1950-09-07

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

Mr. Coyle:: 1.	What is the site of the new post office in St. Thomas, Ontario?
2.	When will the work be started on same?
3.	What is the estimated cost?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Southeast corner of Gas and Mondamin streets, St. Thomas.
2.	Not before 1951.
3.	Approximate estimated cost, $800,000.


PRICES-PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE AND DECREASE, VARIOUS COMMODITIES AND SERVICES
Mr. Fair:: What is the percentage of (a) increase:	(b)
decrease, in the price of the following items as of July, 1950, compared with July, 1946: namely, freight rates, passenger rates on railways and busses, lumber, 12-foot harvester combines, 3-4 plow tractors, 10-foot power binders, 8-foot horse drawn binders, 4-furrow plows, 5-foot mowers, wheat, hogs, builder's hardware, light fixtures, binder twine, gasoline, tractor fuel oil, cost of living, 7-foot tiller combine, hay baler?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Net increase July 1946 to July 1950, 41 -2 per cent applicable to standard freight rate tariffs, as well as special freight tariffs with the exception of certain items, as follows:
(1)	Coal and coke increased 40 cents per ton.
(2)	Crowsnest pass rates excluded.
(3)	Export grain and flour from prairies to west coast excluded.
(4)	Rates on grain and grain products for domestic consumption between points in western Canada and rates on feed grain.
(5)	Joint international rates.
(6)	Overhead or in transit rates.
(7)	Export and import rates on parity with rates to and from U.S. ports.
(8)	Agreed charges.
The only decrease was the removal of the mountain differential on the 25th of April, 1949 (previously one mile of mountain territory had equalled one and one-half miles of prairie territory for rate purposes).
Percentage
Increase
Combine, 6-foot	 40-1
Tractor, 4-cylinder, 4-ply	tires ...	44-7Grain binder, 8-foot,	4-horse ....	29-02-furrow plow	
36'8Mower, 5-foot	
22-4
Wheat, domestic, No. 1 Manitoba northern, Fort William and Port
Arthur	 64-8
Hogs, Winnipeg	 74-6
Binder twine	 135-8
Farm gasoline	 18-3
Electrical equipment and	fixtures	.	56-3
Hardware	 56-5
Urban cost of living		 33-9
10-foot power binder	 *
Tractor fuel oil	 *
7-foot tiller combine	 *
Hay baler	 *
*Not available.


KOREAN CAMPAIGN
Mr. Knight:: 1.	How many applicants, by recruiting districts, have there been for service in the Canadian force being organized for service in Korea?
2.	How many applicants have been rejected from June 23 to September 1, by recruiting districts?
3.	For what reasons have applicants been rejected, and how many were rejected for each of these reasons in each recruiting district?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1 and 2.


C.A.A.F.
[Stage Direction]
Applica- Reject- Enlist-
tions	ions	mentsNo.	1	PD	Halifax .	382	222	160No.	2	u	Frederic-	ton 	139	34	105No.	3	"	Quebec ..	139	64	75No.	4	u	Montreal .	333	167	166No.	5	(i	Kingston .	93	45	48No.	6	((	Toronto . .	277	150	127No.	7	((	London ..	232	120	112No.	8	"	Winnipeg .	97	29	68No.	9	((	Regina ..	52	16	36No.	10	<(	Calgary ..	96	14	82No.	11	(f	Vancouver	126	44	82No.	12	"	St. John's,	Nfld	30	19	11No.	1 A.A.U., Ottawa	208	120	88Total	2,204	1,044	1,160
Questions

[Stage Direction]
1 and 2 (Con.)

[Stage Direction]
Applica- Reject- Enlist-
tions	ions	mentsNo.	1	PD	Halifax . .	1,118	551	567No.	2	<<	Frederic-	ton 	933	317	616No.	3	((	Quebec ..	464	264	200No.	4	(<	Montreal .	2,717	945	1,772No.	5	it	Kingston .	509	203	306No.	6	a	Toronto . .	2,916	933	2,083No.	7	"	London ..	759	234	525No.	8	a	Winnipeg	456	108	348No.	9	u	Regina . .	346	134	212No.	10	u	Calgary ..	701	225	476No.	11	a	Vancouver	486	96	390No.	12	a	St. John's,	Nfld	365	167	198No.	1 A.A.U., Ottawa .	1,213	517	696Total	12,983	4,594	8,389
In addition to the above there were a very considerable number of inquiries relating to enlistment in the Canadian Army active force and Canadian Army special force which have not been included as they did not result in the individuals actually entering the recruiting process.
(3) The compilation of the data on reasons for rejection will be done at national defence headquarters as soon as the necessary information is received from the various recruiting centres.

Mr. Coldwell:: '
1.	Was the united emergency fund for Britain authorized by any department of the federal government?
2.	If so, has an audit of receipts and expenditures been completed?
3.	What were the receipts and the expenses in connection therewith, and what amount was expended on British emergency relief?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs-perhaps he can answer the question tomorrow-whether a

report has been received from the international joint commission with respect to possible ways and means of preventing any future floods in the Red river valley.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any report, but I shall look into the matter and give a more definite reply to my hon. friend tomorrow.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Representations were made on June 24 by various provincial governments in opposition to an increase in freight rates, and an appeal was taken to the cabinet. Has any decision been reached in that regard?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The answer is no.


John George Diefenbaker: No answer?


Lionel Chevrier: No decision.



DEFENCE APPROPRIATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, September 6, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for national defence and security-Mr. Abbott-Mr. Dion in the chair. (Translation):
Mr. Pouliot:: Mr. Chairman, I have two suggestions to make: the first one is about an Irishman who is a great man. I am speaking of the governor general in his capacity as commander in chief of the Canadian forces. He is a renowned general and perhaps the most illustrious in the world at the present time, and I hope that, in view of present circumstances, the government will ask him to remain in Canada for many years to come.
My second suggestion has to do with lieutenant governors. Several years ago, I suggested that the positions of lieutenant governors be abolished and that each of the incumbents be replaced by the chief justice of each province. At. that time Mr. Woodsworth was leader of his party. He told me that it was an admirable suggestion and I received hundreds of letters of congratulation and en couragement.

If I did not continue advocating those ideas, it was precisely on account of a letter I had received from a friend of my family, Lieutenant Governor Henry G. Carroll, of Quebec; out of personal regard for him, I stopped talking about the matter. Since then there was Major General Fiset, whose family is very close to mine. He has represented the neighbouring constituency of Rimouski, was one of my personal friends and was lieutenant governor of the province of Quebec during ten years. His term of office will soon be over.
I had other personal friends among the lieutenant governors: Hon. W. G. Clark, of Fredericton, a past member of this house who sat on the civil service committee and rendered me many services; Hon. W. D. Ross, who was lieutenant governor of the province of Ontario, and also Hon. Mr. Bernard, lieutenant governor of Prince Edward Island, whose term of office is almost over.
It is impossible to be completely objective, because we are often bound by friendship and unable to express our personal feelings, our deepest convictions, precisely on account of the friendship by which we are linked to certain people.
We shall soon have new taxes; further war expenditures will be in order. We could practise economy and help the provinces to economize by abolishing the office of lieutenant governor and by replacing each incumbent by the chief justice of each province. Both the federal government and the provinces would thus be saving a great deal of money.
Lieutenant governorships are obsolete. We no longer need them and the splendid residences occupied by the lieutenant governors, such as Chorley Park and the castles at Regina and Edmonton, -could be used for social welfare, for veterans, crippled children and other social welfare institutions. I will deal with this subject again at the next session but I commend this suggestion right now to the earnest -consideration of my colleagues in the House of Commons.
I have been brief and I have listened with great interest to the many suggestions which members from all parts of the house have made in all sincerity since the beginning of this very important debate. Those speeches which I did not hear in the house, I read with interest and I wish to congratulate my colleagues. I will tell them, by way of conclusion, that I have faith in the collective wisdom of the government led by the present Prime Minister. For twenty-five years, I have wanted a leader to my liking. Only recently has my wish been granted and I am
Defence Appropriation Act satisfied. Should he abandon politics, I shall do as much myself, to finish writing the memoirs of the late Mackenzie King, whose career now belongs to history.
(Text):


The Chairman:: Order. Was it understood when we adjourned yesterday that we would proceed to consider the resolution and the figures submitted paragraph by paragraph?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, before any decision is made in that regard, there are one or two observations I should like to make.
For several days now we have been discussing the question of our defences and the contributions that Canadians are to make or have made in fulfilment of our responsibilities as a member of the United Nations and under the North Atlantic pact. On this day, when it is expected, in the light of the remarks of various ministers, that material increases in taxation will be announced in order to meet the expenditures to be made, certain questions remain unanswered. All of us in the house, irrespective of party, have tremendous responsibilities in times such as these. We must mobilize not only the spiritual forces of the nation, but our material forces as well. Every day our ideals are being attacked by those who believe communism is the answer, and in the last few days we have perhaps come to have some realization of the responsibility that is upon parliament. Over the week end I had occasion to read once more the speeches of Sheridan and Fox during the Napoleonic days. One does not want to be pessimistic at a time like this, but when one remembers that, during the days of Napoleon, war and the threat of war continued for some twenty years, one wonders whether, with the onrush of communism in the world today, many of the children being born now may not find themselves in the armed services before the final meeting of the antagonistic forces of the two ideologies.
In connection with the mobilization of the spiritual forces of the nation I am reminded of what is being done in the United States. Day after day we are met with this communist propaganda for banning the bomb, for peace, and so on. We see advertisements inserted in our newspapers for the purpose of undermining our determination. Last evening I was impressed by the reports as to what is being done to meet that situation in the United States. There they are proceeding to oppose the soviet lie with truth, and no less a man than General Eisenhower has given his name


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, the discussion on the motion before us has covered many aspects of the problem of national defence. As has been said by the member for Lake Centre, that does not relate to military preparations alone. It relates to the spiritual values. It relates to the internal strength of countries. It relates to the sum total of the will of those nations that wish to preserve their freedom to use for that purpose all the strength which they possess.
Last night we heard in this chamber a speech which placed before us in the clearest terms the necessity for widening our concept
384	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act of defence preparations so as to embrace civil defence as well. I do not intend to enlarge upon the excellent and comprehensive analysis of that subject that was then given. I wish to say only this. Here again we find the government making general statements with regard to civil defence and having nothing positive to show us as to one of the essential component factors in dealing with this over-all problem.
There is another aspect of this problem which I think has been brought home to many hon. members within less than the last twenty-four hours. In addition to the armed strength of communist Russia and the satellite nations, we have been subjected here in Canada and elsewhere-and I will admit to a greater extent elsewhere than here-to the steady pounding of propaganda designed to weaken the conviction of our own people that our cause is right. Yesterday afternoon many of the members of the House of Commons, if not all of them, received a perfect example of communist propaganda masquerading under a respected name. I am sure that copies of this publication were directed to all the members, whether they have yet had an opportunity to read it or not.
I have in my hand a publication called "The Protestant"; and in large capitals below that heading are the words: "Common Sense about Korea". The whole of this well-published and certainly not inexpensive booklet is barefaced communist propaganda from beginning to end. At the front we see the names of the editor, associate editors and editorial advisers. Amongst the editorial advisers is a long list of names with the word "Reverend' before them. We find here the name of Rev. Hewlett Johnson. There are those who think that nothing is gained by expressing indignation at the fact that a man who wears the clothing which distinguishes from the rest of our people those in holy orders should engage in activities of this kind, whether innocently or otherwise. I do not believe that saintly-looking man is engaged innocently in this activity. In making this comment 1 must say, as a member of the Church of England, that I for one can only express my regret that the authorities of that great church permit a man to occupy in that church a high office which enables him to continue propaganda of the kind that he is using.
There are other names, which I might mention, of people who have displayed a strange sympathy for the Russian point of view and a strange lack of sympathy for those who have done so much to preserve real freedom in the world. I see the name, in this case not


with the word "Reverend" before it, of Leslie Roberts. I wonder if that is the Leslie Roberts who writes in Canadian publications and others and who describes himself as a Canadian, It would be interesting to know. Nevertheless, whoever these people are, they are circulating the vilest type of communist propaganda because it pretends not to be communist propaganda.
I would suggest that those who have this book look at page 21. On that page they will see the subheading "Spiritual Maturity of the U.S.S.R." These reverend gentlemen whose names are given as associate editors, this Leslie Roberts whoever he is, and others, are asking us and other Canadians to believe in the spiritual maturity of the U.S.S.R. I am not going to read the whole of the section, but it bears reading, and it starts with this interesting paragraph:
Logically Jacob Malik should not have returned to the security council until it had stanched the wound from which it was bleeding to death. That mortal wound was its refusal to seat the Chinese delegation. Yet Malik did return. Why? The United States delegate Austin says that Malik returned to stall off further United Nations decisions on Korea. But the only reason to stall is to gain time. Yet it is not the U.S.S.R. that needs time. It is the west. It is Britain and France and the United States and western Germany, all of whom find that they are not ready to meet what they call the Russian onslaught. Canada needs six or eight months to prepare even her special brigade of 5,000 soldiers for Korea, not to speak of other joint preparations with the United States. But the west needs time not for Korea only, but to spend United States billions on all the things that go to make modern war.
Then it goes on to put forward the communist line, and it tells us further things:
To repeat, what cannot be too often repeated, just as in 1939 we hoped that the nazis would turn east and that Russia would stand and be gored by the nazis, so today in 1950 we hope Russia will stand and wait quietly while we get ready to gore her.
What a hope! What a statement, Mr. Chairman, by anybody who pretends to believe in freedom! What a line from people who pretend to speak the truth! Yet that is the kind of thing that is going on day by day and is being circulated amongst our people!
I just want to read the closing paragraph of that section to indicate the kind of thing that is being sent out to our people:
It is our view that in sending Malik back to the United Nations the U.S.S.R. has proved to history its sober responsibility, its maturity, its patience in the face of contumely, and its devotion to world peace based on justice.
That is what we are told by these people who have the effrontery to use the word "protestant" to describe propaganda of that kind! Peace, yes! Every human being wants

Defence Appropriation Act
peace, including the people of Russia. The simple people of Russia in their homes want peace as much as we do. When we talk about propaganda of this kind, financed from Russia, I think it is necessary for us to repeat over and over again, in the hope that it may reach the people there, that our fight is not against the simple people of Russia, but against communism and totalitarian slavery of that kind. As we make our stand against the beast of communism, we make it in the hope that we shall preserve freedom for ourselves, and that in the days ahead, by the strength of our position, we may give hope to the people of Russia that through their own effort they may throw off the yoke in time and gain that freedom which their sacrifice for their own homeland in a time of stress has justified in the face of all the world.
It is not a struggle against human beings. We have Russians here who have become absorbed in our free system and who believe in that system. We can only hope that what we are trying to do now will be as a beacon light to those who are under this cruel form of oppression.
Peace, yes! Everybody wants it, and it is because of that that we find the name being employed by those who sometimes innocently further that purpose, but unfortunately, in many cases, under the guidance of those who are seeking to further aggression. And today there are hon. members who have received messages from the Canadian peace congress, again repeating the despicable communist line. When I say that, I want to emphasize the fact that I believe many of those people who are in this building today circularizing hon. members and others with these damnable lies are entirely misguided. Many of them of course do not know what the conditions are in Russia. It is far enough away from them not to be able to understand, not to be able to understand the way Hewlett Johnson does. Many of these people have an earnest desire for peace, and are being made the innocent tools of those whose sinister purpose is the destruction of our system.
The very fact that we can see amongst these people those who obviously are not communists themselves is one reason why we cannot ignore the reality of this propaganda and the compelling effect of the continued use of the word "peace". On the second page of this circular, which is being distributed today, I find this:
We suggest that the only way to prevent the in volvement of Canada in heavier and more crushin military expenditures and in the end in militar-conflict is for the parliament of Canada to propos' to the security council of the United Nations:
(1)	The cessation of military hostilities in Kore; and the cessation of air raids on Korean civiliai populations.
(2)	Withdrawal of all foreign troops from Korea.
(3)	An immediate hearing in the security council of the United Nations of the two parties to the conflict in Korea.
(4)	The seating of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations and Canadian recognition of the People's Republic of China.
Is it not strange, Mr. Chairman, that these people should describe themselves as members of the Canadian peace congress and see those things only as they are seen through the eyes of the Kremlin, and that it should not occur to them to suggest for one moment that Russia might do well to stop the fighting in Korea by stopping the supplying of their puppets in northern Korea with tanks, aircraft, machine guns and all the weapons of war which are destroying the country? No, it is the straight communist line, and that brings us once again to something about which I know there is the most sincere difference of opinion.
I know that the difference of opinion is based upon different points of view as to how this can best be tackled. We have suggested that laws should be adopted which deal with the core of this treachery in our country. We have never asked, and never suggested, that laws should be passed which in any way would be directed against those innocent people who, in a misguided way, follow communist leadership of this kind. But we have expressed the opinion that through our courts, by our regular judicial processes, and in no case by arbitrary procedure, these traitors who are guiding this kind of thing should be dealt with under our laws.
There may be other effective ways to do it. It is proposed in the United States to make every communist organization, no matter what its name may be, register as the agent of a foreign power, under penalties for failure to do so; thus they will be able to deal with those who fail to disclose their treacherous associations.
After all, I recognize and have emphasized that the decision as to the way in which these things will be done must, as a matter of policy, be a decision of the government; but once again as we go into those very perilous days ahead, as we see the dramatic evidence of what propaganda of this kind does to disturb people's minds in other countries and in our own, I strongly urge that, as part of the effort to meet the threat of communism, laws be adopted in keeping with our traditional principles of justice, enforceable only by our courts, which will deal with the traitors themselves and not with their innocent and misguided followers.
I urge this because at a time when people's minds will be thinking of the very real contribution which they must make in one way or another, they are more susceptible to

Defence Appropriation Act propaganda of this kind. I have used these examples, which have been placed before us in the past twenty-four hours, merely to show what I believe to be the need for action. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, may I say also that this whole discussion may be regarded by some as the kind of discussion which would create the uncertainties which we wish to avoid.
I was greatly impressed, and I know many other hon. members of the house were, by the excellent speech delivered by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. He put in simple and clear terms what we have been trying to emphasize, that in the request for a secret session we are asking that we have a chance to discuss this subject in a way that will make it possible for every member, including the members of the government, to be completely frank, to gain a much better understanding of the problems before us, and to unite our ranks much more effectively in dealing with these measures than we can when information which we should have is not available. A secret session would not be a device by which we would seek to try to take away any responsibility from the government.
All we seek to do is to permit the government to take us into its confidence to the fullest extent, so that in these public debates which are reported throughout Canada we may deal with the various measures with fuller knowledge of what the facts are than we have at this moment. Unfortunately we still have not been given that opportunity, nor have we been given any assurance that a secret session will be held. It is for that reason that I must point out by specific example why we now have more reason than ever to have a secret session as a result of what purported to be explanations given by the Minister of National Defence.
Let me give one example. In the Ottawa Journal of yesterday afternoon there was a large headline stating that Canada was sending tanks to Korea. The hon. member for Lake Centre read from the dispatch, which reads:
Organization of one squadron of tanks to support the three infantry battalions of Canada's special UN force has been authorized by the government and is now proceeding at Camp Borden, the Journal learned today.
As I understand it, the Minister of National Defence gave the impression to the committee that there was no foundation for that report. I am convinced that there was foundation for the report. I am quite unable to understand why the minister should seek to convey the impression that it has no foundation. Whether the heading was wrong in its actual wording,


whether the word "tanks" was appropriate, whether the size of the tanks referred to in the article was accurate, may be something else. The principal question is whether or not there are at Camp Borden now, or were a few days ago, elements of the Strathconas and the Dragoons which were brought together in squadron formation as a unit of an armoured corps. If that is so, then the members of this committee have the right to know. While the story may have expanded the facts, at least it is related to something that has actually taken place. As I understand it, the minister suggested that there was nothing in the story. I am convinced that there is. I am convinced, because of the reliability of the reporter who submitted the story, that he had foundation for it.
I recognize that sometimes there are difficulties about these things. The Minister of National Defence has been pumping out so much publicity through the agents in his department that it is extremely difficult for him to keep track of what goes out to the public in regard to imaginary activities of some of our defence units. It may be that he had not put a "stop" sign on some of these officials in regard to this particular thing. This may have been part of a broader program that got out of hand because the session was called earlier than the first week in October, as was originally intended.
The Minister of National Defence has sought to convey the impression that a committee on national defence would be ineffective and not in keeping with the government's responsibility. He has sought also to convey the impression-or, if he has not sought to do that, his words have helped to convey the impression-that the committee on estimates in the House of Commons in Britain do not make any broad or important suggestions. As a matter of fact they do. I and other members of this house have pointed out that the subcommittee on national defence is only one of a number of subcommittees of the committee on estimates. Only a week ago Friday one of the subcommittees brought in an important report which was supported by members on both sides of the house; it indicated how effectively these committees can work on a non-political basis. I have in my hand the London Standard of Friday, August 25, and the heading on page 2 reads:
Cabinet told: Cut P.R.O.'s.
Are all your publications really necessary?
The article then goes on to explain that the day before, the committee on estimates had published a report which it had made

to the government and to members of parliament recommending drastic cuts in unnecessary publicity. The article continues:
Dealing with the war office and air ministry P.R.O. organization, the committee say serving officers are "more likely to inspire confidence in a potential recruit than a journalist whose acquaintance with service life in peace time may be superficial."
So it is suggested these two services should adopt admiralty practice and use officers for P.R.O. duties in the provinces and abroad. It is considered this would be cheaper and more effective.
That is only one of many recommendations that were made. I would point out that many of our public relations officers in our own organization are fine men with military service. This, however, goes to the core of the whole business of feeding out propaganda without a minister's name being attached to it so that responsibility can be denied. It creates in the public mind an impression that quite often is not in keeping with the actual facts of the case. I think this committee has demonstrated its usefulness, and I am quite certain that what has happened there would happen here if we had a committee which could go into the actual propaganda mechanism of the Department of National Defence which seeks to create an illusory impression of activity in many lines where there has been very little. With such a committee, members on both sides of the house can sit down together and come to agreement in regard to important matters. That is why we have been suggesting a committee on national defence.
When we see things of this kind coming out into the open, and when we know that there is support for such statements, we certainly believe that we should have a secret session to discuss all these matters. Then we could really take our hair down, as the expression goes, and get to the root of some of these matters by discussing the things we do know, not for the benefit of the communists of Canada, not for the benefit of the Kremlin, as is sometimes said, but for the people's representatives so that they can make decisions with full knowledge of the facts.
Another reason why we should have a secret session was demonstrated by the discussion yesterday. The suggestion was made that, with the increasing gravity of the situation throughout the world, we should at least have a division organized. Again undoubtedly that is a matter of opinion, and one on which conflicting opinions should be expressed in such a way as to be for the benefit of the -members themselves until they can clarify their thoughts with information they do not 69262-25-J
Defence Appropriation Act now possess, if the government is not prepared or does not think it should be given in open session. Again one sees how the indirect answers of the Minister of National Defence create inaccurate impressions. In reply to a statement that our active organization for the defence of Canada should at least be a division, the Minister of National Defence said that he did not believe we could maintain a division overseas. That was not suggested, but that is what the press quite naturally picked up as the statement of the Minister of National Defence.
We have been talking about the basic defence of Canada. We are greatly concerned about what is happening in Korea. We are greatly concerned about what we can do to fulfil any responsibility we may accept, but the more we hear in this house the more we are concerned about the basic defence of Canada. In answer to the statements that were made yesterday, the minister said it would not be satisfactory to train a division because if we had a division we would have to bring it together all in one place. Why? He has not given one reason why. You do not need it in one place, if the brigade group, about which he has been talking so much, is not in one place. He says it is being efficiently trained, although the three battalions are scattered all over Canada and have never been brought together in brigade formation for active training.
Every argument the minister has made with respect to the training of the brigade group is an argument which demonstrates why it would not be necessary to have the troops all in one place if you were to have an actual division in training in this country. The fact is that he knows, as so many of the other members of the house know who have had actual experience, that the brigade group is the basic group, and that if you have brigade groups organized and trained across Canada they can be brought together and given divisional training in a comparatively short time as long as their brigade training is efficient and effective and gives them proper knowledge of their wider responsibilities. Therefore the very evasion displayed by the minister in regard to this particular subject is another reason why we should have a secret session to be able to talk to the minister in definite and positive terms and not permit him to back away behind this veil of secrecy and the danger that we might inform the Kremlin.
There is another reason why we should have a secret session, and I think a quite important one. The minister has constantly

