1950-08-31

[Stage Direction]
(For list of departmental and other reports tabled, see Votes and Proceedings, No. 3, of August 31, 1950.)


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement about the president of the Canadian National Railways. Yesterday I refrained, and I urged my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), to refrain from any reference to Mr. Donald Gordon, because I did not believe any further discussion about his position would hasten the passage of the legislation we were considering. Certain demands have been made of the government from outside the house which I regret to say found some echo here. Therefore I believe it is in the public interest to state the position of the government.
The Canadian National Railways belong to the people of Canada^ and the only justification for their existence as a national system is the service they give to the people of the nation. The government was delighted when Mr. Donald Gordon agreed to become president, because during the war years and since he had given ample proof that he understood what was meant by putting in first place the service of the Canadian public. No doubt he would be the first to admit that he is not perfect, and that, like the rest of us, he sometimes makes mistakes; but I am convinced that every decision he has made was taken because he believed it was his duty to the public to act as he did.
In the present labour dispute the government, out of respect for the loyalty to one another of the members of the unions concerned, treated them all alike, though it was impossible to find any other vital national interest for doing so. I cannot believe that those who have been attacking Mr. Gordon really expect the government to feel any less loyalty to a faithful public servant than the members of the unions feel to one another. But lest anyone may believe we do,
I want to make it perfectly clear that the government has undiminished confidence in Mr. Donald Gordon's devotion to the public interest and in his capacity to administer the national railway system, and that we hope to see him continue to do so for a long time to come.



DISTRICT COURTS, NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Before we proceed with the special order I want to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the Criminal Code of Canada has been in effect in Newfoundland since August 1, when does he propose to have the five district court judges appointed?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The matter is under consideration, Mr. Speaker, and an announcement will be made in due course.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: On
Tuesday last a motion was passed concerning the sitting hours of the house. Is it still the intention to sit on Saturday? I realize that this was definitely decided by the resolution which was adopted by the house, but since Bill No. 1 has been disposed of, I was wondering whether that decision might be reconsidered.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has given no consideration to asking the house to rescind the resolution that was adopted. The information that has come to me rather generally is that hon. members would wish to sit on Saturday and also on Monday.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. MacNaught (Prince):: In view of the recent disruption of continuous transportation connections between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, which were guaranteed by confederation, will the government

The Address-Mr. Cannon consider ways and means of preventing such disruption of vital services in the future?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I shall be glad to bring the subject matter of my hon. friend's question to the attention of my colleagues and see that the position is fully explored and considered.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: When the Minister of Transport is considering the case of Prince Edward Island I wish he would also take into consideration Vancouver island, where we are faced with a most difficult situation.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to do so.



S.S. &quot;QUEBEC&quot; DESTRUCTION BY FIRE-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: May I ask the
Minister of Transport if he expects during * this short session to be able to give the house some report with respect to the recent destruction by fire of the passenger ship Quebec?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not expect there will be an opportunity to do so, since I doubt very much whether the commission established under the Canada Shipping Act will report in time. If when it does report the house is still in session, however, I shall be glad to table the report.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
(Translation):
Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I wish to express my warmest personal thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and those of my esteemed constituents of Iles-de-la-Madel-eine for the honour he bestowed upon me in asking me to move the address to the Governor General in reply to the speech it has pleased His Excellency to deliver before both houses at the opening of this special session.
I know that in asking me to perform this pleasant duty he wished to pay tribute not so much to myself but to the electors of the beautiful constituency of Iles-de-la-Madeleine who have endorsed the present government
[Mr. MaeNaught.I
by electing, for the first time in history, a representative of their own to the House of Commons of Canada.
I have the honour to move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Bennett), that the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Viscount Alexander of Tunis, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada:
May it Please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament.
As stated in the speech from the throne, parliament has been summoned earlier than was anticipated. It was originally intended to call parliament to give consideration to certain measures for increased national security and international co-operation required by the fighting in Korea and the increasingly grave situation which that struggle reflects. We have also been summoned on account of the emergency resulting from the railway strike, which has paralysed the nation and brought about disastrous consequences that were daily growing worse.
In view of the seriousness of the times, I have not prepared a long speech and I beg to be excused if I do not make the preamble of my speech as long as is usually the case.
However, I cannot come to the heart of the matter without saying a word about the sad demises that have bereaved the country since we last separated, but two months ago.
Words fail me to describe the feeling of irreparable loss and deep affliction that gripped the whole country at the death, after a short illness, of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, who was prime minister of this country for a greater number of years than any of his predecessors in modern times, and who dedicated the best years of his life to the welfare of our country and the happiness of the people. The expressions of sorrow, the words of praise that followed the news of his death throughout the country and among all political parties were signal evidence of the esteem and affection in which he was held by his fellow countrymen. Even his bitterest opponents, his severest critics added their tributes to those of a whole nation. His achievements were such that the era in which he lived shall be known in the history of this country as the Mackenzie King era.

(Text):
We also have to deplore the death of Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, who was taken from us so unexpectedly. He was truly a great Minister of Labour and, particularly during the war years when his department was charged with the administration of selective service and the best utilization of the manpower of the nation, he rendered yeoman service. He was a true labour man, a member of the trades and labour congress and the holder of a card in the electricians' union. He knew our workingmen, particularly our union men in Canada, and his wise counsel will be sorely missed, particularly in trying times such as those through which we have just passed.
(Translation):
We also mourn the death of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Belzile), parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Elected for the first time in 1945, he distinguished himself rapidly in this house and was on his way towards achieving a brilliant parliamentary career. Never was his star so bright, and death, in taking him away from us, has deprived the country of a son who was capable of rendering great public service.
I join with those who have already expressed their sorrow and sympathy at the passing of these great men.
(Text):
I wish to underline the appointment of Hon. Milton F. Gregg to the important portfolio of labour. This portfolio is always an important one, but it is particularly so at this time. May I say that it is universally recognized as a great compliment to the minister that he should have been appointed under the circumstances that existed at the time.
(Translation):
I wish to offer to the Hon. Hugues Lapointe my most sincere congratulations and those of my constituents on his appointment as Minister of Veterans Affairs. He was clearly designated to this office by his remarkable service record in France, Belgium and Holland during the last war. The worthy son of an illustrious father, he will no doubt follow his example and walk in his footsteps.
I am just back from my constituency of Iles-de-la-Madeleine where I spent some time with my family.
In general, fishing has not been good this year. The lobster catch was satisfactory, but cod and mackerel were not profitable
The Address-Mr. Cannon during the months of June and July on account of the bad weather, which disturbed the fishermen during the greatest part of these months.
Fishermen's income has been severely cut; as they rely on this income to buy the fuel and food they need for the winter months, and fishing gear for next season. The fishermen of the Magdalen islands, who represent 85 per cent of the population, find themselves in a difficult position which could even become distressing. They have already forwarded to the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) several requests in which they set out their problems and their needs. I have given my support to those requests and although fisheries in the province of Quebec come under the provincial authorities I am convinced that the federal government will take, if need be, the necessary steps to prevent the Magdalen islands fishermen from suffering from cold and hunger next winter.
This special session was called first of all to allow parliament to consider the necessary steps to provide for our national security which is jeopardized by the ever-increasing menace of communism and to let the members decide to what extent we must co-operate with the United Nations forces now fighting in Korea to defend the Korean republic against their sinister and brutal aggressor.
But before the opening date of the session had been set, we met with a domestic crisis which threatened the security and welfare of the nation in a more direct and urgent way than the other crisis. It is more pressing to settle our own affairs than to re-establish peace elsewhere.
The railway strike which has just ended was a menace to our national life and threatened the vital forces of the nation by stopping the circulation in its arteries: the railways.
Every Canadian was worried, anxious even. Our people were appalled at what was happening. They were confronted with a situation they would never have thought possible. Some time ago, in the last days before the 22nd of August, the date set for the strike, the level-headed and experienced citizens thought that there would not be a strike. They said: "Labour unions and the railways are managed by men of wisdom and of real ability, by good Canadians who will, on both sides, make the necessary concessions to avoid such a national disaster."
Evidently they were wrong. The necessary mutual concessions were not made. There was no sign of that breadth of outlook which

The Address-Mr. Cannon would have put the welfare of the country before that of the unions or the companies. The disaster was not averted but was permitted to take place regardless of the consequences for the country.
Most of the railway employees, I am sure, were surprised and disappointed when the strike was launched. Many of those who had voted in favour considered their vote merely as a threat which was not to materialize but was meant only to force the hand of the companies.
The public does not feel secure any more. What monstrous power, they ask, has made it possible for a few men, for a very small percentage of our population, to paralyse the economic life of the nation, to isolate whole communities, to deprive sick people of medical care, children of their milk, the merchant [DOT] of his legitimate profit, their brother workers of their livelihood and their wages in many industries affected by the strike? The Canadian citizen feels it is time to put a stop to this power, to regulate this force which is unable to control itself.
Public opinion did not support the strikers; it was not a popular strike. Even the man in the street, who has not studied philosophy, with his plain common sense, realizes that public interest must prevail over private interests. The parties concerned are blamed especially for their refusal to postpone the strike for thirty days, as had been suggested by the government, in order to settle the dispute. It was thought that a delay of thirty days was not overly long, and could have been granted in order to avoid this disaster.
I am sure that the organizers of the strike had no intention of fostering communism, because I know that their leaders are strongly opposed to communism. Nevertheless, if communists could have brought about a similar strike they would have considered it a tremendous victory. They would have welcomed a strike that paralysed the main transportation services of the country, namely the railways which brought Canada into being. We all know that without the railways confederation would never have been achieved. They were one of the main conditions of union between the eastern and the western provinces.
Let us remember that the eyes of the world are focused upon us; everywhere, people have been wondering how we would tackle the problem. The eyes of the sovereign people -the masters of our democracy-are also turned towards us, awaiting a fair, equitable and impartial solution to this stalemate. In the province of Quebec, public opinion has


