the minister definite assurance and definite dates by which these personnel, this equipment and these new aircraft will be ready and available for the defence of this country. If the minister is not prepared to give that information to us in open session, then by all means let him meet the request of the leader of the opposition and grant a secret session at which all these matters can be told to the members of this house with frankness and with there being no fear of leakages to any enemy who might not already have that information which we, the representatives of the people, do not have at the present time.
In these resolutions which have been placed before us we find large sums of money being allocated to the different services. When we come to a consideration of the various items, I do not know what the procedure will be, whether it will be that of dealing with each of the details on the various sheets of paper which we received, one by one, such as civil salaries and wages, so much; pay and allowances, so much for the navy, so much for the army and so much for the air force. Will they be dealt with one by one like that so that we may have an opportunity of asking questions of the minister and of examining him as to how these vast sums of money are to be expended? Or shall we adopt the method which was carried out during the last session of parliament when we were passing estimates under these self-same headings, in which the whole amount dealing with the defence forces was dealt with under one heading, with no order, not taking it detail by detail, but enabling one to ask a question at one minute on the northwest staging route and the next minute on army personnel, air force equipment or naval accommodation? I hope it will be possible to take these items one by one and that we shall have the opportunity of asking the appropriate questions.


An hon. Member:: Eleven o'clock.


George Randolph Pearkes: There are, Mr. Chairman, other points that I want to raise of a general nature regarding the commitments for the future years. It now being eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that you report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: What is the business for
tomorrow?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: We shall continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 6, 1950