Defence Appropriation Act emphasized the fact that what he has done has been with the advice of the chiefs of staff. Unquestionably members of the house are impressed by the statement that the chiefs of staffs have come to certain conclusions. These highly trained officers, with long military experience in the different branches of the service, are men for whose opinions we have high regard, as we have for the officers under them. But has the Minister of National Defence followed the advice of the chiefs of staff? Has he? There is reason to believe he has not done so entirely, because I find, for instance, a press report in the Ottawa Journal of March 21, 1950, which is similar to press reports that were appearing all over Canada at the time people were speculating on the size of the Canadian budget. I shall simply read one paragraph. It is:
The total is big. yet such are defence costs today, it is no secret in Ottawa there was considerable slashing of the estimates of all three services before they were finally presented to the house.
In the Financial Post of March 4, 1950, there is an article by a man who has demonstrated his competence in many important reports that have been the basis of discussion in the house. I refer to Mr. Kenneth Wilson. He is dealing with the subject of national defence, and under a subheading in his article, [DOT]'Big Fight on Defence", there is the following:
The really big fight has been on the defence estimates. All services came up with big and potent arguments for higher spending in 1950-51. They supported these arguments with cash demands needed to pay for equipment already ordered and committed in previous years and which will be delivered in 1950-51. As well, there was submitted the growing demands of the cold war in terms of Canada's new North Atlantic pact commitments. What actually happened was a slashing of proposed defence plans . . .
These words of authoritative reporters have not been challenged. What were the reasons given in asking for higher commitments? That is something we should like to know. We should like to hear from the chiefs of staff whether they were pointing out that we did not have adequate forces for the defence of Canada, that we needed more money for that purpose, and that we needed to step up our training. Unless we hear their statements to the contrary, I think that is a logical conclusion from these reports.
The* minister may well say that twe were seeking economy. Yes, the people of Canada wanted economy, and there are scores of ways in which the government could have practised economy that would have saved millions more than were being asked for by the chiefs of staff for preparation for the defence of Canada. If the Minister of National Defence pitted his discretion against the

chiefs of staff on that occasion, how do we know he is not doing it now? How do we know that the recommendation that we satisfy ourselves with an airborne brigade, the complementary forces and the special force is their recommendation right now as being the immediate requirement for Canada? We do not know, and we cannot know, unless we have an opportunity to hear what they have to say.
They could be brought before us in a secret session. We could hear what they have to say. We could have their answers and know what the facts are. In what he has said, the Minister of National Defence has over and over again given the very best possible reasons why there should be a secret session and why there should be a committee on national defence. I hope no one will think that these are alternatives. They are both essential. We need a secret meeting now to inform us of the immediate requirement, and we need a defence committee sitting continuously from now on to examine the whole defence picture in order to satisfy men with service training on both sides of the house that things are being done as they should be done, and in keeping with the statements of policy by the government.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has on a number of occasions used a very beguiling expression. He has spoken about that twilight zone between peace and war. Mr. Chairman, it is not a twilight zone he should be talking about; it is the twilight sleep under which they have been quietly resting. The only regrettable thing is that in this case there has not been the happy outcome which usually accompanies that condition.
This is a matter in which hon. members are anxious to co-operate. When the hon. member for Lake Centre said this morning that we were anxious to join hands to do the best we could for the welfare of Canada in preparing to meet this situation, I heard some suggestion, in comments that perhaps did not reach Hansard, that the criticisms we were offering did not indicate a desire of that kind. Our criticisms are directed to an examination of one of the most important subjects that will ever come before this house-the defence of our country and the survival of our freedom. So many glowing statements have been made that it is necessary to keep in perspective what we are talking about. Many Canadians do not know how large a brigade is. With all the propaganda that has been put out, some people may think a brigade is about half the size of the Russian army. The fact is that a brigade, no matter how efficient it may be, is a comparatively small military organization; and

the brigade group we are talking about so much would not comprise more than four thousand men ready for combat. That number of men must be balanced against the numbers of men in other countries with which we may be called upon to deal in various ways.
The Minister of National Defence on more than one occasion has used a very general expression; he has said we are doing as well as or better than many countries. He used that expression last evening. Well, we do not know what those many countries are. We do not know whether that statement includes Russia; for if it does, the basis of comparison becomes somewhat difficult. The fact is that on a comparative basis, in proportion to our population, if we were doing as much as Russia we would have fourteen divisions mobilized and ready to move, and fourteen more divisions ready to be mobilized and completely equipped in less than six months.
Let no one outside this chamber or in it suggest that I am putting forward any thought that we should be preparing on such a grandiose scale; but when the minister talks about a special force and a brigade group as being comparable with many other countries, at least we must recognize that he does not mean comparable with Russia, or any of her satellites, or any of the countries preparing on a scale of that kind. Certainly we must not think of becoming an armed camp on anything on that scale, but we must recognize that the only thing that will balance our strength against overwhelming manpower is to put into our industrial production and into the training of men we have under arms in the navy, the army and the air force a measure of skill that will be so superlatively greater than that of any potential enemy that we can make our smaller numbers effectively equal the numbers in uniform in other countries.
I have sought to give reasons why there should be a secret session. I brought forward the suggestion earlier so that the government might consider it before being asked to make a decision. The request has been repeated on a number of occasions, and has been denied. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I propose to put it to a vote by a rule which is provided for that purpose. This is one of those ancient and traditional rules coming from the time of Charles I; it has been referred to already by a brilliant student of parliamentary practice, the hon. member for Lake Centre. There is an expression that comes from those days, related to a time when it had a different purpose. It is a question to be put by the Chair; and I hope that when the ancient and strange-sounding words are used those in the gallery will not think we are under the impression that some of those
Defence Appropriation Act who, innocently or otherwise, have been distributing communist literature should not have the same right as others have to sit in the galleries of this chamber.
Before I use the words, I would refer you. Mr. Chairman, to page 3 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, standing order 13, which reads:
If any member takes notice that strangers are present, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman (as the case may be) shall forthwith put the question that strangers be ordered to withdraw, without permitting any debate or amendment: provided that Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may, whenever he thinks proper, order the withdrawal of strangers.
I point out that this ancient formula is not directed to the strangers, but is an accepted procedure by which we can formally ask for a secret session. I would point out further as a matter of precedent that these words were used in the British House of Commons on July 27, 1950. On that occasion this ancient rule, which is the same as our own, was followed and a vote was taken on the question whether or not there should be a secret session, when Mr. Churchill used those words. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, under the same rule, following the same established practice and for the same purpose, I use the traditional words: "I spy strangers."


Mr. St. Laurent:: So that there may be no misunderstanding about this, Mr. Chairman, I gathered that the leader of the opposition wanted a vote on the declaration which requires strangers to be excluded from the house. Though the rule says the question may be put by the chairman of the committee, there is no opportunity in committee for a recorded vote. If it were desired to have this question dealt with in such a way that would be properly recorded, I suggest that the committee rise and report progress. Then, with the Speaker in the chair, the hon. gentleman could repeat his statement and have the matter dealt with so that it will appear in the regular way in the records of the house.


George Alexander Drew: I concur in that suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Therefore I move that you do now leave the chair and that the committee report progress.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to say a word on a point of privilege. The rule really requires the motion to be put forthwith, and I do not think that by an agreement of this kind we are following the rule. I may say this puts many hon. members in a dilemma. Those of us who are in favour of a secret session may not be altogether in favour of the manner in which this is being done. It puts many hon. members in a difficult position. I should like to discuss the point with
390	HOUSE OF
Withdrawal of Strangers my colleagues. I should like to point out that the rule is clear. It says that the motion shall be put forthwith.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understood from the leader of the opposition that he did not object to a motion being put that the committee rise and report progress, and that he intended to state again the position he is taking so it could be dealt with from the chair.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do not want disagreement on a matter which is just an expression of opinion as to procedure. Strictly speaking I believe the motion must immediately be put, and if the leader of the C.C.F. group and the house are of the opinion that it should, I do not believe I have the right to press the other suggestion.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like the opportunity of discussing this motion with my colleagues; therefore I am not going to press it. I want to point out that the rule is clear.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Has the chairman the
unanimous consent of the committee to report progress and ask leave to sit again this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



QUESTION AS TO WITHDRAWAL OF STRANGERS

George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the established practice, and under standing order 13, as set out on page 3 of Beauchesne's third edition, I shall repeat the words I used while we were in committee:	"I spy
strangers."


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Mr. Drew having taken notice that strangers are present, is it the wish of the house that strangers be ordered to withdraw? Those in favour will please say "Yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say "Nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I might say that this is the first time I have had to deal with this form of procedure, and I hope I shall carry it out correctly. It having been brought to my notice by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that strangers are present, the


question before the house is that strangers be ordered to withdraw. All those in favour of such an order being made will please rise.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the vote of the majority of this house I shall not make an order that strangers be required to withdraw.



DEFENCE APPROPRIATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for national defence and security-Mr. Abbott-Mr. Dion in the chair.
Mr. Claxion:: Mr. Chairman, we can judge the seriousness of the proposal that has just been made and voted upon, and also of the proposal to have a committee on defence,


Some hon. Members:: No.


Brooke Claxton: -and a committee on defence in that respect. It also indicates, sir, exactly how far we get in giving information to the house; because I think I can say with confidence, and the record bears me out, that we have given fact after fact describing the situation, strength and program of the Canadian armed forces, just as fully as it could possibly be done. During this session there has been no single occasion on which I have referred to security or secrecy. I believe there has been no occasion on which it could be said that any question has been evaded. I have given answers as fully and as frankly as possible. If you read the record you will see that fact after fact of this kind which has been given is repeatedly ignored, and then we are told we have given no information.
392	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, the Minister of National Defence naturally is entirely in order in making any explanation he sees fit, tout it is difficult within parliamentary bounds to use appropriate language to describe what he has just said, when he told us that the seriousness of our proposal for a secret session, and the seriousness of the suggestion for a defence committee, could be gauged by this particular statement; and then left the impression that the statement had sought to mislead. That statement by the Minister of National Defence is exactly the thing that makes it necessary that we have a secret session, and that we have a committee on national defence.


An hon. Member:: What is your question of privilege?


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of National Defence said yesterday, "There is nothing in the story." He has now demonstrated that there is something in the story. He has now demonstrated that these guilty men should no longer hide behind secrecy, tout Should tell us the facts.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, 1 did not have anything to say in the discussion this morning on the question of exclusion of strangers, and the matter is now closed, but I must say that we were placed on the horns of a dilemma, because at the last session some of the questions asked and the answers given in the committee almost transgressed security considerations. However, the matter has been decided; but there is something else I want to say.
In view of the delegation that is here circulating a "peace" petition, I think it would be well to read into the record a paragraph or two from the report of the Secretary General of the United Nations, which has just come to hand. I believe that Mr. Trygve Lie was nominated for his present position by the Soviet union, by Mr. Gromyko himself, and was warmly supported by the Soviet union delegates and their friends at the first assembly when that appointment was made. Mr. Trygve Lie's annual report is dated July 12, 1950, and I think if anyone wanted to bring a witness regarding the Korean situation one could not have a more substantial witness in 

that respect than the Secretary General of the United Nations, with his background as a socialist and foreign minister of Norway as well as the nominee of the Soviet union for the position he now holds. He says this:
The attack upon the republic of Korea by North Korean forces is the latest and worst of a series of dangerous crises which have arisen for the most part out of the failure to arrive at a settlement of post-war problems, and the consequent failure to establish a collective security system based on universal acceptance. The government of the republic of Korea was chosen on the basis of elections held in South Korea under United Nations auspices. It was declared by the general assembly at its third session to be the only lawful government in Korea, The general assembly on various occasions has also called upon member states and all Koreans to assist in every possible way the work of the United Nations commission on Korea, and to refrain from any acts derogatory to the purposes of the assembly's resolution, which were directed towards the peaceful reunification of Korea under a freely elected democratic government.
Defiance of the United Nations by armed force under the circumstances prevailing in Korea constitutes a threat to international peace of a most serious character, worse even than the deadlock in Berlin, where the use of armed force did not occur.
In this situation there has been only one thing for the United Nations to do-to act quickly and decisively. This the security council did. The council branded the fighting a breach of the peace under chapter VII of the charter and called for a cease-fire within twenty-four hours of the first word of the fighting. Two days later, when fighting continued in spite of the security council's demand for a cease-fire, the council acted again.
The council did not have at its disposal the forces that it should have had under article 43 for enforcement purposes.
We know the reason why.
Instead, it recommended "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."
The United States of America, and other countries, are providing assistance to the republic of Korea in the form of both military material and contingents of their armed forces. At this moment, as I complete my annual report, these forces are fighting on behalf of the United Nations to assist the republic of Korea to repel the attack and to restore international peace and security in Korea. On the recommendation of the security council, they are fighting under the unified command of the commander designated by the United States of America. Further, the council has authorized the use by these United Nations forces of the United Nations flag. The United States has been requested to report on the course of action taken under the unified command.
I do not think anyone could find anything more conclusive than that statement of the Secretary General of the United Nations. Because of his position he must be neutral in disputes between nations until a situation arises which is clearly defined in the charter. That situation having arisen, the United Nations acted. I am afraid that many of the people who are buttonholing members of

parliament today and who are supporting propaganda across the country against our efforts to stop the aggression are either very ignorant of these facts or have been misled. I thought when I saw the secretary general's report-incidentally for the first time today -that it might be well to put his reference to Korea on the record.
So far as my party is concerned, our convention, held about five weeks ago, unanimously turned down a request for the endorsement of a petition similar to that to which I have referred, and designated it, as I believe it to be, a document circulated by a communist-front organization. May I say that that does not mean that all the people engaged in this effort are communists-not by any means; but many have been misled by this particular group of people and by this organization.
Now that I am on my feet I want to say that I have learned that the citizens who are occupying the buildings at Uplands have been given notice to vacate immediately in order that the buildings may be made available for the Department of National Defence. I have no doubt that those buildings are needed, but may I say to the minister, to the government and to the civic authorities that with the serious housing shortage in this city at the present time I hope that every effort will be made to co-operate in order that, through the necessities of national defence, hardship will not result to this group of people, numbering something over one hundred and composed mainly of families.
I also thought I had brought with me something that is of a more serious nature. I have just received a letter enclosing a copy of a communication sent to certain employees of the Steel Company of Canada at Hamilton, informing men who have enlisted that they have lost all their seniority rights, benefits under the company's benefit plan and rights to employment. It seems to me that in effect that is an interference with recruiting at this time. I shall be very glad to give the letter to the minister. What it emphasizes is that legislation should be proceeded with of the type that I think the government intends to introduce, and that it should be made retroactive so that it will cover people who have resigned from their jobs in order to join the United Nations force or other forces of Canada. As I say, I had intended to bring the letter with me but apparently I brought something else.
I noticed that the hon. member for Lake Centre, in the course of his remarks this morning, referred to the tragic situation under which we are suffering today and inferred 69262-26
Defence Appropriation Act the hope that children now growing up in the homes of our people would not be called upon, on reaching manhood, to don uniforms to fight in another war. I think we all share the hope that he expressed. He drew of course the analogy of the Napoleonic wars and the long period of struggle at that time. There are indeed some points of similarity between that era and the present one. A revolution had occurred which had the sympathy of progressively minded people in Great Britain, the United States and elsewhere. It finally became merely an attempt on the part of a great general to control the world by military means. There are points of likeness between the two revolutions. I am convinced, as we have tried to say to the house over and over again-and I hope it is generally accepted- that we shall never have a peaceful world until we have removed the real causes of war and the seedbed for propaganda of the type that we call communist at the present time.
Only by accompanying our military expenditures and proposals with expenditures and proposals, together with other nations, for the removal of poverty, misery and want all over the world, and particularly at the present time in southeast Asia, shall we obtain peace in the future. I want to emphasize that point, because I am afraid that under the present circumstances we are apt to lose sight of it. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the present situation in Asia could not have arisen if there had not been a long history before the war of the nature that we know it was, and if we had done much more after the war ended to try to promote better standards of life among the depressed peoples of that area. These people are noi, so muon interested in our democratic institutions and ideas as in a full stomach and a place to live where they can raise their children decently.
It seems to me that we must under no circumstances lose sight of that at this time. With the clear enunciation of the causes of the present difficulty in a military sense by Trygve Lie, we must not forget that the obligation of Christian nations with high standards of living is to see to it that we help the depressed peoples of the world to raise their standards of living, and thus meet the very real threat of a totalitarian dictatorship, as cruel as any that we have seen in history, spreading its power all over the world.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: There is a question I should like to direct to the minister which arises out of the conflicting stories appearing in the press, the statements that have been made here, and the very great difficulty we have had in obtaining information about our
394	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act defences. At the last session of parliament a return was tabled showing that there are some 330 odd public relations officials in the various departments of the government. They are costing the taxpayers a lot of money. I should like to know how many public relations officers are employed in the various branches of the Department of National Defence, and at what annual cost to the taxpayers.


Brooke Claxton: It strikes me that is the kind of question that might be dealt with if we could proceed to the consideration of the resolution item by item. If that is agreeable to the committee and the chairman, that might be the right way to proceed, in accordance with the suggestion, made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I should be very glad to answer the question then.


James Arthur Ross: I did not see an item covering it. I thought it might come under the general heading, and that the minister, with his officers before him, might give me that information.


Mr. Green:: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a further question with respect to the North Atlantic treaty. As he knows, it is restricted to aggression in Europe or North America. What is the attitude of the Canadian government toward urging that it be extended to cover aggression anywhere in the world? If that were done, aggression against member nations in the Pacific would come under the treaty. If an amendment of that kind were made we could ask all the democratic nations that do not happen to be north Atlantic nations to become parties to the treaty-for example, Australia and New Zealand. What is the attitude of the Canadian government toward a change of that kind in the North Atlantic treaty?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has brought up a very far-reaching question in suggesting that the terms of the North Atlantic pact might be extended to cover any member of the United Nations who would wish to sign it. In that way it would cover the whole world, or at least any part of the world which became a party to it. That would change the character of the North Atlantic treaty completely; instead of being a treaty covering a certain area of the world, where the obligations are clear and understood, it would cover any country that wished to join. I do not think an extension in that form at this time would be desirable. That has been the general attitude of all the present members of the north Atlantic group.


But of course, Mr. Chairman, that does not mean that we do not recognize obligations of mutual security in respect of other members of the United Nations who do not belong to the north Atlantic group. The fact that we have intervened now as a member of the United Nations in Korea, which is far removed from the north Atlantic area, shows that we recognize obligations of mutual security with respect to parts of the world other than that part covered by the North Atlantic pact.
It has been suggested once or twice that the objective which the hon. member has mentioned, the extension of the obligations of the North Atlantic pact to a wider area, might be brought about by a protocol to the charter that would result in specific security obligations on those who accepted it. In that sense we would have a treaty with a range far wider than the north Atlantic area. That is the kind of question that I think will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations assembly. Meanwhile I would only point out again that the fact that we have accepted certain obligations to defend the peace against aggression in a Pacific country like Korea does show that our obligations are wider than the north Atlantic area.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, but that has only come about in Korea because Russia refrained from vetoing the plan. We may as well be realistic about this. If there is aggression in some other part of Asia, in all probability Russia will veto any suggestion for action by the United Nations; so the minister does not help very much when he says that in the case of Korea action has been taken. What is the attitude of the Canadian government toward extending the provisions of the North Atlantic treaty to provide against aggression no matter where it may take place?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Personally I think it would be very unwise to extend the obligations of the North Atlantic pact as such to cover the contingency my hon. friend has mentioned. But the Canadian delegation to the forthcoming assembly will be very glad to discuss this general subject with other delegations, and indeed it is on the agenda-namely, the strengthening of the security provisions of the charter to take care of the contingency my hon. friend has just mentioned, the use of the veto by the U.S.S.R. in the security council, frustrating that body and making it ineffective. What alternative is there? I mentioned one yesterday, namely, the possibility of the assembly taking some sort of action by which it would take the place of the security council in the circumstances indicated by my hon. friend. That matter probably will be discussed at the forthcoming assembly,

and the attitude of the government toward that proposal will have to be made clear at that time. I do not think I can be any more definite on the subject at this time.


Mr. Graydon:: It seems to me there is considerable weight in the suggestion that has been advanced from time to time that some method should be found by which the security council, which appears to be paralysed, may be by-passed by those who desire to see some measure of collective security undertaken by the democracies in an effort to stop aggression generally, no matter where it may occur. However, I wanted to ask the minister another question. Many times during this and other debates it has been said that military action, important and vital though it may be at the moment, is not enough; that the situation, particularly in Asia, calls for some collateral approach in the economic and financial fields. We had the meeting of the commonwealth countries at Colombo, out of which came the consultative committee whose meeting at Sydney not so long ago was attended by the Minister of Fisheries. It seems to me, however, that something more is needed. I am wondering whether the minister has given consideration to having Canada provide some leadership to bring about an Asiatic-American assistance project.	I	know that	under	the	programof technical assistance for the underdeveloped countries of Asia the President	of	the United	States	has	gone a
considerable distance. I know, too, that our own country has contributed something like $850,000 to help the countries of Asia. That is a mere bagatelle, a drop in the bucket, if I may say so; nevertheless it is a step in the right direction, even though it be only a faltering step.
However, it seems to me none of these things will lead to what should be a bold and, to borrow a word from the minister, imaginative policy with which to approach the problems of the Asiatic countries. There is good reason why Canada should take the lead in forming such a policy, and I should have hoped that before now the government would have taken some steps to gather all those interested together at a conference at which some agreement might be reached between the countries of Asia, the United States and Canada which would lead to the formation of an economic pact, or call it what you will, under which our assistance to Asia would be integrated.' Today that assistance is being given piecemeal. It is true that the four-point program is being carried out partly through the United Nations Organization, and I suppose our $850,000 is being used in the same way. In the United Nations, however, we have Russia, her G'9262-261
Defence Appropriation Act satellites, and all the other nations. It seems to me that this is a Pacific problem, and that the democracies should be making some effort to help the people of Asia find their feet in the morass and chaos of present economic conditions which provide a fertile breeding ground for communism. I should like to see Canada work in collaboration with India, in particular, in trying to work out a bold approach to this problem. I do not think the present policy is meeting the situation at all. I do not believe the countries of Asia would consider present plans, if you can call them plans, as anything like adequate. When such things are done piecemeal there is always the feeling that perhaps after all they are just being done for some temporary reason. If we really want to help the people of Asia, let us have some definite plan. While there may be objection to the government moving toward a Pacific military pact-though I imagine there could be strong arguments on both sides of that question-surely there is no reason why this country could not enter into some kind of Pacific arrangement having to do with mutual economic assistance.
I have always felt that one of the anchors of democracy in Asia will be that great subcontinent of India, and I should like to see Canada and India brought closer together. I believe the key to many of our problems of peace or war in Asia may be solved by bringing Canada and India together, and eventually bringing in the United States. The minister may remember that in a speech I made last session I called for a move in this direction by the Prime Minister of Canada. I suggested that he should return the visit to Canada by Prime Minister Nehru, and himself visit India.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When?


Gordon Graydon: Well, I have never been
asked to plan the Prime Minister's itinerary, but if he and I were to sit down together I think we could do it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We would have to have the co-operation of a great many others.