already accepted legislation forbidding strikes in public utilities. In 1944, the legislative assembly of that province passed a bill decreeing compulsory arbitration in every dispute over labour conditions where a public utility and its employees were involved and rendering illegal any strike in a public utility under any circumstances whatsoever.
Heavy penalties are provided in this legislation for every day that such an illegal strike would last. This law is still in force and has given good results. It was enacted by a Liberal government known for its sympathy towards organized labour.
However our federal government did not want to incorporate this principle into the labour legislation of this country. It did not want to enact general legislation prohibiting strikes in public utilities and subjecting them to compulsory arbitration.
In Bill No. 1, introduced in this house last Tuesday, and subsequently carried, this government has found, and of this I am convinced, a fair solution to an immediate problem.
The Liberal party still believes in the principles of collective bargaining and free arbitration, but, all efforts at conciliation and arbitration having failed in this particular case, it was absolutely necessary to find a way of getting the railways back into operation.
The government has found a way through this act, which orders the railway companies to return to the operation of their lines and subsidiary services and orders the railway employees now on strike to return to work. The act grants all employees a temporary wage increase of 4 cents an hour, and provides that, if within thirty days after the act has come into force, management and labour have not yet reached an agreement as to the terms and conditions of the collective agreements covering their jobs, or on the appointment of an arbitrator to determine such terms and conditions, the governor in council will appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will rule on all matters on which agreement has not been reached and which must necessarily be settled if a collective agreement is to be drawn. His decisions will be binding on the employees and on the companies. If he grants other wage increases, these will be retroactive at least to the date on which the workers will have resumed work following the passing of the bill I have just mentioned.
As Mr. St. Laurent pointed out in this house, this law does not introduce the principle of

compulsory arbitration in our labour laws. A specific case had to be settled, a national crisis had to be stopped by means of a special law which applies to that case only.
This law does not infringe upon the freedom of the unions which all Canadians cherish; it does not encroach upon their right to strike. This right is recognized in all democracies and I hope it will always be in Canada.
This law is based upon two principles. First, pressing too much for private rights may lead to public wrong; then the rights of each must be limited by the rights of others. The abuse of one's rights must be stopped.
When the exercise of a right causes more harm to the community than the limitation or restriction of this right would bring to some groups, that right must be restricted.
Such is the object of that legislation. It is in force only in so far as it is necessary to ensure the resumption of railway operations and the settlement of the present emergency.
Here I wish to congratulate the government for having summoned the houses of parliament to deal with this problem. That the government did not wish to make these grave decisions without consulting the elected representatives of the people is an example of true democracy in action. Our opponents often criticize the government for governing by order in council. Our presence here today is the answer to these accusations: the facts speak for themselves.
I am happy to see that nearly all our colleagues are here today. I am sure the people realize the difficulties the members of parliament had to overcome and the personal sacrifices they had to make to get here in spite of the strike. The leader of the opposition is probably the one who came from the farthest point. I am sure I speak for all members in saying that we appreciate the difficulties he had to overcome in order to be with us today.
The speech from the throne also states, Mr. Speaker, that we have been summoned here in order to find means for bolstering our national security against the threat of aggression which has arisen in the east and of strengthening the international co-operation required by the fighting in Korea and the increasingly grave international situation which that struggle reflects.
(Text):
Canada, Mr. Speaker, is a member of the United Nations. She signed the United
The Address-Mr. Cannon Nations charter in 1945, and this signature was ratified by both houses of parliament. Under the charter Canada has assumed obligations toward the other signatory nations. She has agreed to take effective collective measures for the suppression of acts of aggression, to give the United Nations every assistance in any action they take in accordance with the charter, and to accept and to carry out the decisions of the security council, also in accordance with the charter.
The security council has passed three resolutions in connection with the Korean situation by which it has declared that there exists a breach of the peace in Korea, has branded the North Koreans as the aggressors, and has recommended, under article 39 of the charter, that all member nations assist in the defence of the republic of Korea. This is the first time in history that Canada has bound itself by covenant to give armed assistance to any nation, whether inside or outside the British commonwealth of nations.
There is no possible doubt that this undertaking was approved and wholeheartedly ratified by the people of Canada. Canada was represented at the San Francisco meeting and at the signing of the charter by our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent); and the people of Canada have shown their entire approval of what he did there, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, by electing him Prime Minister by the greatest majority in the history of this country.
This is also the first time that Canada has been called upon to honour its signature to an agreement to give armed aid to another nation. Are we going to honour our signature? I say, yes. We are not going to fail this first test; and I am sure this house will also answer the question with a resounding yes, authorizing the government to send the special force to Korea or to use it to fulfil any of our other obligations under the United Nations charter or the North Atlantic treaty.
In the last days of the last session, Mr. Speaker, the Korea question was before this house, and members of all opposition parties expressed their support of the decision our government had taken to support the United Nations resolution recommending that the members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.
There is also the further consideration that it is only fitting that this country should equip and send to Korea as a fighting force
86	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cannon those of her sons who generously volunteer to go and defend the citizens of Korea against the barbarous aggression they are now suffering.
May I interject here, sir, that it was with regret that I read recently in the newspapers that the hon, member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has called upon the veterans of Canada not to volunteer for service in Korea and has also called upon the government of this country to establish conscription for this service. The hon. member is taking a course which is entirely illogical. Experienced, trained and willing troops are needed in Korea. He dissuaded the experienced, trained and willing soldiers from volunteering, and suggested that raw recruits, without experience or training and without even the desire to enlist for this action, should be forced to go. If he had set out deliberately to weaken and sabotage the special force, he could not have done more to attain that end.
I have suggested, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Kamloops has been illogical.
I think I can support that statement with an example taken out of yesterday's proceedings. Several times he voted against what he termed compulsion to oblige men to accept a determination of an increase in wages of between four cents and seven cents an hour. He was against compulsion in that case, yet he would use compulsion to send young men to risk their lives in Korea when Canada is not even at war. But fortunately he has not succeeded in so weakening the special force. As you know, sir, the recruiting of volunteers has been going admirably well and has already exceeded the number of men originally set by the government.
This spontaneous movement of our youth to join the special force being organized under the auspices of our able Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) shows their confidence in him and their satisfaction with the splendid work he has done in unifying the command of the three forces, in reorganizing, modernizing and co-ordinating our defence headquarters. The unification of our three services has progressed unobtrusively, without fuss or controversy, in a manner that is the envy of other nations that have not been so fortunate, and we now have, or so we are told by representatives of other nations, one of the most modern, best trained, best co-ordinated and integrated defence headquarters machines of any nation west of the iron curtain.
In support of the resolution of the United Nations concerning assistance to the republic of Korea, Canada had already sent into action three destroyers. It is worthy of note that the


first armed forces of Canada to take part in this fighting belong to the service in which the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois), whose county then included the Magdalen islands, served in the last war. Canada has also sent a number of transport planes of the R.C.A.F. which are participating in the airlift to Japan. Our rearmament is going apace. Large orders for aircraft and the most modern guns have been placed, and arrangements have been made to train in Canada 300 aircrew a year for the United Kingdom, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Norway. I wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Minister of National Defence on these splendid achievements.
(Translation):
That rearmament program, on which I have just congratulated the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), will enable us to fulfil in various parts of the world the obligations imposed upon us by the United Nations charter and the Atlantic pact. All of it will not necessarily serve only in Korea. We may have to ward off threats from elsewhere. Although part of our national wealth must be earmarked for our rearmament program, we must not neglect the general strength of our economy or the welfare of our people. Nothing would please communists better than to see our people unhappy and divided. We must prevent that at all cost, as such a situation could serve the purpose of the enemy.
We are fighting this war on two fronts: the theatre of operations in Korea and the United Nations arena at Lake Success. I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to express my most sincere appreciation to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, to the various Canadian delegates to the United Nations assembly, and also to the representatives of the great democracies, namely, France, Great Britain and the United States, for their excellent work in this arena in answering the deceitful allegations of those who support the aggressor and exposing the falsity and weakness of their arguments.
The forces of good must, now more than ever, join hands to fight the forces of evil. It is comforting to see fifty-three of the fifty-nine United Nations denounce the aggressor in Korea and to see that an ever-increasing number of nations are offering to send reinforcements to United Nations troops.
Let us ask ourselves if these great democracies should not hold out a friendly hand to Spain and if Canada should not lead the way

in this direction. I am not speaking of the United Nations since any step in that direction at the United Nations level would inevitably meet with the customary veto. The Senate of the United States made a friendly gesture towards Spain when it voted that country a loan recently.
It seems to me that in rejecting an alliance with that country against communism we deprive ourselves of an ally that could be very useful in certain circumstances.
I am sure that in passing Bill No. 1 yesterday this house took a step which will put an end to the national paralysis caused by the railway strike.
I am no less certain that this house is ready to take the necessary steps in the international sphere to maintain that degree of cooperation required to deal with the very serious situation now existing.
There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that in doing these things the representatives of the Canadian people in the parliament of the nation will receive the full support of their fellow citizens. Our people wish that all the necessary steps be taken for the preservation of order in this country, that public interests be protected against the self-centred and unconsidered actions of a few and that Canada with all the strength of a young nation having recently reached new heights in independence and autonomy respect her undertakings and honour her obligations.
(Text):