Gordon Graydon: If the Prime Minister tells
me he is ready to go, we can get at it right now, but he has not said so. I know how busy the Prime Minister is; nevertheless it seems to me that much good could come from a visit by the Prime Minister of Canada to the Prime Minister of India. I do believe such a visit would have a strengthening influence upon relations between this continent and the great continent of Asia. I am hopeful that the government will not lose sight of the opportunity that I think exists
396	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act to strengthen the bonds and give encouragement to the Asiatic peoples to believe that, after all, they do not have to look just to Russia and her satellites for help, guidance and support. In this house we should be wholeheartedly trying to see whether the Asiatic countries and our own can find some common ground whereby we can show them that they do not need a dictatorial system in order to develop, but that democracy will enable them to have the sort of economic life that will provide greater abundance for their people.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Possibly I might deal with the point that has been raised by the hon. member for Peel. With respect to what he has said about strengthening our relations with India and about helping Asia generally, I am sure all members of this house are in complete agreement. I suppose I should not say so, but I know the Prime Minister is much interested in the possibility of returning Mr. Nehru's visit if the situation here makes it possible. I believe that if he were able to do so he would be well advised to take the member for Peel with him as a parliamentary adviser.
The relations between Canada and India are of growing importance, and we are doing our best to strengthen them. I think they are stronger and more friendly than they have ever been before. For instance, in connection with the Korean developments we have been in very close touch with the Indian government, especially with regard to settling the political problems after the fighting is over. If there is anything we can do to strengthen those relations, we should be glad to do it. So far as the question of economic assistance to Asia is concerned, I quite agree, we all agree, when the hon. member stresses the importance of it as well as the importance of dealing with it according to some plan. We have been trying to do that, not only here in Ottawa but in the various capitals of the commonwealth.
As the hon. member knows, a conference was held in Sydney, Australia, last spring, in which we took part. There is to be a conference on the subject of assistance to south and southeast Asia in London, commencing on September 25-that is, within a couple of weeks. It is a commonwealth conference to continue the Sydney meeting, and at that conference this government will be represented by a minister, my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, who has already shown his interest in this subject and done so much to advance it. The other commonwealth governments will be represented I hope by ministers.

As the hon. member has pointed out, however, the problem is bigger than the commonwealth. We have to keep that in mind. For that purpose the commonwealth governments have been in touch with the non-commonwealth governments in Asia to see whether they would care to associate themselves with this program. During the intervening months since the Sydney meeting we have been-when I say "we" I mean the governments of the commonwealth-trying to find out from the commonwealth and other Asiatic governments what their requirements are and how we can help them. This has been done through a central office which has been established in Colombo, Ceylon. That is a subject to be discussed in London.
We are also aware of the fact that commonwealth activities in their field cannot proceed in isolation from the United Nations, or in isolation from the help that has been given unilaterally by the United States. The commonwealth governments concerned, and our own government, have been in touch with the United States government to see how we can associate ourselves with their efforts, and how we can relate this program to the United Nations program. I mention these facts for the benefit of hon. members who are very much alive to the seriousness and importance of this problem. We have appropriated $850,000 for the United Nations program and $400,000 for the commonwealth program, making a total of about a million and a quarter dollars. That may seem to be a small amount in relation to the magnitude of the problem. If all the members of the United Nations however were prepared to contribute similar sums, I think the contributions received in terms of money and services would be enough to make at least an important beginning to the solution of this problem. I have said this before, and I think , other hon. members have said it, but if we do not do something about the social and economic conditions in Asia we may find that any military victory in the field against communist forces will be a sterile victory indeed.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any difficulty'in connection with this conference which is to be held in London? Yesterday's press carries a dispatch from London indicating that four Asiatic countries were silent on aid. It points out that suggestions have been asked from the different non-commonwealth countries, and replies were due on September 1, but apparently none had been received. For example, the second paragraph of this dispatch reads:
With only a few hours left before the start of the conference tomorrow, no word had been received from Siam, Indonesia, Burma and the three associated states of Indo-China.

Apparently there is some question whether those states are interested in getting help of this kind. Can the minister tell us just what the position is in that regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am afraid that I am not familiar with all the details at the moment. It is true, I think, that some of the Asian governments who are not members of the commonwealth have not yet responded to the invitation to associate themselves with this program. That may only mean that they prefer to have this program of aid through a United Nations organization rather than through a commonwealth conference of this kind. I am sure that some way can be worked out by which the two approaches can be brought together.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I had not thought of saying anything in this debate, but we have a situation here today that would stimulate any honest Canadian citizen's admiration for our democratic way of government. We have a government and an opposition here both working hard to find the best way to maintain peace in Canada and secure peace for the whole world. In the galleries we have those who disagree with us. I hope that the day will come when, in Russia, the iron curtain will be demolished and Canadian citizens by the hundreds can sit in the galleries there as the youth of Canada are sitting here today. These youths may think we are wrong. So far as I am concerned, I know I am right.
The Great Teacher says, "Blessed are the peacemakers". We are using the best means we have to maintain that peace. The same teacher also says:
. . . neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
When the temple of Jerusalem was being mutilated and its purposes destroyed by the money lenders, He drove them from the temple because they had no business being there. This issue in Canada strikes me in this way. There are those who treat God as a myth, and those of us who are not ashamed and those of us who are proud to believe in God. We believe that God is the only hope for the world.


The Deputy Chairman:: Perhaps the committee would now consider adopting the suggestion made yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that is, dealing with this resolution item by item. This practice was followed during the last war when similar resolutions were considered. Is that agreeable to the committee?


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to
Defence Appropriation Act make a few brief remarks dealing with the general situation. For several days we have been debating this subject of grave importance, but I still feel that we have not obtained from the minister a plain, common-sense statement of our defence position- what I call a kind of stocktaking. Speaking for myself, I find it difficult to get a clear idea. While I say this with hesitation, the impression grows more and more in my mind, in spite of myself, that the exigencies of maintaining a political position are so important that somehow they seem to me to be in danger of overshadowing the tremendous seriousness of the situation that we are in.
I have before me the report of the parliamentary debates in London of July 26, and of the speech then made by Mr. Shinwell. I should like to read just a sentence from that speech, because it seems to me that it may not be entirely irrelevant to our circumstances here at the moment. After referring to what was done in the early years after the war, he says this:
There is no doubt that in those early years the government did everything that could have been expected.
Then he goes on to say:
However, it was not long before unmistakable trends proved that our expectations were to be falsified.
And later he says this:
Whatever may have happened in the past, it is the situation we find today that must be faced.
Coming back, I just want to put before the committee one or two simple statements of the situation as I see it. The minister says that he has given us many pieces of information, or a great deal of information; and in a way he has. But they all seem to me to come as bits and pieces of information, not related to anything and, to my mind at any rate, not giving a picture of our actual situation.
While I am sure the minister will not think that I am being in the least personal, or that my illustration is intended to apply except in the broadest terms, may I say that I remember one of the professors at college who was exceedingly impatient with another one. The other one was full of information of all kinds, but the impatient one said: Whenever that man knows a thing, he makes you feel that it isn't worth knowing. All I am suggesting by that analogy is that the minister is giving us many bits of information-bits of information about fast-flying aeroplanes, about married quarters, about the special force for Korea-yet in spite of myself I find it difficult to get a plain common-sense statement of our present situation; and I am

Defence Appropriation Act now trying to put one forward. If I am wrong, the minister will quickly correct me.
I am confining myself entirely to the land force. As I understand it, we have three battalions of infantry and two artillery regiments. The battalions of infantry are sometimes referred to as the airborne brigade. As to their state of preparedness, I want to recall a word or two used the other day by the hon. member for Nanaimo. After speaking in the strongest terms of the excellence of the men in the airborne brigade, he says this, as reported at page 132 of Hansard:
Reference was made to the degree of training it has received. There is no headquarters. No headquarters have "been trained to command the various units. There is no staff appointed. There is no signals section working with the units. Those units have never been brought together as units to take part in any formation exercise. You are saddling those men with an unfair burden if you are telling the people of Canada that they are a fully-trained operational formation.
I want to say a word about the reserve army. My understanding about the reserve *army is that although it is composed of excellent men, men whom the rest of us should admire because they have shown a sense of public spirit which is all too uncommon, nevertheless the records of camp training and so on show an extremely low degree of organization in many of these units; and I think it would be folly to expect that they would be able to do much for a considerable period of time. As to the special force, I shall say nothing. The position of that force has, I think, been made clear.
I now want to add just a word to this effect. There are at the present time many tens of thousands of men in this country with a considerable amount of military experience, far more than I have. I do not know what their feeling is, but my feeling is that to be asked to believe that these 5,000 men who, as we are told, are insufficiently trained, can possibly be adequate to the present situation is something which is to me-again trying to use moderate language-so entirely unconvincing that I find it extremely difficult to understand how a serious man like the minister can put it forward. Yet no longer ago than last evening, I think it was, in answer to the hon. member for Calgary East with regard to the charge that every day we are getting better and better, as reported at page 370 of Hansard he said:
I believe that it is true and I think that the figures show that it is true. I have never indicated that I did not want to go faster and get it better and better so that we get the best.
Then later on he says:
... I can only repeat the statement I made before, namely that so far we find that we have the fighting


forces necessary to fight in Canada; and according to the advice we have, those forces are adequate to meet present needs.
I put it again to any man of any military experience, indeed, I put it to any man of common sense, having regard to the possibilities as disclosed here already which face us today: Does anyone believe or can anyone believe that these less than 5,000 not fully-trained men can possibly be adequate to do the job? I am not questioning what the minister has relayed to us from the staff, except to this extent. I ask the minister this question. Is he perfectly certain that these competent men have said, with full knowledge of what they are saying, that these forces-these to me trivial forces-are adequate to meet the needs of today? Or have they some qualification in their minds? Have they this feeling:	We would like to
get more, but of course this is what we can get, and with the resources that are available it is the best we can get. In spite of what has been said by competent people in this chamber as to the adequacy of the minister's advisers, if they have said, unequivocally and with full knowledge of what the words mean, that these forces are adequate for the defence of Canada, I may say quite frankly that I certainly refuse to accept that statement as one which a man of common sense should be asked to accept.
There is one other thing. Last night the Secretary of State for External Affairs, referring to the North Atlantic pact, said this as reported at page 375 of Hansard-and I will read his words, because after all we cannot dissociate this from the defence force of Canada. Speaking of the North Atlantic pact he said:
An attack on one would be an attack on all, but each member reserved the right to determine whether an attack had taken place. If that determination is made by an individual nation, then that individual nation is pledged to take all possible measures to meet that attack, which would be an attack upon itself.
I therefore add to my question to the Minister of National Defence: Are his advisers telling him that these pitifully small forces are adequate not only for the defence of Canada but to discharge the responsibility which we have and which has been so carefully pointed out to us by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
I hope that these figures may register in the mind of every returned soldier in particular and in the mind of every man who has any knowledge of military affairs, and also in the mind of every serious Canadian citizen who thinks about these matters in the world of today, and that he will ask himself whether he can accept or whether we can be

asked to accept in an unqualified way the statement which the minister has made to us.


Mr. Higgins:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the reply to the hon. member's question. I merely want to add one question of my own. Is the minister in a position to outline his plans for defence in Newfoundland?


Brooke Claxton: I think I am correct in saying that Newfoundland in between the two wars had no defence forces at all. When the second world war came, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada combined to provide for the defence of Newfoundland forces which were quite adequate and, as it turned out, more than adequate. They also combined to enable the great base at St. John's to serve as an assembly point for convoys across the Atlantic. That was quite successful. It is true that there were some losses due to submarine action in the neighbourhood, but they were rather less than were caused off the shores of what was then Canada. Since then, as hon. members know, following the visit I paid on July 1 of last year, we had the Royal Newfoundland regiment reconstituted as a unit of the reserve force, an artillery regiment created, and also a naval reserve division established. They have got going on a very good basis at St. John's, and have sub-units of both the infantry regiment and the artillery at Grand Falls and ' Corner Brook, where we have recently built very good armouries, moving hangars from Gander to these places. I should express appreciation to both the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company Limited, at Grand Falls, and Bowater's Limited, at Corner Brook, for the grant of land for these armouries and the other assistance they have given in the organization of those units in many different ways.
In Newfoundland I saw a parade of those units, indicating that they are making good progress. I saw the first group of artillery before they went off to Petawawa where they trained and made a very good showing. In fact-I have not had the last report-it is quite possible that the regiment from Newfoundland may have won the competition at Petawawa this year.
Then the infantry unit, which has a great history, dating back to the first world war, made a very good showing for itself at the reserve army camp in Nova Scotia. In addition we have cadet corps established for the navy, army and air force, working in close conjunction with civil organizations such as the Lions club, church organizations and the like, with a total strength at the present time
Defence Appropriation Act of about 1,200. That strength is being increased. Altogether good work is being done in these directions.
As part of the active force we have established there an area commander who was the senior military officer on the island, Brigadier Mike Dunn, from Cornwall, who, as I think hon. members from Newfoundland will appreciate, has done a thoroughly good job. He is supported by Commodore Bidwell, of the navy, and Wing Commander Wurtele, from Montreal, of the air force. There is a flight established of the flight and rescue operations of the air force. Since I was in Newfoundland this summer I understand that a motor vessel has arrived; and also two or three small boats for training operation.
Included in the items for which we are seeking approval in this bill are items for shore defence for St. John's. This is being given one of the highest priorities in Canada, on account of the great role St. John's played in the second world war. The program for future years provides for future developments of that character. It is not intended at the present time to put any large establishment of static defence on the island; but on the other hand when I was there in July I discussed with the general officer commanding the United States northeastern command, Major General Whitten, arrangements for local defence, and work is being done in organizing that on the spot. We have recently made increased arrangements for that at Goose Bay, and further developments will occur there.
In conclusion I should say that we have had the closest possible co-operation from the provincial government and from the citizens of Newfoundland, and also from the armed forces of the United States under Major General Whitten.


Mr. Gibson:: The minister has given a comprehensive statement with regard to the eastern defences. I know that the house has already had called to its attention the sense of apprehension, voiced by the hon. member for Nanaimo, that exists in British Columbia. In British Columbia we have of course a slight sense of isolation, with the Rocky mountains cutting us off from the protection that eastern Canada seems to provide.
I was wondering whether the minister has any plans for the rehabilitation of the air force at Tofino, Port Hardy and Comox, and also the naval station at Comox. There are two fine airfields there, complete with hangars and a good deal of accommodation for the training of troops. Have any plans been arrived at as to what might be done under the present program?

Defence Appropriation Act


Brooke Claxton: With regard to air development, we shall be putting more aircraft into the hands of the auxiliary squadron at Vancouver resulting from acquiring a hundred Mustangs from the United States. Whether they be Mustangs or Vampires is still being considered by the chief of the air staff, but that squadron will be built up and gradually increased.
We are also establishing, in a building recently acquired in Vancouver, the Quadra club, a large radar reserve unit. We are also setting up some additional radar stations in British Columbia.
With regard to further air operations, there will be available, to be based on British Columbia, a maritime squadron for work at sea. We shall be activating a new airfield, probably in Alberta, to assist in training the members of the R.A.F. coming from the United Kingdom to train in Canada, and that will be reinforcing the west coast position.
The hon. member for Nanaimo spoke about our defenceless position in consequence of the three destroyers going to Korea. We do not admit that that increased the defenceless position; we think it rather helps in their defence, but we shall be moving from the east coast to the west coast first one and then a second destroyer to take the place of those vessels and also provide for their relief. Then there will be further ships activated on the west coast, so that at a very early date their defence will not be decreased but in fact we believe it will be doubled.
With regard to the other defence activities there, I know that hon. members have pressed for the establishment of auxiliary squadrons at Victoria. The air force has made comprehensive surveys of the possibility of doing that at reasonable expense, and it still is a possibility, but they believe that we can get more aircraft and airmen operating at less expense in other areas and that has been the only reason why so far we have not made active a regular squadron at Victoria. However, that is being very thoroughly considered.


Mr. Pearkes:: I must express my pleasure at hearing that two destroyers are to be sent to the west coast in the near future to act as replacements for the three vessels which went to Korea.


Brooke Claxton: In order to replace vessels now in Korea at the end of their tour of duty, whatever it is, and depending on how much action they see, how much ammunition they fire, and so on, we shall be sending three or more destroyers or alternative vessels acceptable to the united command. We do not intend to replace the three destroyers by two destroyers.


George Randolph Pearkes: I did not mean that. I take it that the destroyers you are sending to the west will either arrive on the west coast before the three in Korean waters would be withdrawn, or when those do return they will remain there. Naturally I am bitterly disappointed that the minister cannot see his way clear to authorizing immediately an auxiliary air squadron in Victoria. The fact that airmen may be trained elsewhere more economically of course is a matter of opinion, and is something which no doubt the minister has thoroughly investigated. I do not think the citizens of Victoria are going to hold out for very much in the way of recompense for the privilege of having an auxiliary squadron. I might just mention that there are over two hundred men in the flying club of Victoria. The minister has given us a very small ray of hope when he says that the matter is still under consideration. I hope that the urgency of the need will impress his advisers and that he will be able to see his way clear in the near future to authorizing a squadron.
Earlier in the debate I asked various questions which I thought would provide a clearer picture to hon. members of the state of Canada's defences. I asked when certain vessels now under construction would be available, when other vessels now being recommissioned would be available, when new aircraft which we have been told about would be ready, and when certain army formations would be available to take the field. The minister has said that for various reasons he cannot give that information. This morning he said that he was not withholding for security reasons a reply to any question which had been asked. We must accept the minister's statement and assume that he cannot foretell, because of a variety of reasons which he named, the dates when these new vessels, or the vessels being reconverted, or the new aircraft and so on, will be ready.
There was one other question I asked to which the minister has not replied. I asked if he could give any indication as to how much of the money voted in the estimates of last year and the year before for future commitments had been expended, and how it had been expended. In the 1950-51 estimates a sum of $141,123,670 was voted under navy, army and air force for future commitments. I gave a slightly larger figure when I was speaking before, because I included an amount voted under research. Then in the 1949-50 estimates a sum of $45,555,382 was voted for future commitments. Is the minister now in position to say how much of that money, which I referred to as being a blank

cheque, has been expended, and can he give an account of the way in which it has been spent?


Brooke Claxton: When we get a commitment authority for a future year under a vote of parliament, that authorizes us to make contracts for the supply of aircraft, ships, clothing and the like, and those contracts are entered into. When the goods are delivered and the price becomes payable it is paid out of a cash vote approved by parliament in respect of the year when the goods are delivered. Therefore each year parliament has complete control over the cash votes, and, of course, over the commitment authority; so that in respect of future years' commitment authority it has a double control.
To answer the hon. member's question would require us to go through all the items included in the future years' commitment authority in the estimates for 1949-50 to see which of those had in fact been provided for in the cash appropriations for 1950-51. It would not be a difficult operation, but it would not give any information worth anything. It would simply indicate that out of the commitment authority sought for 1949-50 we had in fact expended x millions of dollars in 1950-51. If it is of any significance to hon. members it can be done very easily.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Auditor General make any special check of those transactions?


Brooke Claxton: The comptroller of the
treasury makes certain that no commitment, either in respect of the current year or in respect of a future year, is made unless we have commitment authority. That having been done and the expenditure made, it is covered by a vote approved by parliament; and the Auditor General makes a complete check.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would like to know that the Auditor General makes sure that no commitment authority is used twice. It seems to me that there should be a check against that.


Brooke Claxton: That is ascertained by the comptroller of the treasury, and then, after the payment is made, by the Auditor General. I can give my hon. friend that assurance.
With regard to future years' commitment authority I may say to the hon. member for Nanaimo that in the main estimates for this year we provided $144,181,470, of which we expected at that time that $50,720,525 would fall due in 1950-51 and therefore would be met out of estimates voted by parliament for the next year; $41,210,945 in 1952-53; $27,375,000 in 1953-54; $24,875,000 in 1954-55. But of course if we accelerate the program
Defence Appropriation Act then we shall have to get the cash needed out of the cash vote of parliament for each year.
With respect to the situation at Victoria,
I can only add that it is through no lack of enterprise on the part of the citizens there or the air force that we have not yet established an auxiliary squadron. It is just a question of competing possibilities, and the consideration in Victoria has been the relative shortage of possible groundcrew material compared with other parts of Canada where there is a greater source of supply.
In answer to the hon. member for Souris,
I can give him the information about public relations officers in the armed forces. Under the directorate of public relations there are twenty civilians. Their salaries are $48,531.83. Other expenses incurred in the directorate bring the total to $100,485. That is exclusive of pay and allowances of twenty-two officers and fourteen men of the armed forces.


Robert Fair: For a number of years we had in my constituency one of the best national parks in Canada, then known as Buffalo national park. It was located just outside the town of Wainwright. As time went on apparently conditions changed, and instead of Buffalo national park we now have one of Canada's military camps. During the time the park was inhabited by hundreds of buffalo, elk, deer and other animals we had no housing shortage; we had no trouble; but at the present time because of the establishment of what I believe is a permanent military camp there is a housing shortage. The officials of the town of Wainwright would like to have some information and assistance such as is being given to other military camps throughout the country. The town has just about completed a new water and sewer system. They have just completed a new hospital where civil and military cases are cared for. The town also has a good set of school buildings where children of civilian and military personnel are well looked after. They are short of housing accommodation. Many officers attending the camp for periods of months at a time would like to bring their families but are denied this privilege because of insufficient housing accommodation. I should like to know from the minister whether anything is being done. I should like to know whether the government is contemplating erecting houses for the accommodation of officers at that camp.


Brooke Claxton: Yes; the matter is receiving active consideration and a submission has gone forward in that regard.


Mr. Murphy:: I should like the minister to make a statement respecting a very important
402	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act area of Canada in so far as its contribution to the defence of the nation is concerned. I refer to what is commonly known as the chemical valley of Canada. As everyone knows, it is the home of the Polymer Corporation, which contributed so much in the last war. There is no doubt that in the event of a future external war, or even for the defence of our own country, it would be in a position to accelerate its production. Doubtless the minister knows that it is producing a great many products that could be useful for defence in addition to what it produced during the last war. There are other very important industries still there that were located there during the last war, and which contributed a great deal toward the war effort. I am not the only one in the house vitally concerned about that particular area. I am not concerned, for instance, because the Imperial Oil Company has a refinery there, but because any disturbance of the Imperial Oil Company would seriously cripple the Polymer Corporation. Of course that must not happen if it can be avoided. When the minister makes a statement will he indicate what plans are under consideration for the proper defence of that area?
In all seriousness I think the old motion picture building now used as an armoury is certainly not of a type to enhance the defence of that area. I am the last one to ask for any expenditure that is not absolutely necessary in our present effort, but I think that for the defence of that important area the minister must give consideration to something more substantial and effective than the present armoury. I would ask him to make a statement with respect to the use of Camp Ipperwash, some thirty miles from Sarnia, and also as to an airport or landing field in the area of the city of Sarnia for the defence of the various industries that would be so closely associated with any war effort.


Brooke Claxton: The need for protecting that important area of western Ontario as much as we can is recognized, and provision is being made both out of current estimates and out of the supplementary appropriations for added work there. Provision is not being made for an armoury or airfield at Sarnia, but there is in existence a complex of airfields to the northeast and northwest which, already being in existence, would help in the defence of that particular area.
With respect to an armoury, we have a list as long as your arm of 75 or 100 places in Canada where we would like to see armouries constructed because they would greatly help the reserve army units. It is a question of priority. At the present time we are not 

putting any more money into armouries than we have to, and I am afraid Sarnia is not on the list for this year.


Joseph Warner Murphy: In view of the minister's statement, I want to ask him seriously whether the $60 million Polymer Corporation, which is so essential at this time and I expect will continue to be-


Brooke Claxton: Right.


Joseph Warner Murphy: -is not worthy of more consideration than what the minister has stated is being given.


Brooke Claxton: I can assure the hon. member that an armoury in Sarnia would not help.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am not speaking specifically about an armoury. I refer to the protection of the area. If an armoury is necessary, all well and good, an armoury should be built; but it may not be necessary to build an armoury to protect the area. Nevertheless more than merely civilian defence should be provided for that area.


Brooke Claxton: I have not said anything about civilian defence. We have in mind a defence system for that area, in so far as it can be effective, because no radar and interceptor screens can be 100 per cent effective. That is one of the areas considered vital, vulnerable and important, and with our friends in the United States it is being given full consideration from the military point of view.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Just to pursue this point for my own information, the minister did not mention Camp Ipperwash, which is not many miles from the city, and I wonder if he is prepared to say whether that camp will be used in the near future. I did not make my point in regard to civilian defence; I was just making it when interrupted. A city the size of Sarnia could not by itself undertake a proper defence of that area, and I am asking the minister to give serious consideration to additional support there, not because it is in my riding but because the industries located in that city are so important to our war effort and to the defence of this country.


Brooke Claxton: As the hon. member knows, Camp Ipperwash is now being used as a cadet camp, and large numbers of Canadian cadets were there this summer. I have visited the camp myself; my son was in training there during the war, so I can speak with some knowledge of it. We are keeping that camp, using it for army reserve and cadet training. We have carried on there an experiment in the training of tradesmen as cadets. That experiment began two years ago, when twelve hundred boys were taken out of the trade schools of Ontario and given a six-weeks

course as cadets, with particular emphasis on qualification in motor vehicles and wireless. That experiment was a success, and it is being followed up.


Joseph Warner Murphy: In connection with the defence of that area the minister mentioned radar. Can he tell the house what other support we will be given when civilian defence is inaugurated?


Brooke Claxton: As I pointed out, civilian defence is partly the responsibility of the federal government, partly the responsibility of the provincial government, and partly the responsibility of the municipal government. It is concerned with minimizing the effects of enemy action on civilian personnel and property. By reason of the very nature of the operation the agencies for civil defence must- be largely civilian and related to the ordinary work of the civilian community, such as fire, police and the like, supported by the armed forces with the full resources of the provincial and dominion governments. That is quite a different thing from defending the country from air attack by an enemy, which would be the exclusive job of the armed forces. In the latter connection steps are being taken in regard to that area.


Major James William Coldwell: Shortly after resuming this afternoon I referred to a letter which I had mislaid. Now I want to draw it to the attention of the minister, because I think it is quite important. When certain employees of the Steel Company of Canada enlisted they received the following letter by registered mail:
The Steel Company of Canada Limited Hamilton Works Sent by registered mail
Date: August 17, 1950
Dear Sir:
Our records show that your employment with this company has been terminated and that the last day you worked with this company was August 11, 1950.
This registered letter is to inform you that you have lost your seniority and you are no longer entitled to benefits if a member of the benefit plan for the employees of this company or eligible under its pension plan.
Yours very truly,
The Steel Company of Canada, Limited (sgd.) A. D. Martin,
Employment Department


John Lambert Gibson: That is their regular form letter, is it not?


Major James William Coldwell: I cannot say; but presuming it is a form letter I point out that in my opinion this is something that would interfere with other employees joining up. I am anxious to bring the letter to the attention of the committee and of the minister so that
Defence Appropriation Act following the reading of this letter the minister can say how quickly employees will be protected; and I presume it will be made retroactive to the date of the organization of the United Nations force. I would like the minister to make that statement, however, in order that I might send a copy of Hansard to satisfy my inquirers.


Brooke Claxton: I am always glad to help an hon. member, particularly the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, send a copy of Hansard to satisfy his people. If the circumstances are as described and the man has enlisted, then it is our intention that this will be one of the cases covered by the bill to be introduced in consequence of paragraph 3 of the resolution standing on the order paper in my name as No. 4. We propose to ask parliament to agree to extend from July 5, 1950, the provisions of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1946.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As I explained a moment ago, if we are ready to proceed item by item I shall call the first item of $142,200,200, in the first paragraph. Is the committee ready to proceed in that way?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Brooke Claxton: But split it up; call the $1,376,457 for the navy first, and go through the items in that way. I think that will accelerate proceedings.


Mr. Harkness:: Before we proceed to the items I should like to refer to a question I directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs last Saturday and repeated yesterday, as to the policy of the government in the matter of committing our forces piecemeal in whatever outbreak may take place anywhere in the world. The minister began to answer my question in his speech on September 4, and at page 222 of Hansard said:
I think I am quoting him correctly from Hansard when I say that he suggested that the western world cannot afford to commit its strength piecemeal in various parts of the world. I think that indicates a useful principle which should be applied, not only to Korea but to other areas where trouble may break out. Then the hon. member for Calgary East went on to ask the government whether they had any idea how they would meet further aggression like that we are facing today in Korea. I do not think we would be in a better position to meet such further aggression, aggression by proxy as it has been called, if we had at the beginning of this aggression committed our active land forces at once to Korea. However, the question is a reasonable one and I think we should attempt to answer it.
I believe the minister's thoughts were then distracted; he went on to something else, and we never did get an answer. I wonder if we could have that answer now.

Defence Appropriation Act Mr. Pearson: I shall be very glad to try to collect my thoughts and give an answer now. The point raised by the hon. member, of course, is very important. What do we do if and when the Korean pattern of aggression is repeated in other parts of the world? There are two ways, of course, in which members of the United Nations can meet that situation. One is by taking the same kind of action they have taken in respect of Korea; passing a resolution of the security council, with the members who accept that resolution taking whatever action they can to implement its terms, with how that should be done to be determined by the individual members at the time. The other way to deal with this situation would be by the building up of a United Nations force of national contingents earmarked .by the member states for this sort of thing. If that could be done-and it is going to be discussed at the forthcoming assembly-then each member of the United Nations participating in that scheme would earmark for protection against aggression in any part of the world a part of its national forces. Those national forces would go into action after the resolution had been passed by the security council, and wherever that resolution indicated they should go into action. I do not know of any other way of doing it than either of those two. The first method is being tried now. If we had the resources, and a smaller country will have great difficulty in finding the resources if they are to be used in defence of aggression all over the world at the same time, and in the absence of a general war, we could do it the first way. However, if we all collected the resources we had and made some of them available to the United Nations to be used to meet aggression, then we would all be better off.


Douglas Scott Harkness: From what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, I take it that our policy is to promote at the United Nations this suggestion of forming a police force which would be available to meet an outbreak anywhere?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, but I want to be quite clear so there will be no misunderstanding. There are two types of international police force. There is the type for which the United Nations does the recruiting in member countries, and that police force would be under the control and administration of the United Nations itself. It would be a sort of international legion, and would be at the disposal of the United Nations. It would not consist of national contingents but of individuals recruited in member countries.

Then there is the other kind of police force in which national contingents are put at the disposal of the United Nations, to be commanded and controlled by the United Nations in carrying out its resolutions against aggression. It is this latter course in which this government and other governments are interested at the moment, because it provides the greatest possibility for quick action.


Louis-René Beaudoin: In pursuing a discussion of the first item, as I mentioned a moment ago, which appears in the first paragraph and which amounts to $142,200,200, we may follow the course suggested by the minister and study the detail relating to the navy first, then the army and then the air force. As hon. members are aware, these details were put on Hansard the other day. Is that course agreeable?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is, we will take it up item by item?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The first item is navy, $29,536,130.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought you meant item by item, the individual items and not the grand total.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I believe we understand each other quite well. The item I am calling, and upon which I am asking if there is agreement, is the item of $142,200,200. If the committee is ready to agree to,this item, that is one thing.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If there is no agreement on that, the minister has suggested that a study be made by first examining the details relating to the navy. The total amount for the navy is $29,536,130.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest, and I do this because I think it will expedite matters, that you call the individual items that make up that $29 million. Personally, I have only two or three questions I want to ask. One happens to be on the second item, one on the fourth and I think one on the fifth.


Brooke Claxton: Could we start with the total $1,376,457?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is wrong with starting with the $500,000?


Brooke Claxton: We do not do that with the ordinary estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is quite right; we do not do that with the ordinary estimates. But this is the way we did it in 1943 and 1944 on the war appropriation bills we had then.


Brooke Claxton: Let us do it; let us get on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought that would prove to be the most expeditious way of handling the matter.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If that procedure is agreeable to the committee I shall call the item of $500,000 for the Royal Canadian Navy, civil salaries and wages.
National Defence-cash program-
Navy-Civil salaries and wages, $500,000.
' Mr. Harkness: I wondered why this item had gro'wn even more than the next item, pay and allowances. I can see that pay and allowances are going to go up because the minister said that the navy is going to recruit at the rate of 240 per month. I wonder why civil salaries and wages are going up even more than pay and allowances.


Brooke Claxton: Largely because it covers dockyard workers, construction workers and the like. Cornwallis has to be expanded to accommodate the increased intake of trainees. The dockyards will be much more active owing to the refitting and commissioning of ships, alterations and the like.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Navy-Pay and allowances, $477,207.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the minister what the situation is now with respect to dependents' allowances. Perhaps my question could cover this item in connection with the other two services as well. During the war we had a separate establishment known as the dependents' allowance board which handled dependents' allowances. I believe after the war that board was abolished and its functions taken over by the department, generally. Has there been a re-establishment of the dependents' allowance board? What is the situation with respect to getting dependents' allowances through, that is getting the actual cheques through to the dependents concerned, in the case of men who are, in effect, now on active service? Has there been any delay, and if so has that delay been overcome?


Brooke Claxton: There has been no delay at all. On the contrary, it was anticipated that under the regulations which provide for the marriage separation allowances corresponding to the dependents' allowances of the war only accumulating month by month, some married personnel would be left in jeopardy, so we authorized the paymasters throughout the country to issue the maximum amount payable, even up to the full amount a man had earned up to the date of payment. There has been no delay.
Defence Appropriation Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the dependents' allowance dependent upon assigned pay as was the case during the war?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is the scale of dependents' allowances?


Brooke Claxton: The scale is in the regular pay and allowances scale for the active forces. They have been put on Hansard a number of times and appear in the white paper. I can give them here if hon, members desire it.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is there not an essential difference in the fact that during the war all the troops were on active service whereas the men on the three destroyers which are now in Korea are not on active service? To give one specific instance of how hardship may possibly arise, a man in the Royal Canadian Navy who is married but who is under the age of twenty-three and does not draw the pay and allowances for a married man, when stationed in Canada, may be able to maintain his wife. Once he is away on active service, that wife would not be drawing any allowances at all, whereas if the man had been placed on active service she would be able to draw married allowance.


Brooke Claxton: There is no difference today in respect of the pay and allowances payable to men on service, particularly in Korea, and on service at home, except as I indicated yesterday, and that is that we have a submission going forward which I believe will take care of exchange differentials. Apart from that the men on active service will not receive any different pay or allowances from those which the men who are not on active service would receive. I should like to tell the hon. member that it is the intention of the government, if the bill which follows is passed into law, to put all these people who are abroad-either in the navy, the air force or the special force-on active service and possibly even to extend that to some in Canada. The only legal consequence of that, I am advised, is that the insurance principle would apply to them and also the provisions with regard to discipline would apply as if they were on active service.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would that not affect married personnel who were below the age at which married allowances are authorized in peacetime in the Royal Canadian Navy, whereas during the war where troops are on active service I believe there is no limitation on the age at which a man who is married may be able to draw his married allowance.


Brooke Claxton: There is no limitation of age for entitlement to married allowances for members of the special force.
406	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act


George Randolph Pearkes: No.


Brooke Claxton: We made that clear in our
recruiting advertisements, and that policy has been carried out.
With regard to members of the active force, there are certainly quite a variety of cases. All those who were veterans are entitled to married allowances irrespective; all those who enlisted up to a certain date are entitled to married benefits irrespective. There may be in the active forces a limited number of men who are not receiving separated family's allowance, even though they are married, because they are under age. I think it is a rather small number.


George Randolph Pearkes: But there are some who are in the Royal Canadian Navy. I am not talking about the special force. I am dealing entirely with the navy.


Brooke Claxton: Their case is being examined.


George Randolph Pearkes: There are a few cases.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am asking about those
men of the Royal Canadian Navy who are now in Korean waters. Will they be placed on active service and will their dependents then be looked after even though they are at the moment too young to get the allowance?


Brooke Claxton: That matter is being looked
into, and we are trying to find out what the characteristic case is in order to deal with it appropriately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What branch or section of
the department handles these matters now? In other words, what body corresponds to the dependents' allowance board of world war II?


Brooke Claxton: There is no board. As to
the post-war pay scale introduced in 1946 for the permanent forces, for all three of our services, I have found the reference to that pay scale. It was filed on September 6 in this session-that was yesterday-and appears at page 317 of Hansard. There you see that the scale is provided for the army; but the same scale is provided for equivalent ranks in the navy and in the air force and separated family's allowance is payable to all married personnel who are not living in quarters.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Navy-General-Acquisition, construction, purchase, maintenance, repairs and operating expenses of properties, $2,791,000.
George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to make one
observation here and this will apply to anybody who travels out to British Columbia


and witnesses the devastation which has been caused to the entrance of the tri-services club at Royal Roads as a result of the construction of houses which have been built there, and the way in which all that ancient approach and those beautiful trees have been levelled and a perfect wilderness made of that place. In place of those stately trees there have been erected houses which are quite different in architecture to the other houses in the district. This operation has received the condemnation of the city of Victoria and of the surrounding people and has earned for that area the name of Claxton-ville.


Brooke Claxton: I must say that quite a few of our service communities have asked permission to call their communities after me. I regard that as an honour accorded to people who are dead, and apparently I have sound reasons for that.


George Randolph Pearkes: They are not proud of it.


Brooke Claxton: If the House of Commons should get through in time, I would be at the opening of Royal Roads, would be there to see this wilderness, and would try to fix it.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is too late.


Brooke Claxton: I have, of course, heard about this condition. What has happened is due to the difficulty of finding adequate areas of land for the large number of quarters to be built there. I will take the matter up with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and try to see that as much as possible of that wilderness is restored.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister tell us what extra buildings this $2,791,000 is to cover? We obtained a fair number of details about two months ago in connection with this same item, having regard to the regular expenditures.


Brooke Claxton: Yes. The central storage depot which is to be established in the neighbourhood of Montreal, $300,000; the school at Nanoose, purchase of land and preliminary plan, $250,000; Churchill, radio transmitter, $80,000; supplementary radio stations, extension of existing stations, $260,000; Halifax. Stadacona, $50,000; Esquimalt, new barracks; H.M.C.S. Naden $100,000. Here I am sure the hon. member for Nanaimo will be pleased to see some recognition being made there.


Mr. McCusker:: He is getting much more than he deserves.


Gordon Graydon: I deny that.


Brooke Claxton: Bedford Basin, commencement of construction of a building to handle

ammunition, $100,000. Kamloops and Na-noose, ammunition, magazine storage, $100,000. Funds for locating additional ammunition depots, west coast, $50,000. Newfoundland, funds for locating sites, survey and plans for magazine, $50,000. Seaward defence-perhaps I should not mention these items individually-is $90,000. Installation of training equipment at specialist schools, $225,000.


John Lambert Gibson: Did I hear the minister say Nanoose?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


John Lambert Gibson: What is he going to do there?


Gordon Graydon: He is going to Nanoose.


Brooke Claxton: This I may say is for the purchase of land and a possible site for the development of an establishment which would be used only in the event of an emergency.


John Lambert Gibson: You have an establishment twenty miles away at Comox?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


John Lambert Gibson: Are you going to activate that establishment?


Brooke Claxton: Comox would be activated in the event of a war. I will discuss this matter with the hon. member personally.


Gordon Graydon: We all ought to be let in on it.


Mr. Marlin:: Oh, no; it would take too long.


Mr. Fulton:: The minister said there was $100,000 for a naval magazine in Kamloops. I am wondering whether that is in fact an accelerated program or a program accelerated owing to the war, or are they taking this opportunity to get a little bit more money, because there was a survey going on before June 25 with a view to enlarging that depot.


Brooke Claxton: We are going to buy a large amount of ammunition for the navy out of this vote and out of future years' commitments. We shall need additional magazine space in consequence of the acceleration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Navy-Personnel supplies and services: food supplies, medical and dental supplies and services, clothing and personal equipment, barrack, camp, hospital and miscellaneous equipment, laundry and dry cleaning, $1,447,649.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a
general question with respect to this item? First, is it clear that before the grand total of $142,200,200 that is before us is submitted to parliament, the individual items making up that total are gone over by the officials of
Defence Appropriation Act treasury board in the same way as is done in the preparation of annual departmental estimates?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So that when we have an item broken down to $1,447,649, we can assume that in turn a further break-down of that is given to the treasury officials and they have checked it.


Brooke Claxton: Indeed, in detail. And of
course in the case that is provided for, before the expenditure is made treasury board will have to approve again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And does treasury board try to keep the department within or close to these limitations? These are not limitations in the sense of the limitations that are presented to us in the main estimates because you are getting a grand total of $142,200,200 for a purpose rather generally worded. Does treasury board keep the department to the break-down so far as the actual expenditure of money is concerned?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, in exactly the same way as in the case of other departments. It will be the same in respect to these estimates as in the case of the main estimates. The only difference is-and as has been explained before, it is due to the fact that we have such large main consolidated votes-it is possible for treasury board, and treasury board only, to make transfers between primaries, if later in the year it appears that we need money for one purpose more than another. It is the same in all departments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But even that requires an order in council, does it not?


Brooke Claxton: It requires a minute of the treasury board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I recall the provisions of of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, after this money is voted, the department has to submit a plan to treasury board, and if it seeks to vary from that plan there has to be authority for it.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My other question-


Brooke Claxton: I would not like to say an order in council. I do not think that is the form. There has to be a minute of the treasury board in the cases that are provided, as in other departments except that our votes are very much larger.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, whatever is the precise practice in relation to money that is voted in the main estimates, that practice applies with respect to this money.
408	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even down to fairly small detail?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My other question is this: How are arrangements made for the purchase of supplies covered in this item? Take any one example, such as "clothing and personal equipment." Is it done by contract? Are tenders called, or how is it arranged?


Brooke Claxton: As in the case of all others the Department of National Defence makes a contract demand, addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is the purchasing agent, although this is quite an inadequate term to use to describe his function, for the Department of National Defence; and then he, acting through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which is his instrument for carrying out this function, calls for tenders where tenders are required to be called. The procedure is the same in the case of food, clothing and so on. I have not seen a case of this kind in which tenders are not called.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Navy-Stores and equipment: signal and wireless stores, ammunition and bombs, armament stores, acquisition and construction of ships and naval aircraft, mechanical equipment including transport and spart parts, naval and aircraft stores, $22,297,535.
Douglas Scott Harkness: This is a big item so far as the navy is concerned, and accounts for the bulk of expenditure under it. Can the minister give us a break-down in connection with this item, particularly one which would indicate the amount that is going into what we might call actual fighting equipment, in the way of ships and aircraft?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister give a complete break-down of the $22 million odd?


Brooke Claxton: Signal and wireless stores, $2,752,000; ammunition and bombs-now we are getting into a field-however, I will go ahead.


Mr. Ferrie:: No.


Brooke Claxton: Ammunition and bombs, $4,150,000; armament stores, $5,850,000; acquisition and construction of ships, and aircraft, $2 million; repair and upkeep of ships and aircraft, $1,575,000; mechanical equipment including transport and spare parts, $753,000; naval and aircraft stores, $5,216,760; total $22,297,535.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the purchase of twelve Sea Furies included in this amount?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Mr. Caiherwood:: What does this item include? Does it include minesweepers, corvettes and frigates? Can the minister give us a break-down?


Brooke Claxton: I have given it to the house a great many times. I will do it again.


A. Earl Catherwood: The type of ships?


Brooke Claxton: Oh, yes. I should think I have given it eight or nine times, but let me give it again. It is for one Arctic transport ice-breaker under construction by Sorel Industries. It is for three anti-submarine vessels, the location of the construction of which I gave yesterday. It is for four minesweepers, the location for the building of which I gave yesterday. It is for a gate vessel, the location for the construction of which I gave yesterday. The total cost of that is approximately $40 million. It constitutes half the total volume of ships being built in Canadian shipyards today. Then in addition we are accelerating the program by constructing further anti-submarine vessels, further minesweepers and further gate vessels. As I said yesterday, the number and program for the production of these ships has been under consideration by the maritime commission, and Canadian Commercial Corporation. I have not given the planned rate of progress, which is one of the things I am accused of not giving, because it has not been arrived at, and that is all the information I have on that subject.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the department or the government have any of its own plant and equipment producing the bombs and ammunition, or are they purchased commercially?


Brooke Claxton: The department has no equipment except of an experimental and developmental character for making ammunition and bombs. They are very largely ordered from Canadian Arsenals Limited, and supplied by it. In the case of special types of bombs or ammunition which it would not be economical for Canadian Arsenals Limited to produce for us, they tell us and then assist Canadian Commercial Corporation in getting the articles from whatever arsenals there are available to produce them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do Canadian Arsenals Limited manufacture the largest proportion of the bombs and ammunition which are used by the department?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, up to the present that has been so.


Gordon Graydon: Since we are on Canadian Arsenals may I ask a question about the plant at Lakeview, Ontario? Is there any plan or program at the moment for the expansion of that plant?


Brooke Claxton: That is a question that should be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My impression would be that the plant and equipment are adequate to take care of any needs that plan can fill that we envisage under this or any likely program. They have there an exceedingly good staff which will serve as a nucleus for the extension of activities which, in consequence of this program, will probably be employing more personnel under the key personnel and using the equipment and plant they have.


Gordon Graydon: The small arms plant at
Lakeview or Long Branch was a large plant and I wonder if there is anything in the government's plan to provide for the revival of that type of manufacture at that plant?


Brooke Claxton: A proposal has been put forward to the North Atlantic treaty nations and is now under consideration under which we would transfer out of this $300 million to be voted in consequence of this bill equipment which we have in mobilization stores to provide for the larger part of the equipment of a complete division. If that proposal is accepted it will leave Canada without that equipment and that is a rather interesting commentary on what we regard as our own defence needs at this time. As I have indicated, we are actually proposing to deliver to other nations two-thirds of the equipment for a division or more because we think it can be better used than in Canada. Hon. members should know that and it is quite a commentary on the panicky nature of some of the talk here about the defence of Canada.
If that proposal is accepted and if arrangements for the transfer of that equipment are made, after consideration by the countries and the North Atlantic treaty nations generally, we shall be without that equipment. We shall have to set about replacing it and that will bring us to the point where we shall have to do a lot of manufacturing and purchasing. As large a proportion as possible of that equipment would be replaced by equipment made in Canada. If this proposal goes through there is likely to be quite a considerable quantity of new production required in Canada of all types of military equipment.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Can the
minister tell me approximately how much is going to be spent this year by his department on radar equipment?


Brooke Claxton: No, I cannot because it would be scattered through fifty or sixty items. Today a ship, and I shall not specify the kind, may have as many as 25 different radar sets. They are used by the artillery and by the air force, both from air to ground and from
Defence Appropriation Act ground to air, for the control of flight, for interception and in many other ways. There is an infinite variety and it would require going through the votes for almost every directorate to work out how much there is. The quantity on order is well over $25 million and the source of supply is almost entirely in Canada.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to inquire about the arrangements that may have been made under the Hyde Park agreement between the United States and Canada. This matter may have been discussed when I was out of the chamber, but I should like to have a comment from either of the ministers piloting this legislation as to the present position. The last information that has come to me in connection with the Hyde Park arrangements or the modification of them is that on July 1 of this year there was an arrangement whereby $25 million of United States funds would be made available for the purchase of war materials and other equipment in Canada. That may have been extended or modified in the meantime. Having in mind the very fine co-operation that existed between the two countries during the last war under what was called the Hyde Park agreement, I was wondering if the two governments had come to the position where there were some definite arrangements to provide for the integration of manufacturing of war materials on a basis similar to that which was in effect during the last war.


Brooke Claxton: Such an arrangement is being worked out and the details are pretty well settled. I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be prepared to make a statement when the item for which he is responsible comes up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When the minister stated a few minutes ago that we had offered to send a large part of the equipment for a division, to make it available to other north Atlantic countries, he said that that was an interesting commentary upon some of the things which had been said about the defence of Canada. Would the minister explain what he meant? I take it to mean that at the present time the government feels that we do not have to keep the equipment for a division here and therefore can send it away.


Brooke Claxton: The meaning is perfectly obvious. It means that the countries which make up the North Atlantic treaty organization will consider whether that equipment can be used more properly in Europe for the defence of the North Atlantic treaty nations, including Canada, or whether it should be used in Canada.
410	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then the minister said that we would have to set about replacing this equipment. Does that mean that if we send the equipment for less than one division we will be leaving ourselves virtually without any reserve of equipment in Canada?