Mr. C. E. Bennett (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to second the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon), who has moved that an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to the speech so graciously delivered by him to the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons at the opening of parliament.
May I first of all express to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) my appreciation of the high honour which he has bestowed upon my riding of Grey North in selecting me as the seconder of this motion. It was a task which from the very outset I had doubted my ability to perform, and after listening to the eloquent address of my colleague that doubt has in no manner been lessened. I heartily congratulate him on his splendid speech. He has ably lived up to the traditions of his family, of his illustrious grandfather, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, a minister in the Laurier cabinet and a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and of his noted father, the late Mr. Justice L. A. Cannon, also of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Address-Mr. Bennett
Tributes have been paid to the memories of Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, and Mr. Gleason Belzile.
All Canada mourns the passing of Mr. King. As a member returned for the first time in 1949 I did not have the privilege, which a good number of the present members enjoyed, of serving with and under the leadership of the man who was head of our country for a longer period than any other.
I have often heard members recount stories of his greatness as a leader, of his wisdom, and of his personal charm. I did witness the magnificent tribute which Canadians paid to his memory last month in the cities of Ottawa and Toronto, a tribute in which I know all the people of my riding, in fact every Canadian, wanted to have a share. As our Prime Minister has so aptly stated, Mr. King's passing marks the end of a period which historians will certainly describe as the Mackenzie King era.
I did have the good fortune to sit for the last two sessions with the late Hon. Humphrey Mitchell. Very high praise indeed has been given to him for the outstanding job he did as Canada's Minister of Labour from 1941, and for the heavy burden of responsibility he assumed so capably during the war. I can only add to what has already been said by saying that as a new member I found Mr. Mitchell a kindly, friendly Christian gentleman. We shall always remember his sense of humour, his infectious smile. Novices like myself will remember his sympathetic and understanding counsel. The House of Commons will not be quite the same without him. May I express my heartfelt sympathy to Mrs. Mitchell and the members of her family.
I should also like to express our deep sorrow in the great loss we have sustained in the passing of Gleason Belzile, who was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. Our sincere sympathy goes out to the members of his family and to the constituents of Rimouski riding. A very promising career was abruptly brought to an end.
As this is a special emergency session of parliament, with special emphasis on getting down to business, I intend to speak only briefly in seconding this motion. I shall forgo the usual pleasure of outlining the beauties and advantages of my riding. Hon. members, however, may be assured that it is my firm intention before the life of this parliament has expired to make them most familiar with the achievements of the citizens of Grey North, with the beautiful Georgian bay countryside, and with places such as Owen Sound, Meaford and Thorn-bury. Indicative of the importance of my
88	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bennett
riding is the fact that the first passenger train to move at the conclusion of the strike last night was the one to the city of Owen Sound.
I should be remiss in my duty however, no matter how great the emphasis is during this session on getting down to business, if I did not say in my maiden speech how proud and honoured the county of Grey was upon the inclusion in the cabinet of its most famous son, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris), as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
This special session of parliament was called because of two emergencies, the railway strike and the international situation.
Legislation dealing with the railway strike, mentioned in the speech from the throne, has already been debated, and the bill has passed the house. I know all members sincerely regret that the principles of free collective bargaining failed to bring about a settlement of the strike. I do hope it will ever be kept in mind that Bill No. 1, dealing with this emergency, was not aimed at either or both of the negotiating parties, but was a bill that just had to be passed for the good of all Canadians.
On the closing day of the last session of parliament the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that if the situation in Korea or elsewhere should deteriorate and further action by Canada should be considered, parliament would be summoned. The situation in Korea has deteriorated and the government has decided to lay before parliament its plans for the expansion and acceleration of our defence program.
The Russians have made it abundantly clear that those plans are necessary. Not only have they sat on the sidelines and watched the invasion of Korea, but they have attempted in every possible way to block corrective action by the United Nations security council. And to say that is to give them the full benefit of the doubt. They have dispelled our last hope that the Kremlin holds any genuine interest in world peace.
Admittedly, prior to the invasion of the South Korean republic a good deal of evidence had piled up to show plainly that the Soviet was doing its utmost to foment conditions of disorder and chaos, conditions necessary for the furtherance of the communistic creed. But the peoples of the free world were hoping against hope that in some way an agreement for world peace and understanding would be reached before an armed conflict broke out. Of course we have not given up hope for that agreement for world peace. There still remains a fair chance that the final defeat of the communists in Korea will discourage aggression in other places and thus avert a
	, iTp*
third world war. Mr. Churchill said in London last Saturday night:
The only way to deal with Russia is by having superior strength in one form or another, and then acting with reason and fairness. This is the plan of the battle for peace, and the only plan which has a chance of success.
The Korean conflict has been important in at least two respects. First, the principles of collective security have been invoked for the first time in the history of the United Nations, and, second, a final, warning signal has now been flashed in all countries of the free world-prepare before it is too late.
It is for those two reasons we are here today-to consider our state cf preparedness, our defences, and our obligations as a member of the United Nations and as a signatory to the North Atlantic treaty.
There may be debate in the house as to how Canada's obligations should best be fulfilled, but there should not be any disagreement with regard to those obligations. This country has already endorsed the principle of collective security. Pursuant to that endorsement, we have dispatched destroyers and an air transport squadron to the east. Recruiting in all three services has been upped. A special brigade has been raised for service in Korea or elsewhere. One of the tasks now before us is to decide in what further manner we can help the cause of freedom, taking cognizance of all the factors, including our defences, other trouble spots in the world and our obligations to all our allies.
Prior to the recruiting of the special brigade, Canada's peacetime forces were organized first for the defence of the North American continent, and second to provide the organizational and administrative nucleus of the larger forces which an emergency would eventually require-this based upon the assumption that if and when there was a war of aggression, we would be fighting in a world war. That concept of our national defence was a necessity in peacetime. It was all we could afford.
We now find ourselves involved in what as' yet is an isolated action on a small front, and the government will ask our approval during this session of the use of the special brigade in Korea or elsewhere as the circumstances may require. I take it for granted that parliament's approval will be given. Thus Korea has added a new element to our military forces, probably a permanent one as long as sore spots remain anywhere in the world. It is true Canada has a fully-equipped and well-trained airborne brigade, but this brigade trained in the north, for the defence of this continent, has too specialized a military role

to make it sensible to commit it to the Korean peninsula.
The special brigade, while formed 'because of the invasion of Korea, may be used in the future to help meet our commitments under the North Atlantic treaty, which has assumed new importance since the invasion of the South Korean republic. Strangely enough the invasion of a republic in Asia has again focused our eyes on the continent of Europe. While a few short months ago it seemed prudent to do so, it now appears imperative that we make certain that our allies in Europe are properly armed-and making certain of course implies assisting those allies to arm. Europe has sufficient manpower, but has not yet recovered its full industrial potential since the war. It is economical in a military sense to help our allies there in their rearmament programs.
My message today to the government from the people of Grey North-and I am sure the vast majority of hon. members carry similar messages-is that the people are solidly behind the government in whatever measures are necessary to stop aggression in its tracks wherever it may occur. We all realize that Canadians are tired of war. It is appalling to think that after a few short years of peace we are talking again in terms of planes and guns. At the same time there is a determination throughout the country to see this thing through. If our thinking needed stiffening, Korea has done it. I have never heard a person in my riding say that Korea is a long way off, or ask how that country concerns us. The mood of the Canadian people was reflected in the recent recruiting of the special brigade, which was effected with one hundred per cent replacements within a matter of two short weeks.
In this hour of crisis may I express complete confidence in the leadership of the Prime Minister and in the personnel of his cabinet. Never in the history of our country has a leader gained the full confidence of the people in such a short period of time. Difficult and troublesome decisions have had to be made by the Prime Minister and his cabinet-far-reaching decisions; and they have been made with the full support of the Canadian people.
May I particularly express confidence in the minister whose department is most directly affected by the Korean crisis, the Minister of National Defence, and also in his department. Since the end of world war II, as my colleague, the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine has said, under the minister's direction, reorganization, modernization and unification have been going on continuously in the Department of National Defence. Only
The Address-Mr. Bennett hours after the cabinet decided to raise the special brigade, recruiting was in full swing. I am entirely confident that the special brigade will receive the best and most modern training available anywhere, and the best in equipment. The recruits in the special brigade must have shared my confidence. It was gratifying to learn when the announcement was made of the recruiting of the special brigade that the composition of the unit would perpetuate three old Canadian regiments, the renowned Royal Canadian regiment, the historic Princess Pats and the famous Royal 22nd from the province of Quebec.
Being particularly interested in the Royal Canadian Air Force, I should also like to compliment the minister for the part he and his department have played in taking steps to keep our air force in the enviable position it attained during the last war. Remarkable success has been achieved in the development of the CF-100, now known as the Canuck, which unquestionably is several years ahead of any aircraft in its field of all-weather, long-range fighters. The F-86 program to produce one hundred planes at Canadair Limited, Montreal, has been greatly increased by the announcement this week of one of the largest orders ever given in peace or war. One hundred Mustangs have been purchased from the United States navy for use by fighter squadrons until the CF-100 and F-86 are available to equip them. All this is comforting indeed to Canadians, who have great confidence and faith in the R.C.A.F.
Our one objective, Mr. Speaker, is peace. It is our belief nations can live side by side in peace. We will continue to press in every conceivable manner to arrive at an understanding with the soviet world. Our delegates to the United Nations will continue to exercise the almost unbelievable patience that has characterized their attendances during the last few years. The door to negotiations will not be shut if there is any way of keeping it open. No honest person can say there is a single democratic country that desires war.
But if the Soviet union comprehends only in terms of a show of strength, then the Soviet union will have that show of strength. The western allies have the resources, the oil, the steel, the industrial capacity, the know-how, and the scientific research far in excess of the communistic countries. And if the situation worsens to the extent that we become involved in a third world war-may God forbid-our peoples have the courage and the will to survive.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my first duty, and it is a pleasure and privilege as -well, is to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cannon) and
so

The Address-Mr. Pearson the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne upon the way in which they have discharged that responsibility this afternoon. They spoke with distinction and impressiveness, with honour to themselves and credit to the electors who were wise enough to send them to the House of Commons. I think a special word of congratulation is due to the seconder because this happened to be his maiden speech as well. The hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Bennett) has served his country well in war and is serving it well in peace. I was especially envious, Mr. Speaker, of the way in which the mover of the address moved with ease and eloquence from one of our national languages to the other. As he spoke I was tempted for a fleeting moment to congratulate him in kind, but then I realized that if I tried that transition it would be neither with ease nor eloquence, because, Mr. Speaker, to my everlasting regret, I am afraid I am not bilingual, although, giving myself the benefit of every doubt, I think I may claim to be one-and-a-half-lingual.
This afternoon I imagine the house will expect me to deal with the international position generally, and in some detail with events in Korea to review what has been happening there since parliament prorogued and the action which has been taken by the government to meet that crisis. Korea must be the centre of our attention these days. It is there that the struggle with soviet communism has come completely into the open and its nature been most clearly shown. The aggression against the republic of Korea has rung an alarm which has echoed through all the countries of the world. It has sounded imperatively here in Canada, causing us to accelerate our own military preparations and our military co-operation with our allies. It has also been one of the main reasons for the calling of this special session of parliament.
Before turning to Korea, however, I should like to consider as briefly as possible the world situation of which it is only a part. In particular, I should like to remind the house of some of the outlines of the menace by which we are now confronted, outlines etched by recent developments in Korea. There is much in the soviet system, a system spawned by Marxist materialism out of Russian mysticism, and in the designs of those who manipulate it, which is hard for anyone bred in western traditions and accustomed to western modes of thought to understand. Nevertheless we know, or certainly should know by now, a great deal about it. It is important that we should keep its main

features firmly in mind. Only by constantly remembering the nature of the forces that we are up against can we put ourselves in a position to decide on wise policies to deal with them. "Know your enemy" is a principle which is taught to every soldier. It is a principle as valuable in this half-light between war and peace as it is in war itself.
The first characteristic of soviet communist imperialism which I should like to stress today is that its operations-we know now as we never knew before-are on a worldwide scale. Believing as they do that their slave system is in inevitable opposition to the free systems of government of other peoples, the masters of the Kremlin survey every part of the world in their calculations. Today there is fighting in Korea. Yesterday there was pressure on Persia, Greece and Yugoslavia, and a coup d'etat in Czechoslovakia. Tomorrow there may be aggression against Indo-China or a civil war fomented in Germany. Soviet attacks will be made wherever and .whenever the members of the politburo think the circumstances are favourable for the achievement of their violent purposes. Therefore we must keep our eyes peeled for dangers which may arise in any quarter of the globe. The focus of conflict is now in Korea, and it is right that Korea should also be the focus of attention. Yet in concentrating on the problem which has been raised by communist aggression there we must not forget that there are other critical points where the flames may break out.
The second aspect of soviet power to be remembered is that while Korea shows that soviet communism is prepared to impose its will on other peoples by military aggression, it can also act, and it does act, in other ways and through other agencies. It has at its command weapons of conspiracy, subversion and mass agitation. These are, as it were, the weapons which it takes in its left hand while brandishing the sword in its right. These other weapons, or many of them, are insidious and hard to counter. Often they work underground and in the dark; indeed sometimes they work best when they are driven underground. 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 before it reaches a point at which a military attack will commend itself to the members of the politburo as likely to succeed.