Brooke Claxton: We would have that much less equipment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We would still not be at the point where we could not equip a division at a moment's notice?


Brooke Claxton: That is one of the things we have to discuss with our partners in this arrangement. If we should do that, we would have to do it with them and they have to consider the risks as well as ourselves. There would be a discussion around the table; we will listen to them and they will listen to us. If as an upshot of that discussion it is decided that it is not a good risk for us to run, we may decide not to do it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I did not put my question clearly enough. I understood the minister to say that we were considering making available the equipment for the better part of a division.


Brooke Claxton: Part of the equipment for a division.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If that proposal is accepted and it is decided to do that, does that mean that we would be placed in the position where we could no longer equip a division in Canada? In other words, that we would not have stores still in reserve?


Brooke Claxton: If they are sent out, we do not have them, but we still would have a considerable amount of equipment on hand.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would we have sufficient equipment left for a division after the amount which you say is now in contemplation had been sent out of the country?


Brooke Claxton: We would have more equipment than that. If we sent equipment for two divisions, we would have that much less.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Navy-Fuel costs for ships, aircraft and mechanical equipment, $835,989.
Item agreed to.
Navy-Sundries, including printing, stationery and office equipment, special training equipment and films, recruiting, communication services, miscellaneous services and other items not included in above, $787,500.
Item agreed to. [DOT]
Louis-René Beaudoin: We will now take up the army estimates.
Canadian Army-Active force-civil salaries and wages, $1,206,200.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

Canadian Army-Active force-pay and allowances, $12,847,600.
Douglas Scott Harkness: How much of the $12,847,600 is for the special service force? I take it that the balance will be for increases in the regular forces of the army.


Brooke Claxton: $10 million will be for the special force.


A. Earl Catherwood: Has consideration been given to an increase in the basic rate of pay for new recruits joining the army?


Brooke Claxton: No, not any more than the general consideration that is being given to all possibilities of increasing rates of pay for different classes.


A. Earl Catherwood: Would it not provide encouragement to recruits to join the army if consideration were given to the matter?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, it might; but the government has tried since the end of the second world war to keep pay allowances, pensions, clothing, personnel transportation, food and all other expenses which together make up the equivalent of a salary or wage in civil life, on a basis fairly comparable with what an equally well educated and trained civilian citizen would get. That is the view that has been taken. With increases in the price level of course that changes, but my recollection is that pay, allowances, clothing, pension, food, personnel transportation, hospital expense and all those items which make up the equivalent of a civilian wage or salary, came last year to a total of $2,682 per man on the average in the ranks of the navy, army and air force. That is apart from officers. That is a very good rate of remuneration. The pension is quite exceptional. There is nothing like it anywhere else.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the figure of $10 million that the minister gave correct? That only leaves $2,800,000 for the increase in the active forces and for the new recruits he expects to get in the reserve army as the result of the recruiting drive he was talking about. It does not seem very much.


Brooke Claxton: It is for the balance of this year. The item in the main estimates provided for a steady build-up in the active force spread! throughout the year month by month at a planned rate of increase. Therefore this only represents the difference between the planned rate of increase and the result of the acceleration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Army-Active force-travel, transportation, freight and express, $6,253,270.
Item agreed to.

Army-General-Acquisition, construction, purchase, maintenance, repairs and operating expenses of properties, $9,050,933.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Will the minister tell us what the major items are, in other words, the main works to be covered by this item?


Brooke Claxton: It runs to several pages. There is a maintenance garage at Petawawa, $160,000; Shilo, new garage, $160,000; Wain-wright, $100,000. Do hon. members really want these items?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wanted the main items. I take it from what the minister has been reading that the items are mostly around that amount?


Brooke Claxton: I can give the items over a million dollars. There is the purchase of prefabricated houses and other equipment of that kind at various sites in isolated centres, $1,940,000; northern housing construction, $3,632,633. Then there is the renovation of buildings for the Canadian Army special force. They are housed at Valcartier, Petawawa, Shilo, Currie barracks and Wainwright. Then there is $750,000 to be spent on additional accommodation; $350,000 for the renovation and winterization of buildings for the special force; $250,000 for minor alterations and repairs to active force camps for the build-up. There is an amount there altogether of $1,500,000. There is an amount of $858,000 for operating expenses of additional property, making a total of $9,050,933.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I take it that about one-third or the largest item of $3 million odd is for northern housing. Is that on account of the greater emergency of the present situation or is it just an acceleration of the program already in operation? I do not know whether the minister wants to say where the northern housing is. If he thinks he should not say because of security reasons I will not press him for the location, but if not will he tell us the location of the northern housing?


Brooke Claxton: It is at various locations. There are additional quarters at places such as Whitehorse, Churchill and the like.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The first part of my question was not answered, namely, whether this is as a result of the more emergent conditions now prevailing or whether it is merely the continuation of the housing program which was already in operation.


Brooke Claxton: It is a continuation and acceleration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Army-General-Personnel supplies and services: food supplies, medical and dental supplies and services, clothing and personal equipment, barrack, hospital, camp and miscellaneous equipment, laundry and dry cleaning, $11,857,530.
Defence Appropriation Act
Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the major portion of this sum necessary because of the formation of the special force, or is there a considerable portion of it for the regular army and reserve force?


Brooke Claxton: It is almost entirely for the special force, but it does include the continuation and acceleration of a program of stockpiling certain essential supplies such as cloth, so that we are continuing our program of establishing stores.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the point I am getting at. Will the minister indicate what proportion is for the build-up of such supplies and what is for the immediate use of the special service force?


Brooke Claxton: Actually it is rather difficult to sort out all these items between active force and special force because they all go into the same depots. Of course the special force is a part of the active force. It is a part of the Canadian army; about $8 million out of the $11 million odd is for the special force.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Army-General-Stores and equipment: signal and wireless stores, ammunition and bombs, armament stores, mechanical equipment including transport and spare parts, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and spare parts, repair by civilian contract of vehicles, weapons and technical stores, $11,149,000.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like the minister to tell me what tanks are being purchased or constructed.


Brooke Claxton: No tanks. It is tank spares.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have got tanks here. It says: "Mechanical equipment including transport and spare parts, tanks."


Brooke Claxton: Having been a major in the armed forces of Canada, the hon. member must recognize that curious way of putting the adjective after the comma. These are spare parts for tanks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, no, because it comes immediately after "armoured fighting vehicles and spare parts." However, if the minister tells me there are no tanks here I will take that answer.


Brooke Claxton: This is the vocabulary and estimate term for this particular class of expenditure, but it is tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and spare parts. The "spare parts" applies to the tanks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So actually you are not doing anything with respect to tanks?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the minister could give us a break-down of this item also. I am particularly interested in the proportion

Defence Appropriation Act going into what you might call new fighting equipment, as distinct from spare parts and things of that kind.


Brooke Claxton: Signal and wireless stores, $736,000; ammunition and bombs, $1 million; armaments stores, $237,000; mechanical equipment including transport and spare parts, $8,165,000; then the item we were discussing, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and spare parts, $500,000; repair of vehicles, equipment and stores, $511,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When the minister made his speech on August 31 he said that included in this special service brigade would be a squadron of self-propelled guns. During the past two days there has been a good deal in the newspapers about a squadron of tanks. At the time the minister made his speech I took it that when he mentioned a squadron of self-propelled guns it had been a slip of the tongue, and that he meant a battery of self-propelled anti-tank guns such as normally accompanies a force of this kind. From the discussion that has gone on since then, however, and from what has appeared in the newspapers, in which there has been a continued use of the word "squadron", I take it that the word was used deliberately and that it was not a slip. I assume, however, that this squadron of self-propelled guns is not a squadron of tanks but a battery, as we have always called it so far, of anti-tank self-propelled guns.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In view of that fact I thought we should ask the minister to clarify the position in regard to this squadron of guns, whether it is what we have always called a battery of anti-tank self-propelled guns, which happens to be the type of regiment I commanded during the war. If that is in fact the case, why was the word "squadron" used? To nearly everyone who was in the army during the last war "squadron" connotes something having to do with the armoured corps; a certain number of tanks; an engineer organization which works with the armoured corps, and so forth.


Brooke Claxton: Not having served in the armoured corps but in another branch I must say I was not familiar with the nomenclature. After I had made the notes for my speech they were examined by officers in the department who did not change them, so I assumed they were correct. Probably the word "squadron" was used there because this will be one of the components of the special force which will be made up of active force personnel, which will be taken from the armoured regiments.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then do I understand that this squadron of self-propelled guns is not an anti-tank battery but actually an armoured corps unit of some sort? If that is so I take it that is something new as far as our forces are concerned.


Brooke Claxton: I do not think it is new at all. It has the ordinary equipment of 17-pounders on the tracked vehicle mountings.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Apparently it is the same sort of thing with which we were so familiar, the M-10 17-pounder on the Sherman chassis, and so on?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then can the minister tell us whether it has become the policy to make units of that kind armoured corps units, or whether they will continue to be artillery units? In other words I am still not clear as to whether this is an artillery unit or an armoured corps unit.


Brooke Claxton: It is an armoured unit in its origin, but it will be used in the special force as an artillery unit.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think we are getting a
little away from my question. Will it be known as an artillery unit or as an armoured corps unit? Perhaps we can get at it in that way.


Brooke Claxton: It will be known as part of
the special force. It will be derived from one of the armoured corps units. Its men will wear the badges of their original unit, unless later it is decided to have all the special force wear the same badge, which I do not think is likely. They will wear the patch of the special force on their shoulders, but they will perform as an artillery unit in the force. What does it matter, unless the hon. member and I should enter into a competition as between the armoured corps and the artillery?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps it is not a matter
of great importance, but it is a matter about which there has been some confusion, as is indicated by the newspapers for the last two days. Therefore I thought it should be cleared up. In addition, I know there has been discussion for some considerable time as to whether units of this kind, that is self-propelled anti-tank artillery, which are essentially tanks, should continue to be in the artillery or should be transferred to the armoured corps. I wondered whether this was the first move in that direction, and that was another reason for asking the question. Is this the first move towards

transferring the anti-tank artillery to the armoured corps, and ceasing to regard them as artillery units?


Brooke Claxton: No, sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When we were considering a similar item under the navy the minister told the hon. member for Kamloops that the larger part of the department's supply of ammunition and bombs was being purchased now from Canadian Arsenals. I have two questions in that connection. What did he mean by the larger part; is it 51 per cent or 90 per cent, or something in between? My other question is, what about mechanical equipment, armoured fighting vehicles, and so on; to what extent is any of that equipment being manufactured by the government itself in any plant it may own?


Brooke Claxton: We are not manufacturing
any heavy mechanical transport equipment; it would not be profitable for us to do so. As to the proportion of ammunition to be made by Canadian Arsenals, by far the greater proportion is obtained there. This might consist of fifty or sixty different classes, and while it would be possible it might not be profitable to pick them out now. I could give the hon. gentleman the exact proportion if he wanted it, but I can assure him it is a very considerable proportion. Everything than can possibly be done by Canadian Arsenals Limited is being done, and only that which it is not possible or desirable for them to do is being obtained from arsenals in other countries. All ammunition being procured in Canada at the present time is, I understand, being obtained from Canadian Arsenals Limited.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did I understand the
minister to say that the manufacture of these armoured fighting vehicles and this mechanical equipment by the government would not be profitable?


Brooke Claxton: Oh, no; because the quantities and runs would not be nearly sufficient. Mind you, I am talking about the class of things here. If we got into the manufacture of 50,000 jeeps, then I think it would still not be profitable. I believe Ford, General Motors, Chrysler or Willys could do it a good deal cheaper than any government on the face of the earth. In heavy military vehicles and armoured fighting vehicles, it is not profitable for us to make them in Canada at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Army-General-Fuel costs for mechanical equipment, $373,700.
Item agreed to.
Defence Appropriation Act Army-General-Sundries,	including printing
stationery and office equipment, communications services, recruiting expenses, miscellaneous items not included in above, $1,233,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I have two or three questions in connection with this item. At page 99 of Hansard the minister made this statement:
. . . 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.
Does the minister know where the men are? I ask that particularly with reference to officers and tradesmen. A situation developed in a practical way in Alberta within' the last two or three months. It was desired to find out x officers, in this particular case artillery officers, who were residing in the province in order to ascertain whether they would be available to take over positions in the reserve forces. It was an attempt to increase the efficiency and strengthen the reserve forces. It was discovered that there was no list at western command headquarters, and apparently there was no list at Ottawa. It seems to me that one of the first things which should be taped is where the men are, particularly the men who have qualifications which they acquired during five or six years' training during the last war or since that time. I believe that the department should immediately take steps to prepare a list of the names, qualifications, and addresses of the men. It would be particularly useful in the event of an emergency developing.
In addition to the officers, of course, there are the tradesmen who, as the minister knows, were always difficult to obtain. I know that in the army, and I suppose in both the other services, we were always short of certain kinds of tradesmen. I believe a list of tradesmen of various kinds, their addresses, and so on would prove useful in the event of an emergency. Can the minister say whether anything has been done along that line at all? As I say, when we wanted such a list we found there was nothing so far as artillery officers were concerned.


Brooke Claxton: When I went over the mobilization plans of the three services again within the last three weeks, I was assured we had not only lists, but the names of all the senior officers as well as down to relatively junior ranks. They were all lined up. It is not known at area headquarters perhaps. That was the information which I received. In any event, I can assure the hon. member that this is being most actively pursued.
414	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act With regard to tradesmen, it is not profitable for us to list the names of mechanics, et cetera, at Ottawa. The source of that information is in the provinces, the employment bureaux, and so on. However, very careful surveys have been made to indicate our needs and the needs of industry, and we know what they are. At the outset there would be no difficulty due to a shortage of either officers or tradesmen joining the armed forces; we would have more than enough. The difficulty would be in seeing that the wrong people did not get into the armed forces at the outset. Then, immediately after the outset there would be a shortage of tradesmen, and we would have to do a lot of training.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with that, as I said I became aware of the fact there was no list of artillery officers in Alberta through attempting to use it for the reserve forces. If there are lists here in Ottawa, as the minister is assured there are, I would ask that those lists be made available to area headquarters so that they could be used by the reserve units.


Brooke Claxton: That is a good idea.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then a reserve unit that was short seven or eight officers could get this list, find out the qualified people who lived in those areas, and ascertain whether or not they would be available.


Brooke Claxton: That is a good idea. I did not wish to indicate that the list went down to captains and junior lieutenants, but that is a good idea. We will see that it is carried out.


George Randolph Pearkes: Has there been a shortage of tradesmen for the Korean forces?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, we should like to get a lot more.


George Randolph Pearkes: I wondered how you reconciled that fact with the statement you just made, that there would be no shortage of tradesmen at the outset?


Brooke Claxton: I have no doubt that should a world war break out and freedom be at stake, we would have no difficulty at the outset with regard to the number of tradesmen who would volunteer. Subsequently, however, there would be a deficiency.


George Randolph Pearkes: You have not experienced that in the Korean force?


Brooke Claxton: No, we have not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At page 101 of Hansard the minister said:
I should like to say that there is no advantage whatever in further reducing standards.


I should like to ask him what exactly the reduction in standards has been up to date.


Brooke Claxton: At various stages of recruiting, depending on the flow of recruits required, the intake, the jobs that had to be filled, the standards have been changed to meet changing circumstances. By and large the standard required for the navy, army and air force for basic trades has been an M-test of 130 in the army, and an equivalent aptitude test in the navy and air force which have different aptitude tests, and the equivalent of an eighth grade education. For the special force that was reduced to an Mutest of 85, the same as at the end of the second world war for army personnel. Those are the basic requirements. In the categories needed for tradesmen, N.C.O.'s and officers, of course we get into very much higher figures, otherwise it is not profitable to take them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Are there any educational standards so far as the special force is concerned, or just the M-test


Brooke Claxton: Just the M-test.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No other educational
qualifications?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So far as tradesmen are concerned the minister said higher qualifications were required. I take it that means for the special force and also for the regular force; is that correct?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In that connection, will the minister say whether those higher qualifications are trade qualifications or whether they include educational qualifications? I ask that particularly because some of the best motor mechanics I have encountered, both in the army and in civil life, were men who did not go beyond grade II or III in school.


Brooke Claxton: Almost entirely aptitude.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I believe that the two best motor mechanics I ever had any personal experience with were uneducated. One was my battery motor mechanic. He was a sergeant mechanic, and was with me overseas for two or three years. The army was constantly trying to take him away from me. They said he should not be your boss motor mechanic, his educational standards are too low, his M-test is too low and so on. I had to fight for about two years or more to keep that man in the unit. They were constantly wanting to take him away and to send him back to Canada. He was supposed to be too stupid, in spite of the fact that he was the best motor mechanic that I have seen in the army.

The R.C.E.M.E. people-and as a matter of fact it was through them that I managed to keep the man-said that he was the best motor mechanic in the division, and they wrote letters to that effect and so on. Finally C.M.H.Q. and the holding unit were convinced that the man could stay and they supported the application. As I say, it took about two years of constant bickering back and forth and of difficulties in order to get them convinced.
I see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is nodding his head, and I presume he had the same sort of experience. What I should like to be convinced of is that that sort of situation does not recur at the present time and that a man who is a good motor mechanic, a good cook or good at whatever is his trade is taken into the forces on the basis of his ability in his trade. It does not matter if he has never gone to school at all, as long as he is a first-class cook and can turn out a much better dinner than anybody else in the army. I do not care whether he knows how to read and write, as long as he can cook. The same thing applies to the motor mechanic and those in the various other trades. Unfortunately, with the way the red tape works in connection with the army and also I think in connection with most government departments, things of this sort do not seem to be taken into consideration. They set up a standard and they say that a man has got to have an M-test of 110 or 85 or whatever it is, and that he has to have educational requirements of grade VIII or grade XII or whatever is the requirement set. If he has not that educational requirement, they just wash him out and say he is no good, that they cannot have him, that he is useless, whereas the fact may be that in his particular trade he may be the best man in Canada for them.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for The Battlefords.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the minister is not going to say anything about what is already being done?


Brooke Claxton: The M-test that is applied for basic qualifications is 85; for trade qualifications it is higher. By bitter experience and tremendous loss of money on training personnel that were not qualified to take the training, we have found that this plan works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Army-Northwest highway system-stores and equipment; mechanical equipment including transport and spare parts, $200,000.
Defence Appropriation Act
Mr.   Baler@: This item is for the northwest highway system, and it includes stores and equipment; mechanical equipment including transport and spare parts. Possibly I should have spoken under the heading of acquisition, construction, purchase, maintenance repairs and operating expenses of properties. But what I have in mind is this.
I should like to ask the minister seriously to consider linking up highway No. 5 with this northwest highway system. I would suggest linking it up from Winnipeg to Edmonton; and in doing so, I would not be thinking of a trans-Canada highway nor a Yellowhead highway. I would call it the northwest Pacific defence highway. By coupling this highway with the highway system from Winnipeg to Edmonton, following No. 5, there would be this advantage. I think you will agree with me that it goes through two areas which in the near future might be extremely important to our country. I am thinking of the two great oil fields at Lloyd-minster and Edmonton. Not only would it be a strategic highway for moving military forces and equipment, but it might be put to good advantage to transport oil from those two great oil fields.


Brooke Claxton: That matter has been brought to our attention by people out there, including the hon. member. I shall be glad to discuss that subject with my colleague, the Minister of Resources and Development.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air-Koval Canadian Air Force (regular)-Civil salaries and wages, $744,720; pay and allowances, $2,808,464; travel, transportation, freight and express, $1,165,600; total, $4,718,784.
Item agreed to.
Air-General-Acquisition, construction, purchase, maintenance, repairs, and operating expenses of properties, $15,170,128.
Mr. Hansell:: I wish to say just a word on this item. I am interested in it for the reason that in my constituency alone we had six air training schools with some smaller auxiliary fields. I should like to ask a question or two on this item. Before asking the questions, however, may I point out to the committee that the total amount of money being appropriated for the construction part of our present effort, in navy, army and air, is approximately $27 million. This, together with the commitments for the future of $63 million, amounts in round figures to $90 million. Ninety million dollars represents a good deal of building and of repair. It is just going to affect civilian building of homes and industrial buildings to the extent of
416	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act about $90 million. It therefore becomes necessary for us to have in Canada some regulations covering building materials. We still have a shortage of housing.
My question is this. Is it the intention of the government to build new airfields and other buildings necessary on airfields, or are they going to utilize those that were used during the last war? I said a moment ago that I had about six of these in my own constituency. Some of them have been almost totally dismantled, others just partially, while there are one or two that are still fairly intact. The reason I am asking this question is that those air training schools are more or less adjacent to certain communities and the effect of those schools is felt by those communities themselves. Our people would like to know whether or not the same training schools are again to be utilized in some form or another.


Brooke Claxton: During the war we had in Canada over two hundred training establishments in which there was a large investment. At the present time we have about twenty. There are therefore roughly 190 scattered around Canada where the communities would like to have them re-established. In selecting places to be started again we have the intention of using an existing airfield where that is possible. For the airfield proposed to be activated in the immediate future in Alberta, we have in mind an existing place that is being surveyed, from the point of view of local accommodation and the like, to see whether it is the right place. We believe it to be; and I understand that it is in southern Alberta.


Ernest George Hansell: That statement rouses one's curiosity considerably. I do not want the minister to tell us where that is, if he is not disposed to do so.


Brooke Claxton: The choice has not been finally made, but officers are out there now looking it over.


Ernest George Hansell: Oh!


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air-Personnel supplies and services; food supplies, medical and dental supplies and services, clothing and personal equipment, barrack, camp hospital and miscellaneous equipment, laundry and dry cleaning, $5,229,246.
Mr. Blackmore:: Before we carry this item concerning personnel supplies may I draw to the attention of the minister the fact that yesterday, as reported on page 335 of Hansard,
I asked a series of questions concerning the activities of a certain Maritime Construction Company, Limited, and he indicated, after I had asked the questions, that he would have [Mr. Hansell.}

the questions answered by another minister. I wonder whether that minister is present and able to answer the questions.


Brooke Claxton: I have already drawn the questions to the attention of the Minister of Resources and Development, and a large part of the information will have to be obtained from Vancouver. It will be given to the hon. member just as soon as possible.


George Randolph Pearkes: Under stores and equipment, on page 102 of Hansard of August 31, the minister said:
It is, however, in the air force that the most spectacular figures are shown because aircraft cost so much money.
These items come to $31,719,000. These figures are not very spectacular. If this item includes all these other items as well as aircraft it does not seem that we are to get very many aircraft this year.


Brooke Claxton: You are not going to get very many this year; that is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: Can the minister tell how many?


Brooke Claxton: I should think one, two, three, something of that magnitude, because the construction of the F-86 was started in August, 1949, and the planned rate of production was for them to produce the first in August, 1950. That has been done. From there on there will be a steadily stepped-up acceleration; but generally speaking it takes eighteen months to produce an aircraft from the beginning.


George Randolph Pearkes: When the minister says "this year" he means-


Brooke Claxton: This calendar year. By the end of this calendar year they will be beginning to move along pretty fast.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does this money provide only for this calendar year?


Brooke Claxton: No, for this fiscal year. I was thinking in terms of the factory year when I said "this year". By the end of the fiscal year they will be moving off. The amount required in this program for the purchase of aircraft, the CF-100, the F-86, engines and the like, is $25 million. That is the part provided for additional to what was provided for out of the $425 million; but for future years the item is $220 million.


George Randolph Pearkes: I see that regarding future years, but I am concerned with the present situation. The sum of $25 million for new aircraft cannot be described as being spectacular at all. And if that is to cover the amount not only for this calendar year, but also for the fiscal year, we are not going to

see very much of an accelerated program in the production of aircraft. That is the money that is being provided. More money may not be necessary. It may be impossible for the minister to spend more, but I still suggest that it is a very slow acceleration. I think more should be expected, and if it were possible to increase the production still more or even to purchase still more aircraft, I believe that a larger sum of money should be made available to meet the situation at the present time. Next fiscal year is six months hence.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: It seems to me a long, long time before you begin to accelerate. The number of aircraft which are going to be available is the thing that I am particularly concerned about.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.
Green: What is the position with regard to transport planes? I am told by people who should know that planes of that type which are available now are practically all in use, and that it would' be very difficult to [DOT]expand the capacity for carrying troops, or for anyone who needed to be carried, in the event of an emergency arising. I am also told that in other countries, such as the United States and Great Britain, they provide for quite a large reserve of both transport planes and pilots, but apparently no such steps have been taken in Canada.


Brooke Claxton: I would say that in proportion
perhaps I should not use that word-our situation in transportation is better than in the United Kingdom, because our need of transport is very much greater on account of the great spaces and distances; but relative to the United States we have not as much. We would like to have more, and our program provides for our acquiring additional transport planes, not this year, but in future years.
We are also exploring very actively the possibility of making a new type of transport plane in Canada, which would correspond to say something like the C-82 or the C-119 in the United States, which are the only aircraft of their type in the world at present. We have enough to meet our current needs. We have enough to do the type of operation we envisage is likely. We have a reserve of civil aircraft which could be mobilized and used, if necessary, but we would like to have more air transport, however, and just as soon as that type is worked out we are going to explore very actively the possibility of getting on with that type, in addition to the other types of aircraft we are making, but that will be a very unprofitable undertaking in Canada, because our use will not be nearly 69262-27
Defence Appropriation Act great enough to provide for an economic run, and other countries will not have the dollars to pay us for them. If North Atlantic treaty nations find a need for the type of transport that we can make-and we can make them, we know we can make this type-it would be a very desirable activity for us to get into at once on their account and ours so that both of us would have the advantage of the higher run.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the cost of the 100 Mustangs which we purchased from the United States included in this item?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Somehow I have the
impression, and have had the impression all through the discussion of pur defence preparations, that the minister has been labouring under a shortage of money. If it should happen to be found that the treasury board rather than the minister is trying, tp decide on how much money should be spent on the defence of Canada, I wish to protest against that condition. Mr. Chairman, when we are in a state of emergency, such as that which we are now entering, into, I think the green light should be given to the Minister of National Defence. No one should try tp tell him the kind of defence this country should have.


Brooke Claxton: There is only one item remaining. Could we not get it through to a further
stage?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are commitments.


Brooke Claxton: I know we have been working very hard. It would certainly help other ministers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are commitments to follow.


Brooke Claxton: If there are questions on commitments, then we could not get through.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the Prime Minister indicate what will be the business tonight if after the budget speech we should happen to finish this matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If after the budget speech, and I assume the adjournment of the debate thereon, this matter should be finished before eleven o'clock, the next resolution standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence would be called.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

The Budget-Mr. Abbott AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



BUDGETARY PROPOSALS


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I make the usual motion:
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Barely five months have elapsed since I last proposed that the house resolve itself into committee of ways and means, but in the light of what has occurred during the past two months the motion to which I am speaking this evening will not be unexpected. The march of events since June 25 has produced new situations requiring a considerable revision in my earlier estimates of revenue and expenditure, and it is my duty to report to the house on these matters and to propose measures to meet the new conditions.
Hon. members will recall that last March I forecast our total expenditures for this year at $2,410 million. Higher costs for material and labour have already increased the cost of many of our construction projects, and, apart from defence, there are other unforeseen expenditures that we shall have to meet. I believe, however, that we shall be able to offset these increases, other than defence, by a program of economies which we are working on and to which I shall refer later. The net result is that, apart from increased defence, my estimate of expenditure still stands at $2,410 million.
It is now obvious that as a result of defence and related requirements very large additions will have to be made to this sum. The house is being asked to approve increased expenditures totalling $144 million in this fiscal year, and in addition to vote $300 million for the production of military equipment and related services, partly for our own direct use and partly for the use of our European associates under the North Atlantic treaty. It is not possible at this juncture to say confidently how much of this latter amount will be spent by March 31. To the extent that we undertake production for our European associates, the speed of production and the rate of expenditure must wait upon decisions as to what they most urgently require. At present I am putting down a figure of $100 million as the amount which is likely to be disbursed by March 31. It may be that this sum can be exceeded. Indeed, in view of the urgency of the situation, our aim will be to expedite the defence production program by all possible means.
Putting together these figures for national defence and defence production, we must add not less than $244 million to our previously budgeted expenditures for this fiscal year, and the best estimate I can make at this time of our expenditures for this fiscal year is, therefore, $2,654 million.
In order to put our financial prospects in their proper perspective I think I should go beyond the end of this fiscal year and invite the house to consider our probable expenditures in the succeeding year. The plain fact is that we must now undertake defence measures, both on our own direct account and in association with the North Atlantic treaty countries, involving a rate of expenditure of about $1 billion a year. The policy underlying this program has received support from all parts of the house. It is obvious, therefore, the total federal budget will be further increased in the year 1951-52.
The forecasts of revenue which I made at the end of March were based on certain assumptions which were clearly set out at that time. I felt then that the inflationary pressures on this continent, following the 1949 recession in the United States, had lost most of their strength and that the prospects for this year indicated, on the average, a steady price level and a normal or moderate expansion of economic activity. It appeared then that our gross national production in 1950 would be about one or two per cent above 1949, and my revenue forecast was based upon that estimate. Some of my hon. friends opposite expressed the view that I was being too optimistic, but in fact recovery in the United States was surprisingly rapid and Canadian economic trends during the second quarter of the year, particularly in the capital investment field, improved rather more than I had anticipated. Even before the Korean episode began to unfold it seemed probable that our revenues this year would be one or two per cent greater than I had forecast.
Since June 25 the tempo of activity has stepped up again, employment and output have increased, and the general price level has advanced somewhat, with the result that I now estimate that our present tax structure will yield about 7 per cent more revenue than I had forecast last March. In March I put our revenue yield at $2,430 million; the best estimate I can make today is that our present tax and other receipts will produce $2,610 million. I would estimate that rather more than half of this increase of $180 million is due to increased employment, output and trade, and rather less than half to higher prices.
Taking, then, my present estimates of expenditure and my forecast of revenue under

our present tax structure, we would face a deficit in this fiscal year of about $44 million.
The policy of this nation, upon the essentials of which all parties in this house are agreed, is to preserve three things. First, we must achieve a high degree of military security without which all else may fail. Second, we desire the highest quality of political freedom and individual liberty. Third, we want to promote economic stability and progress, both on a national scale and in terms of sustained and improved individual standards of living. Each of these objectives is now challenged by the evil forces that are abroad in the world today.
Our policy on military security is plain. It is to be achieved by building up our own defence forces, by extending timely aid to our associates under the North Atlantic treaty, and by giving all support within our power to implement the principles upon which the United Nations are based.
But my concern, as Minister of Finance, is with economic policy. In his classic budget statement of September, 1939, Mr. Ilsley, who was then acting for the Minister of Finance, laid down a set of broad principles which should govern war finance. Of course we are not in a state of war-we are at a hill of difficulty on the path of peace-but the questions we must decide are not unlike those that faced my predecessor eleven years ago. Two of the principles enunciated at that time are particularly apposite today. The first is that a "pay-as-you-go" policy should be followed to the limits of political and administrative practicability. The second is that to choose or to wander into inflationary methods of financing would be the most unjust of all methods of distributing the cost of any sharp increase in government expenditures.
In 1939, as the house will recall, the world was emerging from the long depression, and in Canada, as in other countries, there was a great deal of slack in the economy in the form of idle or under-employed resources in both manpower and equipment. It was, therefore, right and proper that in the initial stages some recourse should be had to bank credit to give a quick stimulus to increased production. But as soon as the stimulus had taken effect a policy of sharp and progressive increases in taxation was adopted and effective steps were taken to mobilize the real savings of the community in successive victory loan campaigns. But in total war, as the stage of all-out mobilization approaches, there comes a point where expenditures take so large a part of the national output that it is not humanly possible to cover them fully by taxation and by the direct mobilization of real savings, and where bonds filter back in a 69262-27i
The Budget-Mr. Abbott growing stream into the banking system and the proceeds offer themselves in the market for current consumption. It is at this point that it becomes necessary to buttress fiscal measures by comprehensive direct controls^ controls of prices and wages, controls of production and distribution, controls of investment and manpower, controls by rationing; and priorities. But even at best, controls, cannot do much more than contain the pressure of demand for a time, and unless the process of decontrol is matched against an increasing supply of goods, a greater or lesser degree of inflation will occur.
As I said a moment ago our financial problem today has some similarities to that of September, 1939, but it has also some allimportant differences. We enter upon this new phase with little or no slack in the economy and with a reasonably clear appreciation of the immediate tasks before us. We face a situation which does not engender the intense degree of patriotic fervour induced by an outright state of war, and which may smoulder its way along for a considerable time. Moreover, unlike 1939, the United States with its vast resources is not lagging a year or two behind, but is in the forefront of an active policy to promote peace by strength. Present conditions do not call for any interim period of easy financial policy; they require, on the contrary, a prompt and effective anti-inflationary program.
The defence program and the foreign policy now before the house commit us to an approximate doubling of the rate of our expenditures on defence and on military production. This means that our defence program, including north Atlantic aid, must lay claim to twice as much of the materials, equipment, skills and energies that comprise our productive resources. There is not this much slack in our economy and despite all we can do by way of increased production some part at least of this increase in the claims of defence will have to be met by postponing or foregoing goods and services that we as a community might otherwise enjoy.
The impact of our enlarged defence program will conflict much more sharply with capital investment than with ordinary day-today consumer goods. We have had four-years of intense capital investment and the-current rate of construction and investment is at an all time high. Indeed, it was chiefly-the further sharp upswing in the capital investment and construction boom in the second quarter of this year that gave rise-to the renewed inflationary pressures both: here and in the United States. A large fraction of our additional defence expenditure?
(420

The Budget-Mr. Abbott down payment will absorb current purchasing power and reduce the mortgage on future income.
In the matter of farm improvement loans the policy will be to reduce the proportion of the proposed expenditure financed under the act and to accelerate the repayment of such loans in a reasonable and practicable manner.
Another move in the same direction is the decision we have made to introduce a bill empowering the government to limit the use Of consumer credit. During the past two years there has been a very rapid expansion in the volume of instalment buying and other forms Of consumer credit. The size of down payments has been decreasing and the time over which payments are spread has been lengthening. The inflationary effects of these methods of anticipating the use of one's income are universally recognized. We shall be asking parliament to authorize the government to impose limitations on this form of credit expansion in the interests of economic stability and in carrying out its responsibility which the federal authority must assume for the regulation of currency and credit.
These and such other indirect controls as may become appropriate will support our main policy of a fully balanced budget, and the program as a whole will attack incipient inflation at its source. In this way, and certainly at this stage in our affairs, a great panoply of direct controls with all their Regimentation, bureaucracy and arbitrary decisions can be avoided. My colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, will, however, be asking parliament for special standby powers to direct distribution of essential materials, if and when necessary in order to meet both increasing defence requirements and essential civilian needs. I do not propose, however, to expand upon the nature of this bill at this time.
Every corporation, organization, institution and individual can serve both its own and the common interest by following similar and consistent policies. We as a government will endeavour to keep our house in order. If others will do the same these new inflationary pressures can and will be neutralized.
It will, of course, be clear that no one country can fully insure itself against inflationary pressures that have their origin outside its own borders. In the international sphere great progress is under way in matters of defence, through the North Atlantic treaty organization, to ensure security through active collaboration. It is important that this progress be matched in the economic and financial fields if we are to avoid difficulties

The Budget-Mr. Abbott selling price of all soft drinks, candies and chewing gum. It is estimated that this will add 1 cent to the cost of those commodities in this class that now retail generally at 5 cents. The revenue we shall derive from this tax is estimated at $18 million during the remainder of this fiscal year, and $48 million in a full year.
Under the terms of the resolutions I am tabling all changes in commodity taxes will be effective as from midnight tonight, and the increased rates of corporation income tax will apply as from September 1, 1950.
All these tax changes add up to an increased revenue . of about $59 million during the balance of this fiscal year, and will produce about $190 million in a full year. For the convenience of hon. members and with the consent of the house, I should like to insert in Hansard at this point a short table which summarizes the, revenue .effects of. all my proposals.	,


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the table be placed on Hdnsard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The table is as follows: Increased Revenues From Proposed Tax Changes
'	

	:	Remainder
,	, .	of Current In a Full.	Fiscal Year	YearCorporation iiicdme tax	$13,500,000 $ 85,000,000Alcoholic beverages	
10400,000	22,100,000
Special excise taxes at 15 per
cent	
17,300,000	34,400,000Soft drinks	
8,500,000	24,000,000Candies and chewing gum.... 9,500,000	24,000,000Total	$58,900,000 $189,500,000


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Did the minister mention ice cream., with the soft drinks ?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. That was under the general sales tax. It was never included in the special TO per cent bracket,


Mr. Cruickshank:: Is there any tax on
margarine?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. After giving effect to these changes I estimate our total budgetary revenues for the year ending March 31, 1951, at $2,669 million, and if expenditures do not exceed the $2,654 million referred to earlier, I shall expect a small surplus for the year of about $15 million.
In conclusion may I emphasize the strong and healthy position of the Canadian economy and our undoubted capacity to meet and carry the responsibilities with which we are faced. The new demands which are coming upon us are substantial and will require us to postpone some of those devel-
opmental expenditures which we would like to undertake and which would be sound longterm investments, but which will now have to yield place to expenditures which will contribute more directly to our national security.
Our budgetary position is strong and our credit rating never stood higher. Hon. members will have noticed that last month we were able to call a $100 million 4 per cent loan in the United States ten years before its due date and pay off half of it in cash and to refund the remaining $50 million on a 25-year basis at a net rate of about 2-69 per cent. I am informed that no foreign loan has ever been placed in the New York market on as favourable terms.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Payable in New York?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In New York, yes. It was a New York loan that was being refunded.
We hope that developments in international affairs during the next two or three years will not require Us to increase our commitments much beyond the scale already envisaged. The revised tax structure I have outlined this evening will yield us revenues of about $2,800 million in a full year. This is no .light burden but it. is within our carrying .capacity >and is ; hot, I believe, at a level which would produce a serious impairment of initiative and production. If, despite all our efforts, further burdens come our way we shall still expect to follow a pay-as-you-go policy to the practicable limits of its application. It is by following a sound and honest policy of this sort that we shall contribute most effectively in our financial policies to the three objectives I have mentioned- national security, political and personal freedom, and economic strength and stability.
I wish to table now the budget, resolutions:
Income Tax Act
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide:
That in respect of income of a corporation from and after September 1, 1950, the rate of tax be increased from 10 per cent to 15 per cent on income not in excess of $10,000 and from 33 per cent to 38 per cent on income in excess of $10,000.
Excise Tax Act
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend The Excise Tax Act and to provide:
1.	That the excise tax on goods mentioned in Schedule I of the act that are at present subject to the rate of ten per cent be increased to fifteen per cent.
2.	That there be imposed, levied and collected an excise tax of fifteen per cent on the following:
(a)	electrical appliances and equipment adapted to household use, viz., blankets; chafing dishes;

coffee makers; curling Irons or tongs; dishwashers; food or drink mixers; food choppers and grinders; floor waxes and polishers; garbage disposal units; hair dryers; irons and ironers; juice extractors; kettles; portable humidifiers; razors and shavers; toasters of all kinds; vacuum cleaners and attachments therefor; waffle irons;
(b)	firearms and complete parts thereof and ammunition except for military or police purposes;
(c)	motor cycles and all other two or threewheeled motor-driven vehicles including motors for attachment to bicycles but not including vehicles specially designed for carrying goods or for use by invalids;
(d)	golf clubs and golf balls;
(e)	fishing rods and fishing reels.
3.	That there be imposed, levied and collected an excise tax of thirty per cent on carbonated beverages, aerated waters, unfermented fruit juice beverages (not including beverages at least ninety-five per cent of which consists of pure juice of the fruit) and imitations thereof and all other compounded or mixed soft drinks put up in bottles or other containers for sale.
4.	That there be imposed, levied and collected an excise tax of fifty cents per pound on carbonic acid gas and similar preparations to be used for aerating non-alcoholic beverages.
5.	That there be imposed, levied and collected an excise tax of thirty per cent on candy, chocolate, chewing gum, and confectionery which may be classed as candy or a substitute for candy.
6.	That any enactment founded upon this resolution come into force on the 8th day of September, 1950.
Excise Act, 1934
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend The Excise Act, 1934, and to provide:	.
1.	That the duty of excise on spirits distilled in Canada be increased from eleven dollars to twelve dollars per proof gallon.
2.	That the duty of excise on Canadian brandy be increased from nine dollars to ten dollars per proof gallon.
3.	That the duty of excise on malt be increased from sixteen cents per pound to twenty-one cents per pound.
4.	That any enactment founded upon this resolution shall come into force on the 8th day of September, 1950.
Customs Tariff
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Customs Tariff, and to provide:
1.	That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by deleting therefrom the following enumerations of goods and rates of additional duties of customs:
Whiskey, brandy, rum, gin and all other goods specified in Customs Tariff Item 156 and 156b, $7 per gallon of the strength of proof.
Ale, beer, porter and stout, 30 cents per gallon, and by substituting therefor the following enumerations of goods and rates of additional duties of customs;
Whiskey, brandy, rum, gin and all other goods specified in the various subitems of Tariff Item 156, $8 per gallon of the strength of proof.
Ale, beer, porter and stout, 40 cents per gallon.
2.	That any enactment founded upon this resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the 8th day of September, 1950, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in this resolution imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that date, and to have applied to goods pre-
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell viously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, we all know the gifts which the Minister of Finance brings to public life and the spirit in which he carries out his duties. Further, one of the essential things in this queer, free, parliamentary institution of ours is that those who differ, however sharply, are able to do so without rancour. The Minister of Finance is certainly one of those who lead in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I think the minister will forgive me if tonight, in what I at any rate regard as unusual and grave circumstances, I depart slightly from the ordinary routine of this short speech and deal not wholly with the actual points in his speech. I think he will not mind if I begin by referring to the broad situation.
It is just over two months since we were here before, and we had just gone past the time when the Korean incident seemed to light up the whole world, the whole foreign situation, like a flash of lightning on a dark night. We were forced to realize what we should have known long ago, namely that we were facing "many and great dangers". In these circumstances we are meeting here and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that what people most of all want is a lead. They want to know how serious this situation really is, and I propose to say a word or two more about that subject. They know that the government had not intended to call this session so early to deal with the international situation, but that it was the railway situation that induced them to change their minds. They wonder how serious the situation really is. I think it is of great importance that we should know. Are we dealing with great problems which go to the very root of our whole way of life? The minister suggested tonight that, it was a little difficult. True, but it is a difficulty which there is no reason whatever to think that we shall not overcome. I submit that so far we have had no real lead. We in the opposition are ready to support, indeed to urge, every measure for the security of the country. We came here with the full intention of helping in every way we could, hoping that we would be taken into the government's confidence to whatevet extent was necessary, but we have not met that attitude. We have met a grudging attitude instead of a frank one. We have run into a situation where no suggestion of ours can be accepted, where everything the government has done must be accepted as right, and approved as such.
We have had a situation where searching criticisms have been left unanswered, as if they were hardly worth answering, where bland and meaningless assurances that all is well have been given to us. Instead of

The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell sounding the alarm as Churchill and Shinwell have done in England, we are really told that all is well. We are asked to believe that less than 5,000 men in this country as a permanent force are able to look after its defences.
We have been staggered to find out how little we have got for all the money that has been spent, and still more staggered to find the amazing complacency with which we have been faced during days of debate. We are not the only people who have certain questions; and it might be just as well for the government to know of that. This afternoon I was asked by a citizen, with some military experience, this question. He said to me: "Mr. Macdonnell, you are good at arithmetic." He did not know me very well, Mr. Speaker. He continued: "If it takes a billion and a half dollars to put a brigade on paper, how much does it take to put a division in the field?" I submit that the government can thank itself if questions of that kind are being asked. These questions need not have been asked if a different attitude had been adopted.
And now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) comes to bat tonight.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have his contribution. The Minister of Finance comes to bat and in our eyes he has two strikes against him before he starts.


Gordon Graydon: He hit a foul ball.


An hon. Member:: He will hit a home run.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That remains to be seen. I would say the minister has done nothing to create that sense of urgency which I believe we need, and which others failed to create. "A hill of difficulty on the path to peace." That is a nice phrase, but it really does not suggest that this is any different from any other session. The feeling I had when the Minister of Finance was reading his speech was this:	Am I
wrong? Are we all stupid to think that we are living in a dangerous world? Are these situations which other serious men discern and take so much to heart all imaginary? Can we just meet here and hear the minister use pleasant arguments, telling us how easily we are going to get over it, and that really we are not going to be disturbed, and if we just carry along with the minister's wise guidance nothing will ever happen; we will not know there is anything wrong in the world at all.
That seems to me to be the wrong psychology. I wish with all my heart that we were living in that kind of world, but I do not believe we are.
I make one or two comments on the minister's proposals. I turn to what the

minister said about "pay as you go". Of course, every sensible man is in favour of that. Just as far as it can be done we will go along with the minister on it.
The minister referred to economy and for a moment my hopes rose. His first sentence began so well it just sounded as if he was going after it. He said: "We are going to insist on a rigorous standard of essentiality- next year." In other words, apparently it is too tough to begin now; we will leave it over until next year and perhaps by next year we will not need to do it at all.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He said more than that; he
said we were doing things now, too.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The cost of living is in the mind of everyone; and the housewife, when she surveys the astronomical prices which are now being asked of her, will not be greatly comforted by being told what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has told us. He has told us, as reported at page 118 of Hansard:
The pressures are not going to be substantially increased by the expenditures now contemplated.
But in any event it could not be of the order of 10 per cent of what is now being used for capital development.
I have no doubt that if the people complaining about the cost of living will just read that sentence from the Prime Minister's speech, all will be well.
Various things enter into the high cost of living. I am not going to dwell on that at any length this evening. One thing that enters in, not with mathematical accuracy but with dreadful effectiveness, is the total quantity of money. Tonight the minister read maxims from the budget speech of 1939, which I think was a very good speech. He quoted some very wise remarks about inflation. All I can wish is that the government had followed this during all those years, and we might not have had the difficulty of high prices that I have mentioned, at any fate not to the same extent. I will just mention one point which I think is familiar to nearly all. The money supply, owing to easy money and easy money and easier money, has gone up something like four times in the last ten years; whereas the corresponding increase in the supply of goods is less than twice. It is not true, of course, as a mere question of arithmetic; prices would have automatically doubled.
I know there are a lot of other things that enter in, but I do wish to draw attention to the fact not only that we have had inflation in the past but that we are going ahead with it now. We have borrowing still from the banks, and although the minister explained to me the other day that that is a temporary measure, nevertheless we are going to use
42?

this money, which does not take anything from the ordinary purchasing power. We have our cake and eat it. The government spends it, and individuals, who otherwise would lend it, spend it too, and it all shoves up the cost. I think it is a great pity that steps have not already been taken to begin to draw off the purchasing power from the public through the means of loans.
That comes back again, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the government is not really taking this seriously. It is just an incident. A couple of months ago the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was reported in the press as referring to the Korean incident. It was just an incident. Well, it is some incident, Mr. Speaker, and it is having a lot of results which will look mighty serious. But I repeat, it seems to me that we have no suggestion from the government of the real urgency of the situation before us.
I was going to add one or two things. The minister said nothing about profiteering. If he did, I did not catch it. I do not believe myself that there are a large number of profiteers. They should be dealt with. If there was a feeling of real urgency created I think the number of people who would profit from their dealings would be very few if they knew that they were in a dangerous world where people may be called on to risk their lives. I think this is the place where the government has given nothing like the moral lead which they could give.
With regard to taxation, all I say is this. I am glad the minister has confined himself mainly to luxuries. I am sorry the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) is not pleased with part of the taxation, but I do think it is good. I think, finally, that we should seek in every way to get taxation from those who make money, however properly, out of war contracts. Then there remains the broad principle that I want to enunciate. For the rest, taxation should be borne by as many as possible but on the basis of capacity to pay.
On motion of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) the debate was adjourned.