Third, I suggest that we must be clear about the elements in free society which soviet communism uses and perverts for its own program of oppression, degradation and expansion. One of our chief difficulties these days arises from the fact that communism has been able to assimilate for its ends good motives as well as bad. Some communists have been brought into the fold, of course, by the promises it offers them of an unlimited exercise of power without responsibility or mercy. Some persons have been attracted because of the morbid fascination of secret intrigue. But these are not the only cravings communism appeals to. It also claims to provide satisfaction for those living in distress and privation, offering them the hope of a better life, and it is perhaps not surprising that many of those living in misery, especially in the underdeveloped countries of Asia, should be taken in by these promises, and should fail to notice that whenever and wherever the Russian communist system is established, political and moral slavery rapidly follow.
Furthermore, communism has the ability to appeal occasionally to misguided idealism. That is part of the food on which it feeds, even in our own country. Nothing could be more diabolic than its capacity gradually to undermine all generous aspirations and utterly pervert them, and then make them accomplices in its own totalitarian program. When resisting the machinations of soviet imperialism, using communism as its spearhead, we will do well to take into account these promises it holds out to the oppressed and the downtrodden throughout the world, to whom it offers-even though it is a phony offer-the hope of a better life. To idealists whose judgment is weaker than their zeal it sells its degrading and debasing design behind the facade of an ordered and just society. 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. Otherwise we shall not secure the support of those in many parts of the world, and particularly in Asia, on whose co-operation we must rely in the days ahead.
Those are the main features, I think, of the adversary with whom we must struggle. Even so short a summary as I have attempted to give of the soviet system and of the operations of soviet power will indicate, I think, the scale and complexity of the challenge. To get the better of such an enemy, active in all parts of the world with propaganda and
The Address-Mr. Pearson espionage, relying ultimately upon the brute weight of 170 powerful divisions but making also its crocodile appeal to real needs and honest longings, we will have to show ourselves resourceful and imaginative as well as strong.
This is the perspective in which we must view the war in Korea today, though I do not for a moment suggest that these considerations should lessen our anxiety over those events or block our response to them. In Korea, together with the other countries of the free world, we are now faced with a plain and unmistakable military challenge; and we, in common with all the free world, must answer that challenge. I think it is of some significance that an Asian country was chosen by international communism as the scene of the present attack. There the communists may have thought they would have the best chance to achieve their aggressive purposes with the minimum of interference. Korea is a remote spot on the map, strategically not very important, and furthermore a country which was itself divided. It was possible in Korea, as it has been possible elsewhere, for the war to be fought by satellites, by Asian troops alone. Therefore, when the United Nations intervened, the war could be misrepresented, as it has been misrepresented, as one of Asian popular forces against those of western imperialist capitalism.
I do not claim, and of course no one claims, that affairs in Korea even since 1945 have been without light and shade. Like all human affairs they have been equivocal; but gradually in the course of these equivocal events a clear issue has emerged, and perhaps as briefly as possible I should go over the record to show how it has emerged.
During the second world war the United States, the United Kingdom and China publicly agreed at Cairo that Korea, which had been annexed by Japan in 1910, should be restored at the end of the war as a free and independent state. Later the Soviet union adhered to this declaration, which was reaffirmed several times subsequently. When the war ended it was decided as a matter of military convenience, however

an unfortunate military convenience, as it has turned out-that the United States forces should occupy the southern part of Korea to the 38th parallel, and the soviet troops should occupy Korea to the north of that parallel. In the early stages of this joint occupation attempts were made by the United States to agree with the Soviet union on a plan for the establishment of a single provisional government for all Korea. However, all those attempts broke down, almost entirely because

The Address-Mr. Pearson of the intransigence of the soviet authorities. Faced with the failure of co-operation, the United States decided to refer the whole question to the United Nations. This was done in September, 1947. In an attempt to create conditions in which an election could be held and a government established, the general assembly established a United Nations temporary commission for Korea in that year, and Canada became a member of it. When, however, that commission sought to enter into relationship with the soviet authorities in North Korea, they found the way barred. They were never allowed to visit officially that part of Korea. Under those circumstances it became doubtful whether a commission of that kind could continue its work with any chance of real success in the southern half of the country alone. I recall that the Canadian government expressed its doubts on this point at Lake Success. Nevertheless it was decided by a large majority in the United Nations assembly that the commission should continue its work in the area in which it was allowed to exercise its functions, and in particular that it should proceed to hold free elections. That was done in the spring of 1948. The government which was elected in Korea as a result of those elections was certainly not a perfect government-no government is, perhaps not even the present government in this house. Nevertheless, the government of Korea was formed after that election. It was returned as a result of an expression of the will of the vast majority of the Korean people. As such it was entitled to recognition, and that recognition was granted in full measure in the United Nations assembly on December 12, 1948. It was declared, and we are bound by that declaration, that this government was the lawfully constituted government of the republic of Korea, and that no other such government was in existence. At the same time the temporary commission was transformed into a continuing commission on Korea. Canada did not stand for reappointment to that commission when it was reconstituted.
Meanwhile events in the Soviet zone in the north followed the usual pattern with which we have become so familiar. The occupation authorities had been busy setting up a puppet administration, indoctrinating the people with communist propaganda, and training a formidable army. Just how formidable that army was we have only learned in the last few months. We knew about it, of the formation of that army, but we did not know when it was going to strike.
By the end of 1948 Soviet plans in North Korea had been sufficiently advanced for the


Soviet forces to be withdrawn and the government handed over to the North Korean administration. The North Korean army contained within its ranks veterans of the war in China. The United States occupation forces withdrew from Korea a few months later, but that was a genuine, not a spurious withdrawal.
It was this regime in South Korea, established under the auspices of the United Nations and recognized by us, which was attacked by North Korean forces on June 25. This attack caught us all by surprise. Mr. Malik, the Soviet representative on the security council, assures us that it was North Korea which was attacked. Fortunately it is easy to clear the air of his lies and misrepresentations, since at the time the attack occurred there was sitting in the capital of South Korea, in Seoul, the independent and impartial United Nations commission to which I have referred. It was composed of representatives from Australia, China, France, India, the Philippines, Turkey, and El Salvador.
After flashing the news of the aggression to the United Nations a few hours after it occurred, the commission submitted the following day a much longer and more authoritative report which concluded with these categorical sentences:
The commission has no evidence to justify in any respect the northern allegations. All the evidence continues to point to a calculated co-ordinated attack prepared and launched with secrecy.
In the light of this and other testimony at that time and subsequently by independent observers based on a first-hand examination of the situation in Korea, I do not think we need to pay any attention to the fantastic stories of aggression by South Korea which have been put about by Mr. Malik and other Soviet apologists. They rely of course, like the nazis whom they resemble in some other respects, on the technique of the big and oft-repeated lie. If I may adapt, Mr. Speaker, some words used by the Australian prime minister, Mr. Menzies, when he was with us not long ago, the communists will have a hard time convincing us that the left hook was knocked out by the jaw.
If the issue raised by the attack on the republic of Korea was clear, so was our obligation under the charter of the United Nations. That obligation, I should say at once, is to the United Nations alone, and to our own security. In the case I am talking about it concerns nothing beyond the restoration of peace and the defeat of aggression in Korea. The action of the United Nations covers that and nothing else. How were we to carry out those obligations?

It had been intended by the framers of the charter that member countries would make available to the United Nations, as a result of agreements to be concluded individually, certain of their' national forces to assist in repelling aggression on orders of the security council. The detailed arrangements for those agreements were to be worked out by the military staff committee of the United Nations. Negotiations in the military staff committee were, however, completely frustrated by tbe Soviet representatives. In consequence the United Nations, in this crisis, was left unprovided with the forces which should have been at its disposal if the intention of those who drafted the charter had been carried out. That omission did not relieve any of the members of the United Nations from their obligations, though it certainly affected the way in which the obligations could be carried out. When the security council determined, as it did determine on June 25, that an armed attack on the republic of Korea by the forces of North Korea constituted a breach of the peace, and when it had recommended, as it did on June 27, that the members of the United Nations should furnish such assistance to the republic of Korea as might be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area, our obligation was clear.
Before the house adjourned on June 30, three days after the security council resolution, it was announced in this place that three Canadian destroyers would move at once into western Pacific waters where they would be closer to the area where they might be of assistance to the United Nations in Korea, if such assistance were required.
While they were moving towards the scene of United Nations operations, almost continuous discussions were held in New York and elsewhere as to the way in which the United Nations forces should be organized. The representatives of Canada participated actively in these discussions with a view to making sure that this was to be a genuine United Nations operation under a unified command which would receive authority from the United Nations. We considered this to be no academic matter, but to be a very important principle and one which should be established in a way which would be not only satisfactory for the present but a valuable precedent for the future. This was done when the security :ouncil passed an additional resolution on July 7 establishing a unified command and requesting the United States to designate a commander of such United Nations forces as might be made available. We welcomed this resolution because it established the United Nations character of the operations in Korea
The Address-Mr. Pearson without limiting unduly the military authority which any commander must have if he is to be successful.
After that -resolution was passed, the three Canadian destroyers, which by that time had reached Pearl Harbor, were made available on July 12 to the United Nations unified command for the restoration of peace in Korea. Then on July 14 came a request, not from the security council this time but from the Secretary General of the United Nations, for further assistance; and on July 19, a few days afterwards, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) announced that a long-range R.C.A.F. squadron would be provided at once for service in the Pacific airlift. This kind of air assistance, and not the provision of fighter aircraft, was, we were told then by those concerned with operations, what was required at that time.
Then on August 7, after further discussions not only in Ottawa but also in Washington and Lake Success, and after I had made visits to both those places and talked with both the United States Secretary of State and the United Nations Secretary General, it was announced that a decision had been taken by the government to raise an additional brigade, to be known as the Canadian special force, which would be available- subject, of course, to parliamentary approval- for service in Korea as part of the United Nations forces there if it could be most effectively used in that way when it was ready for service; and I can assure the house- and my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) can do so with more authority than can I-that this brigade is being made ready with the greatest possible speed.
It is the proposed use of this force in the way I have suggested which is one of the reasons why we are meeting here today, to carry out, by parliamentary action, the pledge which the Prime Minister gave this house on June 30 last.
Under the authority of the United Nations the chief responsibility, outside that of South Korea itself, for repelling the North Korean forces has been shouldered by the United States. It is, of course, natural that this should be so. Alone among the anticommunist countries the United States had stationed in the Far East substantial forces which were available for use in Korea when the trouble began. In addition they had, of course, special obligations for peace and security in that area arising from their position as the power responsible for the occupation of Japan.
I think it should also be remembered that ordinarily it is only great powers such as the