DEFENCE APPROPRIATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for national defence and security-Mr. Abbott-Mr. Dion in the chair.
Air-General-Stores and equipment: signal and wireless stores, ammunition and bombs, armament
Defence Appropriation Act stores, mechanical equipment including transport and spare parts, aircraft, engines and spares, including overhauls and miscellaneous stores, $31,719,964.
Item agreed to.
Air-General-Fuel costs for aircraft and mechanical equipment, $926,715.
Item agreed to.
Air-General-Sundries, including printing and stationery, communication services, special training equipment and films and recruiting expenses, $728,000.
James Arthur Ross: This afternoon I asked the minister about the salaries paid to public relations officers in the three defence departments and as there is no particular item covering this I assume that it could be asked under this item.


Brooke Claxton: I gave that this afternoon.


James Arthur Ross: I was called out of the
chamber for a moment.


George Alexander Drew: I want to use this last item as a means of making a final comment in connection with these so-called items before us.
I have asked no question under these items for the simple reason that I recognize that the device which has been employed renders it' impossible to gain any real information by asking a series of questions under what are described as items. These are not items, they are simply index headings for enormous:, amounts. 1 wish to leave these so-called items with the statement that we now pass this stage, as we have passed the general discussion, recognizing the fact that hiding behind a majority which apparently is not-, willing to exercise any individual demand for information the government is denying the rest of the house that kind of information which should be given in connection with the-detailed payments which are being called for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Defence-Future years program-Navy- General-Acquisition, construction and purchase of properties, $5,545,000.
Item agreed to.
Navy-General-Personnel supplies and services: clothing and personal equipment, barrack, hospital and miscellaneous equipment, $4,854,125.	*
Stanley Howard Knowles: Were not this and the next items corrected by the minister when the tables were given to us? I find that Hansard of September 5, page 278, shows the figures as they were given to us incorrectly.


Brooke Claxton: I have already sent a note to Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Navy-General-Stores and equipment: signal and wireless stores, armament stores, acquisition and
428	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act
Construction of ships and naval aircraft, naval and aircraft stores, $50,551,000.
Item agreed to.
Navy-General-Sundries, including special training equipment and films, $100,000.
Item agreed to.
Army-Canadian Army-Active force-travel and transportation, $107,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Why should an item like this be listed under future commitments? I can understand commitments for the purchase of supplies but here is a future commitment of $107,000 for travel and transportation.
1 Mr. Claxion: This is to provide for the conversion of two railway cars into hospital cars.	.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is really a capital item? Mr. Claxion: A conversion item.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would not that normally come under stores?


Brooke Claxton: The cars belong to the railways and are being converted by us and therefore should come under the heading of transportation.
' Mr. Fraser: Who will own them, the government or the railways, when they are converted?


Brooke Claxton: They belong to the railways and we are paying for the conversion.


Mr. Fraser:: Will they then be rented to the government?


Brooke Claxton: We pay the hire and use them.
< Mr. Fraser: Will they be turned over to the railways when, you are through with them?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, but we never will be. Item agreed to.
Army-General-Acquisition, construction and purchase bf. properties, $13,290,933.


Mr. McLure:: What properties are being acquired?
j Mr. Claxion: I mentioned some of these that would come under current cash requisitions. Some of the large items are:
Picton, construction of barrack block .... $ 560,000
Petawawa	 560,000
Barriefield	:	 560,000
Shilo	  560,000
Victoria	  410,000
Picton	   180,000
Shilo	   230,000
Victoria	  140,000
Consultants' fees	 150,000
Edmonton, ordnance	warehouse	 900,000
Army workshops	 350,000
Churchill developments	   450,000
Northern housing construction	 6,440,933


Those along with other items make up the total of $13,290,933.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is there any relation between the increase in the accommodation now required and the increase in personnel? For instance, are you providing military accommodation for the personnel of the special United Nations brigade?


Brooke Claxton: No, not at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Army-General-Personnel supplies and services: clothing and personal equipment, barrack, hospital, camp and miscellaneous equipment, medical and dental supplies and services, $8,185,000.
Item agreed to.
Army-General-Stores and equipment: signal and wireless stores, ammunition and bombs, armament stores, mechanical transport vehicles and spare parts, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and spare parts, repair of vehicles, equipment and stores, $40,557,840.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister again about the question of tanks. This afternoon he told us, when discussing the cash appropriation item, that there was nothing there for tanks. Here again we see the word "tanks". I hope it is not to be taken that there is nothing in there for the purchase of tanks because I feel very strongly that there should be.


Brooke Claxton: There is nothing for tanks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then my criticism of the item is that there should be. This afternoon we heard an argument over whether or not a tank formation was in fact being provided to accompany the special force being raised for the United Nations. I do not know what the facts are but in this evening's Ottawa Journal there is a story which I presume is written with a knowledge of the discussion that took place in the house this afternoon. The headline is:
Tank Squadron Training for U.N. Without Tanks
The first paragraph reads as follows:
A Canadian armoured squadron-now training at camp Borden-and authorized as part of Canada's special U.N. force, was "definitely and absolutely" a tank squadron, military sources in Ottawa today affirmed.
It is possible that those words mean that they are a squadron taken from an armoured or tank unit, but the ordinary meaning of , the words-and certainly I can only assume if they were used by military sources they were used with this connotation-is that they are a squadron which is to be equipped with tanks. That meaning is given force because surely it cannot be contemplated that the special force is to be sent into action without

supporting armour. That is the' reason for the discussion which took place this afternoon and for the story in the Journal.
Surely we are entitled to assume that it will be sent into action with supporting armour. Therefore I think we should be told now whether or not it is the intention that the special force is to be trained at a comparatively early stage with the armour which is going to support it in action. I am not assuming any special knowledge on my own part when I say that every person who has read anything about military tactics knows that one of the prime principles is that infantry and supporting armour should start to work together at the earliest possible moment. Therefore I am disturbed when the minister says there is nothing in this item for tanks. I think we should have an assurance, and if we do not get it I believe we should question the decision very strenuously, whether or not it is intended to provide armour to support our Korean brigade when it goes into action. I also think that it should be at least a regiment and not just a squadron. What is the intention in that regard?


Brooke Claxton: I thought I had made it clear but I shall be glad to do it again. The brigade group will consist of the three infantry battalions and other elements including a squadron of self-propelled guns, to be drawn from the Lord Strathcona Horse and the R.C.D.'s. Men will also be specially recruited for them who will work with the self-propelled vehicles and operate 17-pounder guns with what we think are some rather new developments in ammunition. That is the plan. Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary East and myself, he being armour and I having been artillery at a more remote stage, may have been at cross purposes about the name by which it is to be called. It is going to operate in that way.
I understand the United Kingdom forces are considering having anti-tank units operated by armour rather than artillery. In this case we are going to try the same thing without any final decision whether or not that is the right course. While it probably was wrong to call It artillery as I did, it is going to operate as artillery did in the second world war.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should not like to enter into a discussion as to whether self-propelled guns should be an artillery or armoured formation. What I am concerned about is whether the Korean force is going to have as an integral part thereof an armoured unit with which it will co-operate. I take it from what the minister has said that up to the present time the decision is that there should not be an
Defence Appropriaticm'Mit armoured unit, either a squadron or a regiment, incorporated as a part' of that force.
I can only venture to say that I think that iis a mistaken decision. I should like To ask the minister whether he is free to say what plans are in contemplation for enabling that1 brigade to train at an early stage with an armoured formation with which it will go into actioA and in co-operation with which it will operate. As I said, I hope that it will be not less thap a regiment but even if it is oqly going to bp a squadron I should like to know what ip contemplated so far as suck training ip concerned.	.	!JU,h	...


Brooke Claxton: That is being actively explored"1 with the unified command to find out, if we decide to send a force to Korea, what kind of armoured co-operation would be required, and where they can most effectively traid. That is being actively explored at the present, time. I can assure you that the officers of thp department are very much alive to the need for close co-operation, as you Indicate, and that is being explored.	.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: This afternoon, when the minister was explaining to my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, about the defence of Newfoundland, hp mentioned guns. Are those to be charged to this program?


Brooke Claxton: I did not mention guns at Si. John's.	*


William Joseph Browne: I bring it up now because I presume the minister is aware that guns have been removed from the forts around St. John's.	*>
*


Brooke Claxton: Not all of them. I have seen those that are left and they certainly are not very effective.	'[DOT]


William Joseph Browne: They were only put there five or six years ago and they were taken out. Is it intended that they should be replaced?


Brooke Claxton: Not now.


George Randolph Pearkes: We are dealing with commitments for future years, and we have had it explained to us that commitments under these headings are to cover a period of one, two or more years. We are now told that we are nqt considering purchasing any tanks at all. I arp not discussing the question of tanks for the special United Nations brigade which may be going to Korea or elsewhere. I am dip-cussing the question of whether we are going, to have tanks for the defence of Canady Surely we are planning for a modern army,, and a modern army demands strong armoured' units to support infantry and other arms. Are1 we not making any plans for the provisioif of
- ' 

Defence Appropriation Act tanks for the defence of Canada or to fulfil any other commitments that we may have? If not, one can only assume it is considered that we have an adequate number of tanks at the present time. I therefore ask the minister to tell the house what type of tanks there are in Canada at the present time, and how many.


Brooke Claxton: I should not think the hon. member would really insist upon an answer to that question. We have a very large number of Shermans from the end of the second world war, "with later modifications. They are a medium tank, very good for operations over certain parts of the Canadian terrain. Over a large part of Canada they could not operate, any more than any other medium tanks could operate. The bridges would not hold them, as we have found out in many movements across Canada. For the defence of Canada it is not at present anticipated [DOT]that many tanks will be required. What we need more is good infantry, an airlift, and some good bulldozers. That was shown by Exercise Sweetbriar.
As to the future purchase of tanks by Canada, that will depend upon how much money is made available by parliament and what our role may be. We plan to begin the purchase of tanks, but not this year or next year; we will get the later models that will be produced. I think perhaps hon. members will consider that we have been wise in not buying tanks last year or this year but rather using the tanks we have in very considerable numbers and acquiring spare parts and engines to keep them in service.


George Randolph Pearkes: I was under the impression that the Sherman tank would be considered obsolescent. If the minister is not prepared to say how many tanks we have and what type they are, will he say when we obtained the last tanks? -Have we only tanks which were left over from the last war, or have we purchased any tanks since?


Brooke Claxton: These were new tanks, which were acquired from the United States under [DOT]very favourable arrangements. Some of them have been used extensively in training and are no longer to be regarded as completely efficient. Others are working well. The production of tanks on our side of the iron curtain since then has not been such as to justify us in spending part of the defence appropriation on new tanks, at present costs. We hope to get something suited to our needs at a later [DOT]stage.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister said they were new tanks. When were they new?


Brooke Claxton: In 1946 and 1947.
IMr. Pearkes.]


George Randolph Pearkes: We acquired these tanks in 1947?


Brooke Claxton: In 1946 and 1947.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the rearmament of the tanks with new types of tank guns? Can the minister say anything about that?


Brooke Claxton: No; it has not been considered advisable to do that.


Mr. Brooks:: The tanks, then, are the same model that was used in the last war?


Brooke Claxton: At the very end of the last war.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And they are used mainly for training purposes?


Brooke Claxton: Exclusively so, here in
Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In speaking of what the armoured component of the Korean force might be, a few moments ago, the minister made a statement which if not explained might leave a considerable amount of ambiguity in the discussions which have been going on here. He said "if" this force is sent to Korea. I wonder if he would care to add anything to that?


Brooke Claxton: The attitude of the government has been made perfectly clear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That was the first time I heard the word "if" in connection with the force being sent to Korea.


Brooke Claxton: If I had not used the word "if" some member of the opposition would have said we were committing the force before parliament had approved anything.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not understand why the minister should get rather heated over this question. It seemed to me that any ambiguity had better be cleared up right now instead of being the subject of discussion later on. I do not see why the minister should get excited over it.


Brooke Claxton: Not excited; just bored with the ceaseless repetition of the same questions over and over again.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister is not half as bored as we are, and as I am sure the people of Canada are, with his constant refusal to answer questions and his continued evasiveness. To come back to the item we are considering, I wonder if the minister could give us a break-down or some general idea of what this money is to be spent on.


Brooke Claxton: Signal and wireless stores, $1,703,300; ammunition and bombs, $6,328,540; armament stores, $9,784,000; mechanical equipment, including transport and spare

parts, $19,950,000; tanks, armoured vehicles and. spare parts-again with the qualification I gave the hon. member for Kamloops- $300,000; repair of vehicles, equipment and stores, $2,492,000, making a total of $40,557,840.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In his initial speech the minister made some reference to securing new weapons both for the Korean force, I believe, and the regular force. I do not know whether that is a matter on which he would care to give us any information or make any comment, but if he could I think we would be interested to learn whether these new weapons are in the nature of artillery or infantry weapons, or any other information he can give us in that connection.


Brooke Claxton: Well, I might just read a few items to the committee: rocket launchers and spares $20,000; pack howitzer and spares $15,000; small arms spares $10,000; artillery stores and spares, $25,000; machine tools, $75,000; machine tool accessories, $25,000; heavy anti-aircraft modernization program, $9,000,000; platform firing requirement, $22,500; artillery stores and so on, $100,000. I have given some of the items, totalling $9,784,000. The largest single item is for antiaircraft fire control. As I have indicated, we have a very large number of anti-aircraft guns of the latest type in service at the end of the second world war. If they are to be used in this interim period they should be used most effectively, and that requires some new predictor and radar equipment. To apply that to each of these guns would require a very large amount of money. We had hoped we would need to do only part of that operation. Pending the development of new weapons we do not think it is worth while running the same chance as we were before, so a large part of these operations stand for now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not pressed the minister to give any details about new weapons which he does not think it is wise to give, and I do not do so now. In his initial speech the minister said that two new anti-aircraft batteries would be brought into existence. Could he tell us whether those will be heavy or light ack-ack batteries? If he does not wish to answer, it is all right.


Brooke Claxton: They will be heavy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At the same time the minister said some new anti-tank weapons were being secured. This happens to be a branch of the service in which I have been particularly interested. If there is anything he can say about that, I shall be glad to hear it.
Defence Appropriation Act


Brooke Claxton: We hope to acquire some rocket launchers from our friends. We also have one or two anti-tank weapons of a special character upon which we are working ourselves.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On this question of tanks, I think there is an important criticism of our defence preparations. We have been told tonight that only $300,000 out of $40 million under the heading of defence armament is to be allocated to tanks, and the most of that is for spare parts. The minister has told us that we have no tanks of the latest type, and those which we are using are the Sherman tanks. Without in any way detracting from the useful service which the Sherman tanks performed, I do not think there are many armoured corps men who would not admit that the Germans had tanks superior to ours.
If one reads the interrogation of the German generals at the time of the war crime trials, and others who were taken prisoner, one is certainly left with the distinct and alarming impression that if there was one point in which the Russians were superior to the Germans it was in their tanks. The position is that we are fighting the only enemy we shall be called upon to fight, who was superior to our enemy in the last war who was superior to us with respect to the tanks which we all had. We are fighting not with second-best but with third-best weapons against one of the most ruthless enemies any country could be called upon to face. For future commitments, extending as we have been told over possibly three years, we are spending the sum of $300,000 on armoured fighting vehicles. That is all that is being appropriated.


Brooke Claxton: All that we are asking now, if I may interrupt, is $300,000 current cash appropriations and $300,000 future years' commitment. In the next budget we may ask for $5 million for future years' commitment authority. What we aim to do now is to place orders for tank-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Spare parts.


Brooke Claxton: -spare parts, of which about half we hope will be delivered this year and half next year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope in the future the minister will ask for a lot more for that particular item of military equipment. I believe it is a proper criticism at the moment to say that the tanks are not even being rearmed with some of the later type tank guns which, so far as we can make out, are in existence. The new guns are considerably superior to those with which the Sherman was armed towards
432	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act the end; of the: last war. Certainly, so far as the present is concerned, when we are told that the armoured regiments of Canada are not to be included as part of the Korean force or the United Nations force, when, we know that thpy have no new type tanks and we are toid that they are training with the old Sherman type, and we are only asking for a commitment this year of $300,000, all that we can say reluctantly is that our armoured regiments must be on no more than a care and main-teriance basis.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: With all this tremendous program being launched, Mr. Chairman, for the manufacture of small arms and other supplies, I wish to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that during the last war there was an industrial expansion caused by the war, which was centralized in Quebec and Ontario, Today we should be considering that that centralization must not take place again to the detriment of the maritime provinces. There was less than one-tenth of one per cent of the money voted for the purchase of small arms and equipment spent in my province. Any province could have had a plant ready to make those things within a short time. It was impossible to get any order.
During the last year my province only received one small order which, according to the authorities, was everything that could be desired when it was finished. As I said a moment ago, the proportion of money received by that province during the last war was less than one-tenth of one per cent of that which was spent in Ontario and Quebec. We can manufacture those things just as well as the other provinces, although probably not in the same quantity. I would urge the minister, when this huge program is launched, if he has any idea of centralizing now, that decentralization take place so that the maritime provinces will get some benefit out of the manufacture of equipment they are well suited to manufacture.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister tell us the plan with regard to anti-aircraft protection for the various cities of Canada and other important points? I do not mean the detail, but are they to be protected by the reserve army units or is it the intention that there will be men in the active army responsible for that task? What worries me about the whole situation is the length of time it is going to take to get most of the units into action. I think we are living in a time when the enemy can get into action very quickly, and without any warning. It does look as if it would take our forces a great many months to be in a


position to fight back; that is particularly important in the case of an anti-aircraft -regiment.
If the reserve army units are supposed to be responsible for our anti-aircraft protection, then are they equipped so that they can do it? Are they being brought up to full strength and given the training that will enable them to fulfil their function? It does seem to me that in that particular field there will be no time to make preparations.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, if there were a kind of benevolent dictator who had control over all the defence activities of the North Atlantic treaty nations, as has almost been suggested during this discussion, I just wonder how much anti-aircraft defence he would put in Canada, having regard to the real need for a fighting defence front somewhere else? However, we in Canada have a considerable quantity of heavy anti-aircraft artillery. We have started and are pressing on with the recruitment and training of additional batteries.	,j


Howard Charles Green: Reserve or active?


Brooke Claxton: Active batteries; full-time batteries. Some of this anti-aircraft artillery which has been distributed across the country at some of the key centres will be ready for action with the full-time regular force from the drop of the hat. Then the intention would be that their places would be taken by reserve army units which had been organized and are in various stages of training in the locality, and those active force units can then be employed somewhere else. We have not a great deal in the way of antiaircraft defence by guns across Canada. No nation in the world having thirteen and a half million people can have that. We have some, and that has been deployed so as to be used by active force personnel, supplemented by reserve force personnel in the first instance; then the active force would be gradually replaced by the reserve force and the active force might then be sent somewhere else.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the policy to recruit antiaircraft units up to full strength?


Brooke Claxton: Oh, yes.


Mr. Hatfield:: The minister mentioned the bridges of Canada, and having sufficient bridges to carry the self-propelled guns. What is the defence department doing about bridges?


Brooke Claxton: Out of this vote we cannot rebuild all the bridges in Canada so as to take thirty-ton or forty-ton tanks.


Heber Harold Hatfield: How do you propose to move those guns? -	-


Brooke Claxton: That is a point I made.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Array-Northwest highway system-Acquisition, construction and purchase of properties, $500,000.
Item agreed to.
Air-General-Acquisition, construction, purchase, maintenance and repair of properties, $44,083,660.
A. Earl Catherwood: Perhaps I should have asked this question under the first item, but it is this. Does the Department of National Defence intend to reopen the airport at Dunnville which was in operation during the last war?


Brooke Claxton: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air-General-Personnel supplies and services: clothing and personal equipment, barrack, hospital, camp and miscellaneous equipment, $1,927,750.
Item agreed to.
Air-General-Stores and equipment: signal and wireless stores, ammunition and bombs, armament stores, mechanical transport vehicles and spare parts, aircraft engines and spares, overhaul of aircraft, miscellaneous stores, $238,739,513.
George Randolph Pearkes: This is an extremely large item embracing the sum of $238,739,513. I think the committee is entitled to have some break-down of how that large sum of money is to be spent, as to what aircraft are going to be purchased with that amount and when those aircraft may be expected to be available.


Brooke Claxton: This is of course about the only question I have not answered, I think. Is that right?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, no. Wait a minute.


Brooke Claxton: Is that right? Is this the only question I have not answered?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.	*


Brooke Claxton: I think it is. I think I have checked them all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister said he could not tell us how many tanks we have in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Why should he?


Brooke Claxton: I can tell you right off the bat, if you would like to have it. Do you want it?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have asked the question.
Defence Appropriation Act


Brooke Claxton: You take the responsibility for asking me, and I will take the responsibility of telling you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, because the minister has tried to place us in this position before. We have asked for a defence committee and we have asked for a secret session.


Brooke Claxton: You take your responsibility about this.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I am saying is this. We are being asked to vote large amounts of money to be spent for equipment. I feel that we should know what it is going to be spent on; and I know that those views are shared by a large number of members. We did not wish to run any risk of improper encroachment on security. But we do feel that before we should finally be asked to vote the money we should know exactly what it is being voted for. That is why I and a large number of other members suggested that since quite possibly that might involve secret security considerations, the only way we could get that information without a breach of those security considerations would be either in a defence committee or else in a secret session. We have been refused both of those alternatives; and if the answers to the questions would result in a breach of security, the responsibility rests squarely on the government and not on those who ask the questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have asked the question. The responsibility is the minister's whether or not he chooses to reply.


Brooke Claxton: It is because of that responsibility that the proposition was turned down. But with regard to tanks, if the hon. gentleman wants the answer I can certainly give it to him. We have over 300 Sherman tanks in Canada.
With regard to aircraft, that brings up another matter. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that I think it is fair to say that until this moment I have never refused, on the ground of security, any information during the course of this session. Is that right?


An hon. Member:: That is correct.


Brooke Claxton: If that is not correct, let us hear about it.


An hon. Member:: That is correct.


Brooke Claxton: That is correct. Then let the record bear that out. I think I have tried to answer every single question that hon. members opposite have put, and the only

Defence Appropriation Act instance in which I have not given information is where I did not have the information because it did not yet exist: for example, the shipbuilding program, although there might be security questions about that.
On this question about the rate of production of aircraft and how many aircraft we are going to have, I must say I have come to about the point when I think the people of Canada would not like me to give this information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Brooke Claxton: However, if this committee wants me to give it, I will do so.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Brooke Claxton: I am really sick to death of being accused of not giving information when it has been given time after time.


Mr. Howe:: We all are.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was another question which the minister said he could not answer on the ground of security and that was the question as to the radar installations.


Brooke Claxton: Oh, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So this is not the only question he has not answered.


Brooke Claxton: Oh, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, yes.


Brooke Claxton: No, no. I said that it would take a long time to dig out of the votes of about fifty different directorates what the radar orders were. I certainly would not give the hon. gentleman the types.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister said he would not give us the locations.


Brooke Claxton: The total amount I said was over $25 million.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And the minister said he could not give us the location of the installations because that was information an enemy might like to have; and I agree.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is another question that he did not answer, and I am sure the record will show that there are still others; so the the minister is not quite accurate when he says this is the only question he has not answered.


Brooke Claxton: That is fine. Then we have two.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is also the question of new weapons.


Brooke Claxton: New anti-tank weapons. That is three. Let us have them all.


George Alexander Drew: Is this an auction sale?


An hon. Member:: I think it is.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: A lot of you fellows could be bought cheaply if it was.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to ask the minister how many military airfields he has within one hundred miles of Montreal, one of our largest cities.


Brooke Claxton: We have St. Hubert where the fighter command and the interceptor squadron is located. That is the only one at the present time; but there will be another one in Uplands; another one-although I do not know what the measurement is-at Bagot-ville, Chatham and so on.


Heber Harold Hatfield: How big are those airfields?


Brooke Claxton: Quite adequate. We are building them up.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Will they accommodate the largest plane?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question with regard to the break-down of this extremely large sum of money which we are being asked to expend. I am sorry that question should have in any way affected the health of the Minister of National Defence, and that it should have made him sick unto death. I should like to remind him there there are young Canadians today who are facing death. We need not be quite so light-hearted on this question. If the minister feels that he should not give this information for security reasons I will accept that position. I have not pressed the minister once to give information that he felt should not be given. I have emphasized that point in every speech that I have made during this session. Not once have 1 suggested that any information should be given away that might be of any use whatever to the enemy. But I do feel that when there is a very large sum of money involved-and it is a very large sum of money, $200 million odd -if it is possible to give a break-down perhaps the minister might agree to do so. We cannot get the break-down in committee; we cannot get it in special session. I will accept the minister's statement that for security reasons he cannot give a break-down. Remember, this is a blank cheque which we are giving him to expend. I can only hope that he will spend it as efficiently, as effectively and as economically as possible.


Brooke Claxton: I appreciate the attitude of the hon. member. I would like to say in reply to the hon. member for Kamloops that I did not refuse any information about the cost of

radar equipment being purchased. What I did say was that it would not be desirable- I think hon. members recognize that-to indicate the location and arrangement of sites. That must be recognized. I did not refuse-


Edmund Davie Fulton: We did not press that.


Brooke Claxton: If I might reply to the hon. member for Nanaimo, our aircraft production at the present time has been announced. It consists of the production of F-86's, and that includes additional amounts for tooling up of the CF-100, and of the Mustangs purchased from the United States. It includes a good deal of money for mechanical equipment, including transport and spare parts, engines, stores, tooling up and the like; but far the biggest element in it is for the F-86 and the CF-100.
I do not suggest really for a second that the disclosure of this information will either hurt or help our prospective enemy in any important way except perhaps this: It would enable him to tell exactly what kind of force for the interception of any air attack on this continent he might first have to meet, and at what time it would be ready. Then it would indicate to him whether or not his own intelligence was efficient, accurate, reliable, and which of his intelligence officers could be relied upon. I daresay that many intelligent persons in Canada, and a good deal of the press, have already worked out just about the size of this program from the dollars involved. But I think this is a good bit different from giving the information officially from here.
However, I will say that, as the press has indicated, with regard to the F-86 program, it certainly provides for over three hundred aircraft at a rate of production which is not as great as we could make it on a three-shift a day war basis, but it is a very good rate of production, all things considered. For the CF-100 it will include a very considerable number of aircraft, and even greater number of engines of the Orenda type and this will, combined, give us a team of aircraft, aircrew and ground control systems, which should do the job we want to do, but it is not going to be done this year. It is going to take some time.
I am quite prepared to give the hon. members further details they want, either here or privately, but I should think that this should indicate to them that this is a very substantial acceleration of our program. I have seen some of the programs of some of the other countries. Of course this does not compare with that of the United States, but
Defence Appropriation Act after that has been said it is a very substantial program compared with that of other countries.
We hope that our arrangements made with the North Atlantic treaty nations may make it possible for us to work out other arrangements for the production of other additional aircraft of these types or other aircraft or other equipment out of the $300 million that the vote will provide for.
I can only add that we have been fortunate in the work done by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and particularly by the minister who is here, in the development of this aircraft and this engine, and also the R.C.A.F. and the industries concerned. We believe we have a good team.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air-General-Sundries, including communication services, special training equipment and films, $816,000.
Item agreed to.
Defence research, $5,310,000.
Item agreed to.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are a couple of other items in the resolution. One happens to be that relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I have no questions to ask about that. I just mention it in case anyone else wishes to ask a question. I want to ask a question about the paragraph relating to the $300 million for assistance to the North Atlantic treaty parties.


Howard Charles Green: Will the Minister of Justice explain this $2 million item? Apparently it involves an agreement between the dominion and British Columbia for the taking over of the policing of that province by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Mr. Garson:: It involves an agreement not only with British Columbia but with Newfoundland, to bring to those provinces exactly the same arrangements as those which already prevail in the maritime provinces and the prairie provinces. When these agreements are completed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be doing both the federal and the provincial work in eight of the provinces of Canada. That figure, as my hon. friend says, is $2 million. I will just give the round figures. That figure is on the basis of $300,000 for Newfoundland and $1,700,000 for British Columbia. Of that amount, in each case about 70 per cent is involved with the payment of wages, salaries, pensions, clothing and special allowances of one kind and another to the personnel themselves. The remainder is for such items as transportation and the like.
436	HOUSE OF
Defence Appropriation Act
In the case of British Columbia, the result of the agreement will be that whereas we formerly had nine detachments in the larger centres of that province, when these arrangements shall have gone through we shall have increased that to 122 detachments, which will not only discharge the functions of maintaining law and order under the directions of the attorney general of British Columbia, but also administer all of the federal laws in each of these 122 places where formerly we had only 9. The arrangement is very economical and satisfactory for both the provinces concerned. It contemplates, as does the arrangement with all the other provinces, the payment of $1,400 per year for every man and officer who will devote his time to work in the province. If I remember rightly, and I think my memory is within $4,000 or $5,000 of the right amount, that will bring in about $770,000 of this $1,700,000, and that is a bit more than what will be the federal government's contribution after we deduct from the amount included in the $1,700,000 the sum of $200,000 odd per year which is to pay for certain police equipment in the way of motorcycles and the like which we have taken over.


Howard Charles Green: Was there any vote in the ordinary estimates to cover that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. The negotiations had been tentatively begun and I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, or one of the Vancouver members, who asked last session how the negotiations were getting along. As I recall my reply, it was to the effect that they were pretty much in their initial stages and it would be difficult to forecast at that time just how long it would take to iron out many of the details required to be ironed out in consummating a matter of this kind. As a matter of fact it was only at the beginning of the present week that the commissioner of the mounted police returned to Ottawa after quite a long sojourn in British Columbia where he was engaged in getting the matter completely under way.


Howard Charles Green: That is not a war appropriation in any way?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it is not a war appropriation. Our only other course would be to have used a governor general's warrant. Having regard to the fact that parliament was about to meet, we thought it would be an improper constitutional practice to use a governor general's warrant when the Commons was about to meet and should have its traditional privilege of voting supply.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
And resolved further, that sums not exceeding $300 million be granted out of the consolidated revenue
[Mr. Garson.l
[Stage Direction]
fund to His Majesty, in addition to any other grants of parliament, for the production, acquisition, repair and provision of equipment, services, supplies and facilities, for the use of the defence forces of Cahada and those of any party to the North Atlantic treaty, and the construction, improvement and repair of facilities, and the acquisition, processing, and storage of materials, supplies and equipment, required to produce and otherwise make available any such equipment, supplies, services and facilities:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not correct to say that the terms of the bill will make it possible for this $300 million to be spent at any time the government finds it desirable to spend it? That is, it can all be spent within the fiscal year or may be spread over two or three years.
.: . . . '	 ' .


Clarence Decatur Howe: This vote of $300 million is to provide arms and munitions of war to the countries in the North Atlantic group and the vote will stand until it is expended, :


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is somewhat different from the usual money appropriations. We frequently pass statutes that provide for amounts to be paid out annually on a statutory basis and we are always passing appropriation bills that provide for sums of money to be spent within a fiscal year. In this case we are voting $300 million to be spent at any time deemed desirable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A report will be made at each session of parliament as to the commitments for the following year. These are long-term commitments. In the building of aeroplanes or guns a considerable period of time must elapse and it is necessary that the planners of north Atlantic defence should know exactly what they can count on from Canada over a period. The United States have followed the same practice. That country has voted $4,000 million for the same purpose and in the same way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are two figures before us, one the $300 million we are voting and the other the estimate made by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech that it might run to only about $100 million in this fiscal year. May I ask either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Secretary of State for External Affairs if those two figures have been arrived at after consultation with the other parties in the North Atlantic group or are they based on anticipated discussions to take place at the meeting that starts next week?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Discussions have been going on for a long time to determine the requirements of the north Atlantic defence on the munitions side and priorities of various requirements. Those discussions are now getting down to the stage of a decision as to what country will furnish certain munitions. The committee of allocation is meeting in

London next Monday and Canada will be represented, as it has been represented at all meetings ol those concerned with this problem. Canada will offer types of equipment which have the highest priority and also types that work into our own production program. For example, we have offered ammunition, radar, vehicles of a certain type and items of that kind which must be produced in any event for our own forces and for which we have good capacity to produce for other countries. Until that allocation is made I do not think that anyone can give my hon. friend a close approximation of the money that will be spent in the fiscal year because that will depend a great deal on the decisions taken at this meeting and on the types of production that are entrusted to Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it were decided that the equipment for the better part of a division which was referred to this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence should be provided to our north Atlantic allies, would that equipment be charged against this $300 million? What would be the position there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The value of the equipment for the one division would be put into a reserve account to be used for the replacement of that equipment for the Canadian army. That is a provision of the offer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It would be part of the $300 million; it would count against the $300 million?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Temporarily.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Am I right in assuming that the statutory authority for providing the North Atlantic treaty nations or other allies with equipment which we have is contained in the national defence bill and the defence purchasing bill which we passed last year and that this vote is only to provide the money needed to replace that equipment for the Canadian army, as well as to provide for the making of further purchases?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill contains authority to that end, but I think the same authority runs through the bills referred to. Where there has been an urgent requirement for ammunition in the past by another country we have with the consent of the army taken that out of stock and put the payment in escrow, replaced the ammunition and returned it to stores. I think that transaction is authorized by the previous acts, and it is certainly authorized by the present bill.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: I should like the minister to make a statement with respect to the policy to be followed in making the large expenditures now being voted. The subject
Defence Appropriation Act has been placed before the house and the government by my deskmate, the hon. member for Royal. He pointed out the necessity, desirability and fairness of dispersing these orders in the maritime provinces and other parts of Canada. It has also been pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Queens, and I think it is recognized by members of the house generally, that while the maritime provinces deserve well from confederation they did not fare, so well in the last war.
There is also the question of dispersing manufacturing plants in the outlying parts of Canada. This matter has been placed before the house by the members to whom I have referred and perhaps by others. No reply has been made by the Minister of National Defence, and nothing has been said so far by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should like to have some assurance from the minister that he will give recognition to the capabilities of the maritime provinces, and the desirability from the standpoint of fairness and from the standpoint of dispersal of plants that a reasonable proportion of these orders should be placed in that part of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the outset I may say that, unless the program becomes considerably larger than now contemplated, it is not likely that any new plants will be built. In the last war it was necessary to build up our capacity to produce. At the present time we have the capacity to produce far more than the program before us would seem to require. However, while price and quality are the basic considerations that we follow in placing munitions contracts, we make it a practice to recognize the desirability of dispersing orders across the country. We frequently allow a premium for production in the maritime provinces. It is a variable program but that course is frequently followed. If we feel that various areas of Canada are not getting a reasonable share of the orders-and this applies not only to the present crisis but throughout the years-we examine the reason why, and if it is because of some geographical disability the practice is to compensate for that by a special allowance.


Percy Chapman Black: I am pleased to accept the statement of the minister. I am quite sure he will endeavour to carry out that policy. As I pointed out, during and since the last war there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction over the distribution of these orders. The minister referred to the quality of the goods manufactured in the maritime provinces. I think I am making a correct statement when I say that the quality and value of the goods produced there in the

Defence Appropriation Act last war were equal or superior to the production of any other part of Canada. We were particularly pleased at meetings of the special war expenditures committee to have responsible persons concerned with such orders come before the committee and say that the production of the maritime provinces was superior to that of any other part of Canada in quality and value. I refer to Mr. R. P. Bell, who made that statement before the secret committee at different times.
I want to assure the minister that the private industries of the maritime provinces have been capable of giving excellent value for what they have undertaken, and have been able to complete the orders that have been placed with them. I accept the statement of the minister that he will give due consideration to the claims being placed before him by different members.


Howard Charles Green: Is any of the cost price of this equipment to be repaid' to Canada or is it all by way of a donation? I should also like to know whether Canada is getting equipment from any other north Atlantic nation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is quite possible that equipment of other countries may be allocated to Canada, which might be an offset to the $300 million of equipment that Canada is putting into the pool. In some cases we are performing training services for other) countries which would be paid for from this sum.


Howard Charles Green: Who decides to which countries the equipment will go? Is that decided by the council under the North Atlantic treaty?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, but we have the ultimate decision. There is a committee headed by Mr. Charles Spofford of the United States government which has a number of subcommittees that are working out which country seems best able to produce a certain munition. We will receive from that committee the suggestion that Canada should produce a certain line of munitions. That decision will be arrived at iby a committee on which Canada is represented. We have several top munitions people in London for that purpose. Therefore we will probably make our selection of munitions to produce from the recommendations of that committee.


Howard Charles Green: Will we decide to which countries the munitions go, or will we simply decide to provide a certain amount of equipment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The procedure being worked out in that regard is that at this committee of deputies of the North Atlantic council members in London, and through their subcommittees, they make a census of require-
[Mr. Black (Cumberland).)

ments and needs. They will try to match that with the productive capacities of the various countries. They may suggest to us that certain of our equipment under this vote, if it is passed, should go to such and such a country, but it would merely be a suggestion from that committee to this government.


Howard Charles Green: Can we send equipment to any commonwealth country? For example, can we provide any equipment for Australia or New Zealand?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, not to Australia or New Zealand. This is production for the north Atlantic countries.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is there any agreement among the countries with respect to certain countries supplying men and others supplying arms and materials?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It was mentioned the other day that there was a possibility of that.


Brooke Claxton: No, there is no such thing.


Howard Charles Green: There is a provision in this resolution "for the use of the defence forces of Canada". That would appear to give power under this particular measure to supply equipment to the Canadian forces. One would think that those supplies would be provided under the regular votes put through the house. Why is the power taken under this particular section to supply equipment for Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are two or three reasons. If war was waging in Canada the Atlantic pact nations might very well consider that Canada needed the equipment it was putting into the pool worse than any other country. Then it also gives us the right to produce equipment to replace that which we have sent to other countries. For example, I might refer to the equipment for the division that has been mentioned here.


Howard Charles Green: We cannot do that in any other way? Can we not replace it under our other legislation?


Brooke Claxton: We, would not have the money in any other vote.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
With provision also empowering the governor in council to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. 1931, such sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of $300 million as may be required for the purpose of defraying the aforesaid expenses, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This paragraph gives the governor in council power to borrow up to

$300 million, and I should like to ask two or three questions on this. From whom is this money being borrowed? Is there any limit on the time within which it can be borrowed? Does the reference to "defraying the aforesaid expenses" refer to the cash items in the resolution only, or to both the cash items and the future commitment items?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Finance explained that borrowing power and pointed out that almost every appropriation bill put through this house carries the right to borrow. That borrowing is temporary, and is intended to bridge the period between the time the money is expended and the time the tax revenue replaces that money. It is authority for temporary borrowing. As the Minister of Finance has explained, Canada is on a pay-as-you-go basis, so any use made of this borrowing power would be merely to tide over a temporary situation.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Emmett Andrew McCusker: Before the resolution is reported, I am sure hon. members would not mind if I took a moment or two to extend congratulations to the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the manner in which they answered the many and oft-repeated questions arising out of the presentation of these supplementary estimates. I am sure many of us feel that our understanding of the United Nations and the North Atlantic pact has been greatly increased. Our obligations and commitments have been made clear by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Further, I want to congratulate the Minister of National Defence on his great patience, and the clarity with which he answered the questions put to him. I believe he has instilled into the members of the house a feeling that he is fully acquainted with the workings of his large department, and I am sure that feeling is shared by the people of Canada.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Claxton (for Mr. Abbott) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN FORCES ACT


Brooke Claxton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the Canadian forces-
1.	Amending the National Defence Act to provide that the governor in council may establish and
Canadian Forces Act
authorize the maintenance of active service forces and may place the Canadian forces on active service in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations charter, the North Atlantic treaty or any other similar instrument for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada:
2.	Excepting certain personnel from the application of the Militia Pension Act: and
3.	Providing for the extension of benefits of certain legislation applicable to veterans of the second world war to veterans of forces designated as special forces.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the minister going to
make a statement?


Brooke Claxton: The bill which will be
introduced in consequence of this resolution is designed to implement the other decisions of the house. At present the National Defence Act, which was adopted at the session of parliament held earlier this year, provides for the placing of the forces on active service only "in an emergency" which is defined in the act as "war, invasion, riot, or insurrection, real or apprehended". One of the purposes of this bill is to make provision for the placing of all or part of the Canadian forces on active service not only in the event of an emergency but also in consequence of action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations charter, the North Atlantic treaty, or any similar instrument for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada. The effect of placing the forces on active service is rather technical. It relates to the application of the insurance principle under the Canadian Pension Act; the application of the disciplinary code, and provisions for release from the armed forces.
A second purpose of the bill is to extend to members of any special force the special provisions for veterans under a number of acts: the Civil Service Act, the Civil Service Superannuation Act, the Pension Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Veterans Land Act, the Veterans Insurance Act, the War Service Grants Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, and the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. So, as far as is proper and possible, the position of men who enlist and take part in the work of any force designated as a special force shall be similar to that enjoyed by veterans in similar circumstances in the second world war.
The third object of the legislation is to remove members of a special force from the operation of the Defence Services Pension Act. It is considered that since they are enlisted for a special term of eighteen months, or longer as it may be extended, and for a

Canadian Forces Act
special purpose, and will have special benefits under the veterans' charter as it is extended to them, they should neither be subject to deduction for ordinary pensions, as members of the regular forces are, nor entitled to the benefit pension, as members of the regular forces are, unless they subsequently join the active forces of Canada. So the general object is to put members of the special force and others who may be added to them in very much the same position members of the Canadian army overseas were in at the end of the second world war.


George Randolph Pearkes: The terms of this resolution are general and broad, and probably it would expedite the business of the house if we deferred the general discussion until we have the bill before us. There is only one point I should like to bring up, and that is that during the last session of parliament this National Defence Act was passed. At the end of the session when it was introduced into this house something over forty amendments were made to the original act. This act has not yet been distributed to the members, and it would be rather hard for them to discuss amendments to the act when they have not the amended act available to them. I would ask the minister to use his best endeavours to have that National Defence Act placed before the members before we start to discuss the new amendments to it.


Brooke Claxton: Certainly; if that has not been none I shall be glad to see that it is done. I think I am right in saying that the bill as passed by this house was passed by the other place without an amendment.


George Randolph Pearkes: But we passed forty amendments to it, and I cannot remember them all.


Brooke Claxton: If the statute is not available in sufficient quantities, if hon. members still have copies of the bill as passed by this house they will find it is identical with the statute. However, I shall do my best to ensure that copies are available for any member wanting them.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe the main discussion should come on the bill, but there are one or two features of this resolution that I believe are new in this parliament. I refer particularly to the giving of the governor in council the right to place the Canadian forces on active service in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations charter, the North Atlantic treaty or any similar instrument of collective defence that may be entered into by Canada. This seems to be a wide

authority that goes far beyond anything this house has ever contemplated before. I may be wrong in that, but it struck me when I read the resolution that it did go beyond anything that parliament has contemplated heretofore.
At the moment we are engaged in the United Nations police action, and of course we are pledged to do certain things in connection with the Atlantic pact. But even the North Atlantic pact I believe reserves to each country the right to decide what that country shall do. It seems to me that the resolution goes beyond that, and gives the governor in council a right that parliament alone should exercise. Perhaps my interpretation is wrong, and perhaps this resolution is not as wide in its implications as it seems to suggest. It is a point to which I would draw the attention of the minister, so that when the bill comes before the house on second reading we can go into that phase of it very thoroughly indeed.
I am pleased indeed to see that the extension of the benefits of certain legislation applicable to veterans of the second world war is being given to the veterans of this special force. I should like to say now, as I think I said before, that not very much that is good comes out of war. One good thing that did come out of this war was the manner in which the young veterans who came home were enabled to enhance their educational standards, and to go on with either technical or higher educational training. I believe that was something really worth while which came out of the second world war. I do not think any member of the house, no matter where he sits, will do other than say that he is glad that a similar provision is being carried into this legislation. I do not know about excepting the personnel from various other benefits that the armed services usually, have. It is possible that this force, or the younger men in this force, may be retained in it for a long time. It is possible, but I hope not inevitable, that the international situation may remain rather threatening, and-we shall have to maintain United Nations forces, particularly if the nations who constitute the United Nations devise some plan whereby they do raise a special force for a purpose such as we have raised our force recently. If that is the case, I think the men who join the special force should be entitled to pensions when they leave the service.
Those are points that occur to me at the moment. As I said at the outset, my opinion of some of the provisions suggested in this resolution may not be altogether soundly based. I mention it at this time, however,

in order to bring these points to the attention of the minister and the government, and that is all I propose to do at this stage of the discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say a brief word in support of what the leader of this group has said. I should like in particular to follow up with something I have been able to turn up in the pages of Hansard while he has been speaking on the point that most concerns us, namely the control of parliament over the sending of any forces abroad.
Yesterday during the course of another debate the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked a question in this connection. He made it clear that if there were an attack on any other member of the north Atlantic group it would be, and I quote from Hansard:
-the duty of this government to call parliament at once and tell parliament that an attack had been made on a member of the north Atlantic group and therefore an attack had been made on Canada. Parliament would then decide whether an attack had or had not been made on Canada.
I have been quoting what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said yesterday as found at page 351 of Hansard.
I believe that the minister will recognize that this question does exercise some of us to a considerable extent. We recognize the need for certain powers in the hands of the executive to act quickly if necessary, but I am sure that there are members on the government side of the house who share with us the desire not to let expediency run away with our fundamental democratic and parliamentary principles. If possible, I should like that point cleared up tonight. I feel we should be told whether or not the authority given to the governor in council is just to place the Canadian forces on active service in consequence of these commitments, or whether the authority is also to send these Canadian forces that have been placed on active service outside of Canada in pursuit of any of these obligations. I trust it is only the former. Perhaps we could pursue the matter further in committee of the whole on the resolution. In any case I thought I would stress the point that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made so that, if possible, we might get this very important matter cleared up tonight.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, if I may again speak with leave of the house in answer to this question, the position is that this introduces not a new principle but a new case
Essential Materials (Defence) Act where an old principle may be applied. Under the act as it has stood since 1867 it was possible for the governor in council to place the forces of Canada on active service at home or abroad, but he had to call parliament within fifteen, now reduced to ten, days. He could only do it in an emergency which was defined as war, riot, invasion, or insurrection real or apprehended. This bill would add another circumstance in which that might be done, and that is to implement action undertaken by Canada under the North Atlantic treaty, or any similar instrument of collective defence that may be entered into by Canada. When we say "entered into by Canada", it is a convention of our constitution, which I think is extremely solid indeed, that no such instrument can be entered into or will be entered into-it can be entered into but it will not be entered into-and ratified without the consent of parliament. The effect of this therefore is to add to the cases of emergency as so defined the case of coming to the aid of our neighbours in accordance with the United Nations charter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the calling of parliament within ten days is still required?


Brooke Claxton: Just the same.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Claxton thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, respecting the Canadian forces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



ESSENTIAL MATERIALS (DEFENCE) ACT PROVISION FOR CONTROL AND REGULATION OF PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF ESSENTIAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES

Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to authorize the governor in council to take action to avert possible disruption of defence preparations requisite for the safeguarding of national security and to assist the United Nations in accordance with Canada's obligations; also to prevent economic disorder and hardship on a national scale; with authority to appoint and fix the remuneration and expenses of assistants and advisers to the minister.

Essential Materials (Defence) Act Mr. Knowles: Let's call it eleven o'clock.	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I had some rather extended remarks to make about this resolution, but they can be made just as well on the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Call it eleven o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no objection to doing that, if it meets with the approval of the house. I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: the adjournment of the house.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall continue debate on this resolution. Then we shall proceed to the second reading of Bill No. 2, an act for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security, and second reading of Bill No. 3, an act respecting the Canadian forces.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Friday, September 8, 1950