The Address-Mr. Pearson United States or the United Kingdom which possess ground forces in being which can be moved rapidly to distant theatres without imperilling the security of their homelands or of other areas in which they may have urgent commitments, such as the commitments of the French in Indo-China and of the British in Malaya and Hong Kong. Smaller countries and middle countries like Canada, in any normal circumstances, would not have the effective ground forces for use in collective security situations such as that which has developed in Korea.
Furthermore, before June of this year it was reasonable, I suggest, for all members of the United Nations, and for the smaller countries in particular, to assume that the chances were fairly small that they would be called upon by the United Nations to contribute to collective military action against aggression occurring many thousands of miles away. The articles of the charter which had been specifically designed to provide for military sanctions had remained inoperative, and even now have not been invoked. The Russian use of the veto also seemed to make it impossible for the security council to invoke military sanctions against any communist aggression. What happened in June in the security council because of the rather fortuitous absence of the U.S.S.R., and because of the initiative and leadership of the United States of America, changed the whole character of the United Nations, at least for the time being, and changed it for the better.
It would not, however, have been realistic, I think, nor would it have been wise, for any government to have based its military planning on the assumption that such a change would take place or that the United Nations would be able to act as it did.
The North Atlantic treaty, in fact, had been concluded) in 1949 in order to fill, at least in the north Atlantic area, that particular gap in the charter created by the impotence up to that time of the security council to enforce collective security. So our obligations for collective defence in the north Atlantic area became specific, and there was no Soviet Russia to obstruct and frustrate action under them. We knew what was involved in that obligation, but we did not, nor indeed did any country, know what was involved in our United Nations obligations.
Canadian defence policy, therefore, until June of this year, had been based on the concept of providing a small, highly-skilled regular army, charged with responsibility of doing its immediate share of North American defence, especially in the Arctic, and designed to be capable of rapid expansion in the event of a general war which might require Canada to be defended outside of Canada. The fur-

nishing to the United Nations on short notice of expeditionary forces capable of quick deployment in distant areas wherever acts of aggression might take place had not, I admit, entered into our planning as it had not entered into the planning of any other country.
The United States has therefore, up to the present, had to bear almost alone the brunt of assisting the South Koreans on land. They have done so with speed-, with great courage and with growing effectiveness. In spite of terrific handicaps, United States troops have, of course, fought magnificently, not only for their own country but for the free world as a whole. Now, however, they are beginning to receive reinforcements of ground troops from other countries with forces in the Far East; and to these will be added-, if parliament approves, the Canadian special force which has been raised to carry out our United Nations obligation for collective defence, Korea being the place where at the moment that obligation faces us, although we do not know where that obligation will face us in the weeks ahead. Almost from the beginning, of course, the United States forces have been supported by naval and air force detachments contributed- by other members of the United Nations, including Canada.
This special force is unique in one way among the offers of military forces which have been made to the United Nations as the result of the war in Korea; and provides, I think, a valuable example and precedent. If other countries were, in the same way, to earmark a portion of their forces which might be made available to the United Nations for collective defence, there would be ready throughout the free world national contingents for a United Nations force which could be quickly brought together in the face of a future emergency. In this way the United Nations would be equipped with that military strength which it was intended in the charter that it should have at its disposal but which, in fact, it never has had, largely because of the attitude of the U.S.S.R.
The government's decision to ask that this special brigade should be made available, not only for service in Korea but more generally to discharge our responsibility for collective defence under the United Nations charter or the North Atlantic treaty, was dictated-, I think, by an appreciation of the fact that the attack on Korea may be followed by communist-inspired attacks elsewhere. Already apprehension is felt in Iran, in Greece, in Austria and in Indo-China-places where, in the view of the politburo, the circumstances might seem to be propitious for another armed attack.

Above all, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we should not overlook the possibility that what has occurred in Korea might be repeated on a larger scale in Germany. The conditions of those two countries, superficially so contrasting, offer some striking parallels at the present time. Both are cut in two by an artificial line of division; in both countries the Soviet-dominated section has powerfully equipped armed forces; while the other section is comparatively unarmed and open to attack. It is, I think, becoming increasingly obvious that the disparity between the military forces of eastern and western Germany must be redressed. It is no longer a question of whether or not Germany is to be rearmed, because the communist part of Germany has already been rearmed, and by Soviet Russia which controls it. If western Germany therefore is to be defended -and certainly that defence is important to the defence of western Europe

it must be given arms with which to assist in its own defence, or, alternatively, other western countries must assume even heavier responsibilities that they have hitherto contemplated. There are of course risks entailed in rearming western Germany. By grim experience we know that Germans with arms in their hands can be dangerous; but that risk already exists in eastern Germany, and I think it will be minimized in western Germany if that part of Germany, and eventually all of free democratic Germany, could be increasingly and effectively integrated economically, militarily and ultimately politically with the other countries of western Europe. That way, I think, lies the road to safety. But that process of course will raise problems in its turn. And yet I cannot help but feel that that policy alone provides safeguards against the dangers involved in allowing western Germany to rearm, apart from western Europe, or even the more dangerous position of allowing her to remain defenceless against a Russian armed and controlled eastern Germany.
The alarm rung in Korea has increased the urgency of this German problem. It has also led to an intensification of efforts among the countries associated under the North Atlantic treaty to strengthen their collective defences. The deputies of the foreign ministers, members of the North Atlantic council, have been meeting with a sense of great urgency the last six weeks, and the North Atlantic council itself will be meeting in New York in about two weeks' time, when they will have some very important decisions to make. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), will be explaining to the house in greater detail what is proposed by the government in the discharge of our obligations under
The Address-Mr. Pearson the North Atlantic treaty. I will say no more about it at this time except to state that we will bear our proper share of the burden of collective defence.
The conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is forced on us, inevitably, by the situation throughout the world and by the crisis in Korea', that we must increase our own military preparations and help our allies increase theirs. The government accepts that conclusion as the measures to be introduced in this special session will show; measures which are dictated by considerations of national security and, indeed, of national existence.
In all these measures there is no trace of any aggressive purpose. We do not, in this house, I am sure, and in this country, believe in a preventive war; in aggression for peace, or for anything else. Nor do we propose to acquiesce silently when others suggest this course of action. Our job is to play our part, a part determined by ourselves, but worked out in consultation with our friends, in the collective effort of the free countries to prevent aggression if possible, by showing that it cannot succeed; or to defeat it if it occurs.
I would like to'emphasize also that it is not the purpose of this government to support any course of policy which will extend the scope of the present conflict in Korea; a conflict which should be confined and localized if it is in our power to do that; and if not, a policy which should avoid giving anyone else an excuse for extending it.
This attitude, we believe, and I feel sure the house will believe, is the only sensible one; first, because we should do everything we can to minimize the risk of a world-wide war; secondly, because we think that it is vitally important that the high degree of unanimity which has been obtained in the United Nations in condemning the aggression against Korea should be preserved, and third, because we should maintain close co-operation between the free countries of Asia and the western world. We understood the reasons for the action of the President of the United States-who has acted so boldly and wisely, if I may say so, throughout this Korean crisis-in ordering the United States fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa, and in calling upon the Chinese nationalist government in Formosa to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland. This action seemed to us designed simply to prevent the extension of the conflict in Korea. It was a strategic defensive decision and had, as we understood it, no political implications. We have, however, been disturbed, as I have no doubt others have been disturbed, by reports of preventive military measures taken by the nationalist government of China against communist concentrations along the
36	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearson mainland coast, as well as by statements reported to have been made by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek concerning United States-Chinese "military co-operation". We have also been disturbed by statements that seem in our minds to confuse the defence of Korea, which, has been assumed by the United Nations, with the defence of Formosa, which has not; statements that have even implied -somewhat mistakenly I think-that those who wish to draw at this time a distinction between the two operations are defeatists and appeasers. So far as this government is concerned, we are concerned solely with carrying out our United Nations obligations in Korea or elsewhere. These obligations do not, as I understand them at the present time, include anything that can be interpreted as the restoration of the nationalist Chinese government to the mainland of China, or an intervention in Formosa.
We should do our part, then, to defeat aggression in Korea, so that the lesson of the failure of aggression there can be learned elsewhere where it needs to be learned. We should also speed our military preparations so that we may hope to be able to defeat any similar acts of aggression which, if the above lesson is not learned, may break out elsewhere, and we can never hope to do that alone. The program of defence expansion on which we are embarked will inevitably involve an increased effort here in Canada which we must be prepared to make. I suppose it may also involve some postponement in achieving some of the peaceful goals towards which we have been working. But we must not lose sight of those goals or abandon our efforts to reach them. Nothing would suit the communist book better than for the western democracies to become slow and sluggish under the weight of armaments, to grow a thicker and thicker skin, to atrophy by degrees, and at length to become extinct like the dinosaurs.
To succeed in the struggle in which we are engaged, we of the western democracies must be true to the principle of growth and progress which is part of our nature and of our strength. For one thing, it is always harder to hit a moving target. We have in the past prospered and grown because we have been open to change and have been willing to adapt ourselves to new ideas and altered circumstances. Only by continuing as we have begun can we and our friends save ourselves from servitude and destruction. We will do well, therefore, I suggest, to see that our genuine preoccupation with the present military dangers does not bring our social progress to a standstill. Military defence must come first, of course; but social and economic progress is also a part of defence. To relate the two here and to relate the two

in other free countries will mean one of the greatest balancing acts in history, and will certainly require steady nerves, a high degree of concentration, and much hard work.
Furthermore, just as we have learned slowly and painfully the dangers of great economic gulfs between various sections of our own country, now we must begin to learn the parallel lesson that it is dangerous to let such gulfs exist between various countries without doing anything to try to narrow them. That effort must be spread over many generations; but a start should be made, and now a start is being made. For just as it is impossible to have a healthy society in any one country if some individuals are living below the level of subsistence, so it is impossible to have a healthy world society when whole nations are subject to starvation and disease. Throughout large areas of Asia, such conditions now exist. Where they exist, they are natural breeding grounds for communism. These malarial swamps of poverty must somehow be drained off if we are ever to see stability and freedom in the new Asian countries. And if we do not see stability and freedom there, we may find difficulty in maintaining them in other parts of the world.
It will also be necessary for us to try to understand sympathetically, even if we cannot always entirely agree with, the outlook of Asian leaders on present-day international problems. These leaders very properly naturally feel that they are in a better position to analyse Asian problems, and suggest solutions for them, than any western individual can be.
I am therefore hoping that when the time comes to work out a settlement in Korea we can draw heavily upon the wisdom of Asian leaders. The United Nations, both through the assembly and through its commission on Korea, have already given much time and earnest consideration to the problems of Korea. Nevertheless, in the light of events since June 25, it is too early to see clearly what might be the shape of a just and lasting settlement in Korea. It is not too early, however, to consider the principles on which such a settlement should be based. There are four principles, as I see it, which will have to be taken into account. The settlement must be such as to remove the possibility of a repetition of the recent attack; it must commend itself to the inhabitants of Korea; it must command support from Asian opinion, and it must recognize the progress which has already been made under the auspices of the United Nations in establishing an independent government in Korea.
It is also time for consideration to be given to the procedures through which a settlement in Korea may be found. At the forthcoming

session of the general assembly of the United Nations, which will be attended by representatives from all parties in this house, I think a small body should be appointed with the responsibility of proposing a settlement in Korea, which settlement would come into effect once the Korean forces have been defeated. On such a body it might be well to have Asian representatives in a majority, although none of the countries which have become involved in the fighting in Korea can, of course, divest themselves of the responsibility of participation at some proper stage in the settlement.
As you know, it is very frequently my duty to represent Canada at conferences and meetings abroad. When 1 return I often have the feeling that our problems as a nation arise chiefly because we are a happy country in an unhappy world. That is an oversimplification, of course, as the events even of the last few weeks have shown. But there is some truth in it. In such circumstances there is bound to toe a temptation to settle back into complacency and unconcern when events beyond our borders seem so complex and so intractable; to hope that we can enjoy immunity from both obligations and misfortunes. Such a course would be fatal in the face of the present menace to our security and to our very existence; when meeting that menace we must make a defence effort far greater than we have ever attempted before in peacetime. This effort will interfere with our comfortable peacetime existence. It is not going to be something that will break the camel's back, because the Canadian camel's back is pretty wide; tout it will be something that may require a readjustment of the load already on that back, and will also add to that load. That is inevitable in the tragic circumstances of today.
Technically we may be at peace, but actually we are in a twilight zone between peace and war. It certainly is not peace if a country such as ours, with so much to do, with such great vistas opening up for constructive progress, with malice or aggressive intentions toward no other people-if a country such as ours is forced to spend one-quarter of its budget on defence in peacetime. That does not mean peace.
We are approaching the most difficult test, in some ways, that a democracy can face; willingness to make the effort that safety and self-preservation demand, without any of the excitement and drama and, yes, even the uplift that a fighting war provides. This will demand leadership, but it will also demand patience, discipline and resolve-not the patience of hopelessness, the discipline of slavery, or the resolve of desperation, but those qualities which come from a free 69262-7
The Address-Mr. Claxton people who have decided to pay the price of freedom and who are united, as we are, in that decision. The price in treasure which we, and others, may have to pay may seem high, but it will be small indeed if it will prevent the payment later in war of the infinitely higher price of tears and blood and destruction-to pay, in short, the price which gives us the best chance for peace.


Gordon Graydon: Would the minister permit
me to ask one question for purposes of clarification? He has mentioned a special force which is being recruited. Would he tell us whether that special force is to be for the exclusive use of United Nations work, and under the direction of the United Nations, or can it be used for other purposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In reply I would say to the
hon. member that my colleague the Minister of National Defence will be dealing with that in his statement. I shall leave the question for him to answer.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, you and hon. members have just heard from the Secretary of State for External Affairs a masterly exposition of the international situation, and against that background scene, it now becomes my duty to describe what we Canadians are doing in consequence of that situation. We heard it from the lips of our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) speaking with directness, frankness and eloquence that has made him known in the council chambers of the world, and round the world too. He has raised high the name of Canada around those council tables in the work for peace just as other Canadian ambassadors in the forces of our country, on occasions grim and serious, painted the name of Canada in golden letters for all the world to see, admire and respect.
It is my very great privilege to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cannon) and the seconder (Mr. Bennett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The mover, with a distinction indicating that he is a worthy son of a highly respected father, dealt with a good many of the topics that I have to tackle today. The seconder went even further, and on the basis of his own exceedingly distinguished war service, in which he attained the rank of group captain, he also dealt with a good many of such matters. I think the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Bennett) is now the senior ranking air force veteran in the house. I have no doubt that in matters of defence we shall receive from him the same kind of constructive help as every veteran, including the dean of them all,

The Address-Mr. Claxton the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), has given in the discussions that have taken place here.
As I was preparing my speech last night, Mr. Speaker, the radio was turned on for the national news bulletin. One could imagine people listening in from Grand Falls in Newfoundland, from Estevan, Rimouski and Niagara Falls, people who were glad that the trains were rolling again. Then I heard Mr. Frank Hall and Mr. A. R. Mosher come on the air and in level tones full of responsibility tell the men that the law would be obeyed. It was a most striking demonstration of the democratic process, of the rule of law, of the power of parliament and of the good sense of the Canadian people. All who were in this chamber yesterday will remember yesterday as one of the great days of parliament. Here was parliament acting in very reality as the grand forum of all the people.
I dare say other members felt the same way as I did about it, but more than ever I felt yesterday a sense of the solidarity of parliament irrespective of party, place, race, language or religion. We were meeting as Canadians to tackle a most difficult problem. It was the job of the members elected by the people to work on that problem having regard to the interests of all concerned, having regard to conditions, but above everything else having regard to the greater interest of all the people of Canada. The attendance of members in the house, coming from different parts of the world in such numbers, showed our sense of the responsibility and importance of the moment.
I could not help feeling how Mr. King, who was a great parliament man, would have liked to see this triumph of the parliamentary system. He would have liked to see the knowledge, good sense, transparent honesty and capacity of his great successor and also, if I may say so, his great patience. I can assure hon. members that this country has been fortunate in having as its leader the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) throughout the railway crisis. He was the leader of us all, and I venture to say that at every stage he knew more about all sides of the question than anyone else knew about their own side. It was his knowledge as well as his wisdom that brought us through to the beginning of what we hope will be the successful termination of a very difficult question.
Then it seemed to me last night that the broadcast brought home the amazing unity and sterling qualities of the Canadian people. They accepted the challenge and the added difficulties brought about by the strike with good heart and good humour. There was

little bitterness or rancour. There was great resilience, resourcefulness and capacity for improvisation. It was this kind of quality in the Canadian people, in the workings of our parliamentary democracy, which showed us why we must be prepared at any and every cost to defend our country. We are determined that we and not the communists shall rule Canada. That this will require sacrifices is evident.
The events of the last few months have shown that the communists are prepared to run great risks to extend the sweep of the iron curtain. It is sometimes said that democracies have a choice between guns and butter. For me there is no choice. We must continue to develop our resources, expand our economy, extend the area of all the freedoms within the nation, and at the same time with other nations meet the threat of aggression by the one thing that will stop it, trained united strength. Business as usual is not enough. We are going to have more business than usual, much more business than usual for everyone. To remain free we must work to strengthen our democracy on every front, from attack from within and from without. All this is going to require fortitude and anyone who thinks that we can do it without hurting ourselves is out of step with the march of events.
The events of yesterday demonstrated another thing. I believe, strong in my belief in the Canadian people, that, just as our forefathers did in pioneering this country, just as others did in the first and second world wars,, just as we have done in the magnificent recovery and grand achievements of the last five years, just as the Canadian people have met the challenge of the strike, just as they have met so far the challenge of Korea, there is no people better qualified to meet the challenge of events, no matter what they may bring, than the people of Canada. The work we have done in the armed forces to get the accelerated program going, and the splendid response to the highly successful recruiting campaign, have shown that we are facing up to the job.
When the special force was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on August 7, as provided by P.C. 3860, there were some who said it would not work, that it was the wrong way to do it, that this and that were wrong about it. Within two weeks the special force had been recruited; most of it is already equipped and at work in the training camps, surprisingly fit and ready to go on with the accelerated training program; as fine a group of men as I have ever seen. What is more, during the same period we

have taken in enough men to provide reinforcements for the first year. Now they are all off to attend our fine training camps at Valcartier, Petawawa, Shilo, Currie and Wainwright, and at the specialist schools, getting on with the job.
This was a considerable exercise in mobilization. It worked well, but we learned a lot. I have teams of people at work going over the experience of the last few weeks, trying further to streamline procedure. 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. Those figures and these plans are subject to constant revision; and of course in consequence of our experience when a job of ten per cent or fifteen per cent or twenty per cent or thirty per cent mobilization was carried out we learned a great deal about how further to streamline the procedure. By and large, however, I think the administrative machinery here worked in a way that showed it was adaptable, because it could do the special job of raising this special force in these special circumstances.
This was a special job; as has been pointed out by each of the three previous speakers, it was not part of the planned role of Canada that we should have standing by a full-time professional force ready to police the farther parts of the world. That is not ordinarily the role of a medium-size nation, and it was not the planned role of Canada. It was no part of our defence program; there was no promise that it would be done, and there was no suggestion that we should prepare to do it. As the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Bennett) said, our forces were prepared for two eventualities; first, to defend our own country against direct attack; second, to build up an all-out effort in a total war. As a matter of fact events have shown that no country, not even the most powerful nation on the face of the earth, our good neighbour the United States, was prepared for Korea. Suggestions have been made that we should have sent the airborne brigade group of the permanent force. On August 7 the Prime Minister explained why we did not think that should be done. The brigade group, we believe, is as highly trained as any force of its size anywhere in the world. They are trained for the special purpose of defending this country. They are airborne, and in Exercise Sweetbriar they showed that they could live and fight and 69262-71
The Address-Mr. Claxton work in the Arctic. I do not think anyone has seriously suggested that this force should be sent out of the country. It is worth noting, though of course this may not remain the case, that so far corresponding elements in the United States forces are still in the United States.
So the special force was decided upon; and as I have indicated, it was quickly raised. As at the close of business last night we had recruited a total of 8,272 for this force. The three infantry battalions are over strength, but that does not mean we have all the men we want for all three, because we are continuing to recruit reinforcements sufficient for the first year and we also need certain classes of men, particularly tradesmen, for the other units in the force. In addition, of course, we are continuing to press on with recruiting for the active forces of the navy, army and air force. So let no one think that because we have recruited the strength of the special force and three thousand reinforcements as well, we are stopping there either for the special force or for the active force. We are pressing on with both, and we shall need additional men out of new recruits in certain categories for the special force.
All the senior officers have been chosen, and the evidence of their fighting records is exemplified in the na'tion-wide reputation of their commander, Brigadier John M. Rockingham, C. B. E. and a double D. S. O. In no case was a unit commander a second choice. The rest of the officers are being speedily chosen. The total number of this force, including first echelon reinforcements, as now planned will be 6,775. It will consist of units which will include three battalions of infantry, a regiment of artillery, a squadron of self-propelled guns, and elements of engineers, R.C.E.M.E., medicals and all the other branches of the service necessary to constitute a self-contained group. In addition there will be over 3,000 replacements.
This force is being supplied with the equipment we have, which generally speaking is of the United Kingdom type. In addition we are acquiring some new types of weapons particularly for this force. We are quite prepared to have it work under the United Nations banner with other forces similarly equipped, or to have it integrated with United States forces and supplied with United States equipment if this course later appears desirable.


Mr. Green:: What about a commonwealth division?


Brooke Claxton: The equipment of United
States pattern will be needed for the United States forces, however, and probably it

The Address-Mr. Claxton would take longer for us to be able to use such equipment, so at the present time we are planning on the use of equipment of the United Kingdom type. As to the question of a commonwealth division, we believe all the forces fighting in Korea should be known as United Nations forces. The United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand have offered ground forces, and already some of those of the United Kingdom have arrived. No doubt they will have equipment of the United Kingdom type, as we expect to have. If it is considered desirable by the unified command that the part of the United Nations forces having equipment of the United Kingdom type should work together in a division which would include the components of the British commonwealth and any other countries that may be fighting there with British type weapons, we would be quite prepared to undertake that course or to adopt the alternative. We want to do whatever makes the most sense from the point of view of being co-operative and making effective use of the forces we have.
The position of Canada of course has got to be such-it is unfortunate or perhaps it is fortunate-that we have to be prepared to work with one or the other of these types Of equipment for some considerable time to come. In the past we have shown we can do it to a considerable degree, and we shall continue to do it in the future. Logically perhaps the objective should be that the countries of North America should use North American type equipment, but that time is still a considerable distance away. While the objective will be worked at, it certainly cannot be achieved in the immediate future.
This force will have included in it a substantial element of the active force, artillery, self-propelled guns, signals, engineers and so on. Altogether more than a thousand officers and men will be posted from the active force to the special force. I should like to emphasize here that there is no difference between the two. They are both components of the Canadian army active force. They serve under identical conditions of service, except that the special force has a term of service of eighteen months, or longer if required, and will also have advantages similar to those enjoyed by the forces that were overseas during the second world war.


Mr. Pearkes:: Are the thousand men to
whom you referred included in the eight thousand you have already mentioned?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is in addition?


Brooke Claxton: That is right. They are quite apart from the 8,272 already recruited and under training, but they will be included in the 6,775 strength of the special force and the
3,000	or more reinforcements earmarked for the force.
This group of a thousand from the active force will represent something like twenty per cent of the effectives of the special force, and about twenty-five per cent of the brigade group. Their places will be speedily filled in the brigade group to bring the active brigade group up to full fighting strength.
Owing to a number of circumstances such as the high proportion of trained men from either the active forces or veterans-the proportion of veterans is over forty per cent- the method of training adopted and the quality of the rest of the men, this force will be trained months ahead of the time it would ordinarily take for freshly recruited men. We expect the force will be through basic and advanced training so that it can move on to unit and brigade training ten weeks from now. As the Prime Minister stated on August 7, the Canadian army special force will, with the approval of parliament, be available for service in Korea as part of the United Nations forces if it can be most effectively used in that way when it is ready for service.
In answer to the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), it is not exclusively earmarked for use with the United Nations. It may also be used in any action undertaken by Canada under the North Atlantic treaty, and is of course always available for the defence of Canada, which is included as one of the purposes of the North Atlantic treaty.


Howard Charles Green: When is it likely to be ready for service?


Brooke Claxton: That could not be estimated at this time. It would depend upon the time it would take to get them to a place of training, the weather there, the type of training required, the availability of equipment, and half a dozen other considerations. It would be within a matter of several weeks or a few months.
In addition to the special force, we have been pressing on with recruiting to fill up all the ranks of the special force and also to add new anti-aircraft batteries. Between July 20 and August 30, we have taken in 401 men for the navy, 1,412 men for the active force of the army, 218 aircrew and 281 ground crew, making 499 for the Royal Canadian Air Force, or a total of 2,312 for the active force which, with the 8,272 for

the special force, makes a grand total of 10,584 men. On June 30 the ceilings for the three forces were 50,912 and their strengths were 46,899. We have increased the ceilings by forty per cent for each of these forces, bringing them to a total of 69,160 of which we now have 56,962. We shall be further increasing the ceiling for the army. Naturally, our plans provide for a balance between the anticipated flow of men, the personal equipment to fit them out, the barrack accommodation, the capacity of the training establishments and, finally, finished equipment such as ships and aircraft.
At the present time we have in training as officers, to what I believe are as high standards as there are anywhere in the world, a total of about 6,000 men.
We want this flow of recruits to continue. I should like to say that there is no advantage whatever in further reducing standards. While we are doing a lot of in-service training and giving a lot of education in the service, we cannot do much more because it takes too long, costs too much and uses up available manpower that might be used for other purposes. With regard to the standards of R.C.A.F. aircrew, I have seen some suggestions that we have too high a rate of rejection. I looked into this myself in Toronto on Saturday at the institute of aviation medicine. I went over the selection procedures with the specialists there, and I believe it is generally recognized that in this field Canada is one of the leading countries in the world. We developed that position before the war, continued and extended it during the war, and have increased it since. I am prepared to show hon. members who would be interested that if we increased the proportion of men taken into the air force as aircrew it would result in one of two things, neither of which is desirable.
First, it would reduce standards, and we mean to have the highest standards in the world for aircrew. Second, it would mean that a very high proportion, as high as one hundred per cent of the lower groups of men taken in, would not be able to complete their course. This has been carefully worked out and it is possible to estimate in advance with complete accuracy the proportion of men of each standard who will graduate and become successful aircrew. In view of the high cost of training aircrew, probably more than $25,000 or $30,000 per man, in view of the waste of their time and effort involved-our aim is to get just as high a proportion of the men through as possible-we believe that the high standard of entrance is good economy so long as we can get the men of the high standards we
The Address-Mr. Claxton desire. We want also more tradesmen for all three services, more men having considerable education wiho can maintain and use the highly complex equipment of the modern forces.
So far I have dealt with this program largely from the point of view of manpower, because that is what counts in the end. However, the finest men need the finest equipment, and that is what we are trying to get them. The accelerated program, as announced day by day since July 20, includes a large speed-up in the planned rate of production. We have nine ships in construction for the navy: an Arctic transport icebreaker, three anti-submarine vessels, four minesweepers and a gate vessel. The navy is furnishing today about half the work being done in Canadian shipyards. We are pressing on with that program and we are going to add more anti-submarine vessels and more minesweepers. The maritime commission and the Canadian Commercial Corporation are working on the rate of production and the numbers. All the ships will be the last word in vessels of their type.
We shall be putting into commission every ship in the navy as men are trained and the ships are successively modernized. The program, already well advanced, of modernizing the armament, equipment and accommodation on all the ten destroyers is being speeded up. We shall be fitting on each the latest three-inch, 50-calibre gun, to be made in the great gun plant at Sorel by Sorel Industries Limited, under arrangements with the United States navy. The antiaircraft armament and anti-submarine armament are steadily being modified to include the latest developments. We shall also be adding _ greatly to the existing stocks of ammunition for the navy. We have arranged to purchase twelve Sea Furies for the Magnificent, thus providing a reserve for operations at war strength on the carrier until the year 1952.
Work has been begun in enlarging the accommodation at the fine training establishment at Cornwallis in Nova Scotia and also in other essential places. The test of this work in the navy lies I think in the fact that at the present time nearly fifty per cent of the personnel in the navy is at sea. That is a remarkably high proportion of naval personnel in any navy to be at sea. As we know, the three destroyers are at Korea where they are giving a good account of themselves.
I should place on Hansard a signal from General MacArlhur reading as follows:
On behalf United Nations delighted to accept force under your command for service in repelling aggression in Korea. The proposed sailing schedule indicates prompt action and readiness of the R.C.N.

The Address-Mr. Claxton
That was sent to the chief of the naval services.
With regard to the army, there seems to be some thought that the army is getting the thin end of the'stick with regard to equipment. I can tell you that the chief of the general staff and his advisers do not hesitate to put forward requests for what they feel it is advisable for them to have. Those requests are considered and acted upon as is the case with the other services. The army, however, is in a special position. We have in mobilization stores or on issue a large part of the equipment required, if we had to get into a war, for the first year of that war. Some time ago the number of items of equipment was given to me as totalling 121 million out of 182 million that were needed for that period.
Fewer new developments of army equipment have been brought into quantity production in most countries than in the other services since the war. We shall be adding steadily to anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons, partly by making modifications which will give us the latest development in radar, predictors, et cetera, as well as new weapons. We shall also be acquiring considerable quantities of ammunition and motor vehicles. We shall be tooling up for the manufacture in Canada of new types of military motor vehicles. For the army we shall need considerable additions to accommodation to look after the increased numbers and replace buildings that have long outlived their life expectancy.
Then in addition to the active force, we are looking forward to a considerable increase of numbers and activities in the reserve force of all three services but particularly the army. At the present time the reserve forces of navy, army and air force total 50,000. They have had a good summer's training. They have good equipment. We are improving the accommodation and we shall be putting on a major program of recruiting beginning in September, at the commencement of the training period, so as to add substantially to the strength of the reserve forces, particularly the reserve army.
It is, however, in the air force that the most spectacular figures are shown because aircraft cost so much money. Since parliament last adjourned, Canadair Limited produced the first F-86 to be made in Canada, which I saw flown in August, right on the planned schedule. We have doubled the planned rate of production of these aircraft and have placed an order which the press have cleverly calculated as being more than three hundred, for what I think is one of the largest single orders ever placed toy anyone in Canada in war or in peace, representing over $100 million. The
CF-100, the "Canuck", is under production at A. V. Roe (Canada) Limited, .at Malton, and here we are also doubling the planned rate of production.
These two aircraft are, we believe, the best aircraft there are in their respective fields and together will give Canada a team which we believe will not be matched in any other country in the world. Both aircraft will be eventually powered by the Orenda engine and there we have increased the planned rate of production of this engine fivefold. We believe that this engine will prove to be one of the most powerful and efficient jet engines yet to be produced. Equipped with these engines, the "Canuck", two-engine, two-seater jet, will be powered by the equivalent of more than 15,000 horsepower.
Last week we arranged to purchase 100 Mustangs from the United States so as to provide additional combat strength for our squadrons until they can be equipped from our own production. This arrangement, like all others, indicates the way in which the United States works with us and we with the United States in a close working partnership not only for the defence of North America but in our work together under the North Atlantic treaty.
We have under way a large program for continued modification and reconditioning of aircraft we already have. We shall need all these to meet the accelerated training program for our own aircrew for which we shall want an intake of 25 every week, and also we shall need this additional equipment to do the job of training we have undertaken for other countries.
When I was on the other side in November, I initiated discussions with the defence ministers of the other countries working together to ascertain if they would be interested in training aircrew and army officers in this country. The offer was well received and today we have here, or will have soon, aircrew in training from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and Italy. We may have other countries represented later. Further, however, I know that hon. members will be more than glad to know that we have arranged also to train 150 pilots and 50 navigators for the United Kingdom. The British commonwealth air training plan was one of the greatest paths to victory. In it there were trained 131,000 aircrew of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Seventy-one thousand were Canadians. Now we have made similar arrangements not only with the United Kingdom but with other countries as well so that we can get the pattern of action going and the procedures lined up to do the job on a much larger scale should that prove to be necessary.

It was fitting that the discussion I began of this co-operation with the United Kingdom should have been with my friend, the Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, and that it should have taken place last September at the Trenton gate ceremony, which, you will remember, commemorated the establishment of the British commonwealth air training plan. The first group of twenty-five aircrew will arrive on January 15, and will be followed by similar groups every six weeks. In addition, the air force has a very large schedule for production of radar and wireless equipment, and that of course is being pressed on and expanded. Here again in the air force we are adding very considerably to the number of reserve units, and a new radar unit will be established in Toronto in September, with later radar units in Vancouver, Halifax and other places, following the very successful formation and recruitment under Wing Commander Patrick of the unit at headquarters in Montreal, but extending to most of the province of Quebec.
It is interesting to note that the performance of the air force is shown not only by their fine record in war and in peace, but tlso in their work in the 426 squadron which was dispatched to Korea. I have here a message just received, referring to that work, from General L. S. Kuter, commanding general of the United States air force M.A.T.S. It reads:
The accomplishments of the R.C.A.F. squadron delivering tonnage to the Far East have been noted with pleasure, particularly when compared with the squadron commitments. The 426 transport squadron is to be congratulated on the fine effort produced to date in the Korean airlift.
If time permitted I should like to mention a good many other matters in connection with defence. Industrial organization of course is one which comes into great prominence at this time, when we are so expanding the production of the country. That comes under my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who will be telling you later of the arrangements that have been worked out with the United States for the resumption of our very close co-operation in this field during the last war. This will result in the planned use of the industrial resources of both countries with defence purchases being at least roughly balanced on a reciprocal basis. Up to now, since the war, we have been buying a good deal more equipment from the United States than the United States has been purchasing from us. As everyone knows, our productive capacity is very great indeed. Seventy per cent of everything we made during the last war went to other countries.
The Address-Mr. Claxton
We can produce almost anything and do it as efficiently and economically as any country. Today that productive capacity is to a large extent working full time on civilian supplies. We shall, however, be placing very considerable additional orders for the supply of new equipment made in Canada not only for ourselves but also for assistance in western Europe under the North Atlantic treaty.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has mentioned the fact that we would be extending this assistance. This is not the time to deal with it in detail because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will be introducing a bill to provide for additional appropriations for the armed forces, and also to provide assistance under the North Atlantic treaty. It is at that time that the matter may be gone into at greater length. But here I would indicate, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already done, that this is part of the planned program, and I can assure hon. members that the amount of assistance that will be made available will be very substantial indeed.
In connection with the North Atlantic treaty, I think I might mention seven ways in which we are working together. In the first place, with regard to defence planning, this is being done both on a regional basis and for all the twelve nations. In the second place, we make our primary contribution to the North Atlantic treaty organization in seeing to the defence of Canada. In the third place, we also co-operate with the United States in planning and carrying out arrangements for the defence of North America as a member of the North American group, and also with the other ten nations involved in the north Atlantic ocean group. In the fourth place, we have made these offers which have been so gladly accepted for training aircrew and army officers. In the fifth place, we are cooperating exceedingly closely with the other nations in the exchange of information, development of weapons and the like. In the sixth place, we are making this very substantial offer of equipment, which will be dealt with more fully later this session. And finally, there is the all-important question of morale, of moral support, of indicating that this is an unlimited partnership.
When the Minister of Finance presents his appropriation bill I think hon. members will see that the expenditures of Canada will compare very favourably on any basis with those of the countries of western Europe, and that by and large on most bases of comparison the only countries that will exceed Canada proportionately will be the United States and the United Kingdom, and even in those cases the gap will be very considerably narrowed.

The Address-Mr. Claxton
All this of course will cost a great deal of additional money. Before dealing with that I might also briefly mention the question of defence research which is being expanded. Here, as in the case of the other services, the expenditure is on personnel, equipment, laboratories, and buildings. We are continuing to give special emphasis in the fields in which Canadian experience has made notable contributions in the past, namely, ballistics, explosives, propellants, high-speed aerodynamics; combustion in jet engines, cold weather operation of aircraft, aviation medicine, defence against biological and chemical warfare and many other interesting and some intriguing and some rather nasty topics.
What we have been doing in regard to defence research is to have people who are outstanding in their respective fields do work which enables us to put our share of knowledge, experience and development into the pool of new ideas.
In connection with civil defence, last week the ministers and officials representing the provinces met here, and in accordance with previous discussions we agreed to lines of co-operation. The first representatives of the provinces will be attending two courses opening at Borden in September.
As must be evident to hon. members, all this will cost a great deal of money. This year the vote by parliament in June provided for a cash appropriation of $425 million. The estimated cost of that part of the accelerated program which will require cash expenditures this fiscal year-that is up to the 31st of March, 1951-is another $140 million to $150 million. For next year it will, we estimate, be something in excess of $225 million, and probably very much more in excess of that, with a similar amount for the third year; and that of course assuming that the present planned strengths, rate of production, program of construction and so on remain about the same.


Howard Charles Green: These are additional amounts?


Brooke Claxton: All additional, and quite apart from any assistance to the North Atlantic treaty nations.
If the international situation demands it, we can accelerate this program by getting more equipment sooner, doing more construction, provided the money is available, and that will require of course much greater expenditures and even larger inroads in the civilian economy. With virtually full employment, and the highest gross national production in our history, we are at a point where any additional production means that the inflationary tendency will be very considerable, and also means that there will not

be manpower, material or productive equipment, except by cutting the civilian economy.
Because of what has happened there have of course been developments in every country along lines similar to our own, and where the legislatures have been in session there have been discussions and reports similar to those taking place today. We have followed these with great interest. When the roll is called and the accomplishments are known, I think it will be found that the degree of increase and acceleration of our program will have enabled us to say that we have done a job and played our part.
In conclusion I think we can say that we have been fortunate in that we were able to complete the post-war organization of the armed forces earlier and to a greater extent than most other countries, so that we have a sound organizational foundation upon which to build. It is, I believe, a smoothworking and efficient set-up, well trained, loyal, with high professional attainments and high standards of service. This organization has been carried through without recrimination, resignation or reversals of policy.
We have established uniform conditions of service with food, pay, pensions, clothing, hospital services, married quarters and all the conditions of personnel service on a basis comparing favourably with good civilian standards.
Before Korea this resulted in our being able to recruit steadily to meet planned requirements. After Korea, because of the foundations laid, it was possible to start the accelerated program in a matter of hours.
Another thing, we have had throughout and in every way the closest possible cooperation of the most satisfactory character with the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as all the countries of the commonwealth and all the countries in the North Atlantic treaty.
We have, I believe, as high standards as any country for our officers, and we have a comprehensive organization for training officers and men to the high standards we want and get. In the all-important field of aircraft development we have produced two of the finest aircraft in their field in the world, as well as a most powerful engine.
What is more, the armed forces have shown the qualities we would like to see them have in their work.
I need only remind hon. members of rescue operation "Canon", the splendid exploit of the Haida rescue, the Fraser valley and Manitoba floods, the Rimouski and Cabano fires, Exer-

cise Sweetbriar and the three destroyers and the transport squadron winging their way to the Far East.
But perhaps most important of all, we have .created to a greater degree than I believe in any other country the sense of loyal unity between officers and men of the navy, army and air force at every level and in every branch, between active and reserve forces and, to an extraordinary degree, between the services and the civilian community.
The old attitude there used to be toward sailors and soldiers is a thing of the past. Our sailors, soldiers and airmen have attained and earned the respect of the community. And I believe that the community, speaking through members of parliament, will support the armed services and the government in the great strides we are making in step with the other free nations of the world to show that vigilance is the price of freedom, and to pay the price so that we in our own beloved country shall continue to call the tune.
The Address-Mr. Claxton
On motion of Mr. Drew the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Si. Laurent moved: the adjournment of the house.
He said: I believe my motion to adjourn the house would suit the convenience of hon. members and would not be a departure from what normally happens on the first day of a session. Yesterday we had to deal with something that had not been anticipated when it was first decided to call this special session. From my conversation with the leaders of the groups I gathered it would be agreeable, after the four speakers of this afternoon had been heard, to adjourn until tomorrow afternoon. I therefore move that we now adjourn, to come back at three o'clock tomorrow. We would expect at that time to continue with this debate.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at six p.m.



G9262-8   HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Friday, September 1, 1950

[Stage Direction]
(For list of departmental and other reports tabled, see Votes and Proceedings, No. 3, of August 31, 1950.)